This point is easily fixable and not something we have had control of. But I'm positive there are solutions to solve this issue that don't require getting rid of vouchers. (see linked Alternative Proposal below for an example)
the current use-cases of vouchers are essentially just a reduction of DEC demand, while simultaneously complicating the experience for players that just want to buy things.
So I really dislike this argument: "we have to get rid of vouchers because the team elects to use them as a DEC replacement vehicle". I'm perfectly fine with getting rid of any case where vouchers replace DEC, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to provide value to the people that stake their SPS or own Nodes.
Regarding the trust point, I agree that every decision can be passed by a super majority, thus everything in theory is subject to change/elimination. And for this reason I find it super important that we consider the implications of removing an asset entirely.
For me, I understand it is possible to do so, but it will cause me concern about what else could happen in the future. For instance, I have over 100m grain, will that get nerfed one day - is the meta play to sell it before it loses all value and utility in the future? How about research, I am in the top 10, will that be subject to removal if we decide in the future that it took us so long to make a usecase for it and thus it became overproduced? These are concerns that will continue to grow with each decision to remove/alter assets.
In my opinion, we should ALWAYS go out of our way to NOT remove or alter assets if it is at all possible. And if we must do so, then I think it should be done in a way that mitigates the damage in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.
In this case, there are alternative solutions that are far less negative and still achieve the objective stated (to remove the Vouchers replacing DEC). Here's an example of one from @bjangles that has also been floating around: Alternative Proposal
There are many different possibilities to solving the objectives in this prop (ie...stopping the Vouchers from replacing DEC), but I feel that removing/changing an asset should be a last resort. We can and should do better in my opinion, otherwise we are destroying an asset on a whim and that to me will be a breach of trust for all future decisions because how can we tell what will be next to get destroyed. I know I won't be able to figure it out, and that makes me very nervous when it comes to making decisions.
Thanks Dave for the reply.
Agree that alternatives exist - and bjangle's alternative proposal to discontinue voucher discounts could also achieve a similar end through creating voucher-specific sales.
But I guess the next question is:
If each voucher was valued at a mere fraction of an SPS, instead of multiple SPS, I expect there would be less resistance to sunsetting.
I guess the challenge is balancing the incentive to make "desirable assets" that would give vouchers the value you are seeking to preserve. Perhaps it's possible. But a reasonable plan to sunsetting would take away some "mental overhead" for the team in trying to give value to a token that was an interesting idea (proof of time staked) but ultimately hasn't worked out. How long should the team anchor to a concept if it's not successful?
To me it's prudent to offer an exchange to consolidate two underused tokens (vouchers and DEC-B)
I'm more onboard with the @bjangles Proposal and I think it could be a good idea to reduce the emission of VOUCHERs. During the early days VOUCHERs acted as a way to guarantee yourself a spot in Presale events because VOUCHERs were very scarce. That should be the utility for VOUCHERs. It was almost like a decentralized version of a whitelist. We need to go back to that and reducing emissions and having exclusive use cases is the best way forward IMHO.