Thank you all for your comments.
I usually don’t participate much to avoid noise but I do read all comments and feedbacks. I’m very pleased to see such a community; with great exchanges and consideration.
However I can’t help myself to agree with comments made above by @SethD
Heading into the vote, I’ll note one last time that I think it would be a mistake for the community to reward OGs instead of promoting decentralization and community growth heading into 2.0 launch. Decentralization and community momentum are the two most important items REN needs to excel at moving forward in the face of an expanding and well funded competitor set.
and this one from @Jeff .
In my experience, “best” and even “better” are often the enemy of “good enough". Keep the bond @ 100k. If this project has the potential that I think it does, a few more DNs isn’t gonna make/break anyone’s fortune. Just my (uneducated) $0.02.
Original DNO still in the game will overall benefit much more from the success of the REN 2.0 (its decentralization and ease of access) - than discussing a airdrop to compensate possible future DN - and then discuss how to attribute these airdropped to who and based on what parameters. Let’s keep something simple; let’s move to a REN 2.0; let’s on-board more DN as soon as possible. Competition won’t wait for REN.
I would be more keen to keep the bounding to 100k REN even though it implies that we might have more than the “hard” limit of 10,000 DN. I don’t see it as a problem. Greater decentralization is key, while avoiding increase the entry barrier. I doubt we will be ever reaching this 10k DN anyway; or if we do; it means REN is attractive and that fees are more than decent.
I also understand that the RIP18 will inflate the supply of REN of about 180M REN to funds REN Foundation treasury. However all these new REN won’t hit the market at once; but rather be used at a slow pace to launch initiative that deserves to be funded. If the projet is again picking up some nice steam; this increase of supply won’t be a problem. (And if there is a “trust issue” the funds can be vested with a specific unlocking planning - to ensure that the 180M won’t be used within the first year but across X years).
I don’t want to re-start the entire debat; I’ll vote with what I trully believe is the best based on the different options that were discussed and proposed in this thread.
Thank you.