I don’t think we are going to see this eye to eye, which is totally fine and just the nature of how discussions sometime go. We tried, and I do appreciate all your comments and responses.
As I try not to pollute this thread any further with our disagreement, I just want to try and clarify my use of “Algo holders” one more time in case it helps. (And if it doesn’t, I will happily stop after this.)
Even after rereading your earlier question and my answer to it, I still don’t see how “Algo holders” was not relevant to the question or how I could have made the point I tried to make without it.
You had asked “what makes you think a minority increasing their wealth is a worse outcome for me” and then in the next comment clarified that “me in that sentence represents the average Algorand blockchain user”. My response intended to point out that I consider myself as an average Algorand blockchain user too, and that my definition for the average Algorand blockchain user is that we are also “Algo holders”.
Further, by accepting that as Algo holders our incentives for the blockchain are not necessarily aligned with what is best for the blockchain in the long run, we should try to look at things not only from our own point of view, but from everyone else’s too (i.e. the long term where there are likely going to be a lot more Algo users than there are today).
I admit that my explanation wasn’t aligned with my intentions for avoiding that “Algo holders” term, sorry for that. I find that term to be redundant and kind of counterproductive - the term users or Algorand users suits me better. Not just that, if I had been a supporter of Scholtz and/or SGen attitudes, then I would have been using the term people. Luckily I’m not and I think some AI should forever be a valid governor just as I am, at least until they are validated as better governors than I am.
And all of that is because there should be nothing more important than the functioning of the blockchain - all of your talks about fairness are just hypocrisy and/or political jibberish.
Ah, I can see how the term could be interpreted as being negative, so this is very helpful to know and I will try to avoid it in the future (though I’m still not sure what exact term I should use instead).
My use of the term was only trying to be very specific and literal with the meaning, whereas “Algorand user” that you are proposing is a little more generic. (For example, most Algorand users of today are not yet using it for anything else but market speculation / hodling, while I’m hoping that someday Algorand’s primary use case will be something very different, in which case speculators could very well be the minority of Algorand users.)
Politics, by definition, is about making decisions as a group. So yes, all our talk about governance, fairer distribution of tokens, and so on and so on, it is all political.
But it is all for the same common goal, for the benefit of the group as a whole. (Though we may differ in what “group” exactly are we talking about and identify ourselves as part of.)
Politics, by definition, is about making decisions as a group. So yes, all our talk about governance, fairer distribution of tokens, and so on and so on, it is all political.
But it is all for the same common goal, for the benefit of the group as a whole. (Though we may differ in what “group” exactly are we talking about and identify ourselves as part of.)
I still haven’t explained it to you the way I want. There’s no relevant group here, there’s only the Algorand blockchain whose functioning has to be secured. The only politics that exists and should exist in the future is the politics of achieving that everlasting goal.
Every other political talks are without exception politicking,
That is a good enough explanation, and I understand what you are saying.
We simply disagree with that statement, and I’m sure even the Algorand Foundation would have to disagree with you, as even within Algorand users there are many different identifiable groups they need to think about when making decisions (early adopters, relay node runners, participation node runners, governors, current users, future users, etc). A functioning blockchain alone is not necessarily worth anything.
Anyways, I’m getting a suggestion from the forum software that I should consider replying via a personal message instead, so unless this discussion inspires others to join, I will end it from my side now for everyone else’s sake.