Think i share the same concern as Investigator shared on discord, is it still good to continue taking ppl from the list that applied now 4 months ago, a lot can change in that time and making this like it is now, what will that mean in a year or more, will ppl still feel the same as they did back then, would they vote the same?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
In general, the idea was for these treasurers to last until we got SPS Chain launched and then try to figure out on chain treasurer voting on there. I'm not opposed to more treasurers joining the mix or holding new elections, but I'll say the same thing here I did in that chat... it's not like we had an abundance of applicants and swapping them in and out takes time and resources. I do get your concern and I'm not opposed to running new treasurer elections... right now I'm mainly looking to set up guidelines we can use to formalize a process for handling issues.
My ideal scenario is:
SPS Chain has an opt in for people that want to be treasurers.
Candidates provide the EVM and HIVE account they want to use.
There is a system to show stake-weighted support for those candidates.
Those candidates can go up or down based on level of support.
Those candidates can rescind their applications and remove themselves from the list of eligible candidates.
In this example, we could all just easily transition votes to another candidate we want to support. In that case I suppose we have to determine a timeline for swapping them, we don't want to just be changing keys every time something fluctuates. There's a lot of things to consider and I imagine this will be an evolving system where we have to run updates to the guidelines periodically.
Just to follow up, added in treasurer voting guidelines to make sure we keep enough candidates and have yearly elections.