Some time ago, I endeavored to demonstrate that the number of teams in the ecosystem was on the decline. While this seemed an evident empirical observation, many within the ecosystem denied it.
As a result, I undertook a series of research and publications that confirmed the hypothesis about the extinction of teams. Regrettably, some were banned by the Parity/W3F/mods team (Therefore, I created this referenda to spread the information).
I've compiled five posts:
Other notable mentions include Manta, Astar, Efinity (tnx to Sourabh), and various teams that faltered during the degradation of parachains (such as Moonbeam) and Governance.
Collectively, the count of "migrating away" products outnumbers the influx of new teams. It's worth emphasizing that a Dapp/tool product is notably less extensive than a fully operational parachain.
I posit that acknowledging this trend publicly will empower the community to address the underlying issues. My objective was to validate this hypothesis. In light of my efforts, I believe a tip of 1111 DOT would be appropriate.
PS. My stance is that within an independent system, there must be whistleblowers, just like there's a role for fishermen. This role should be incentivized. Unfortunately, at present, the whistleblower role has been greatly demeaned due to selfish community members (This was not part of my plan). These members have also worsened the ecosystem members' reaction, leading to current full-scale censorship. To solve this, I propose to incentivize not just negative posts, but those who provide the community with a comprehensive set of information or a specific set of actions. Parity/w3f/dapps/parachains/mods/government make mistakes. But silencing the opposition, a gross misuse of power. This should not occur in a system that claims to value "decentralization". Without information to which one can appeal, or to the conducted research, other participants will do redundant work. Perhaps this can be done as a bounty or some other approach (somebody can run it). So, whistleblowers should take a place, but only those, who make commitment (out of pushy their stuff). PSS. I also have an important proof-driven action proposal in development and will share it soon.
Some time ago, I endeavored to demonstrate that the number of teams in the ecosystem was on the decline. While this seemed an evident empirical observation, many within the ecosystem denied it.
As a result, I undertook a series of research and publications that confirmed the hypothesis about the extinction of teams. Regrettably, some were banned by the Parity/W3F/mods team (Therefore, I created this referenda to spread the information).
I've compiled five posts:
Other notable mentions include Manta, Astar, Efinity (tnx to Sourabh), and various teams that faltered during the degradation of parachains (such as Moonbeam) and Governance.
Collectively, the count of "migrating away" products outnumbers the influx of new teams. It's worth emphasizing that a Dapp/tool product is notably less extensive than a fully operational parachain.
I posit that acknowledging this trend publicly will empower the community to address the underlying issues. My objective was to validate this hypothesis. In light of my efforts, I believe a tip of 1111 DOT would be appropriate.
PS. My stance is that within an independent system, there must be whistleblowers, just like there's a role for fishermen. This role should be incentivized. Unfortunately, at present, the whistleblower role has been greatly demeaned due to selfish community members (This was not part of my plan). These members have also worsened the ecosystem members' reaction, leading to current full-scale censorship. To solve this, I propose to incentivize not just negative posts, but those who provide the community with a comprehensive set of information or a specific set of actions. Parity/w3f/dapps/parachains/mods/government make mistakes. But silencing the opposition, a gross misuse of power. This should not occur in a system that claims to value "decentralization". Without information to which one can appeal, or to the conducted research, other participants will do redundant work. Perhaps this can be done as a bounty or some other approach (somebody can run it). So, whistleblowers should take a place, but only those, who make commitment (out of pushy their stuff). PSS. I also have an important proof-driven action proposal in development and will share it soon.