Thanks for your thoughtful critique, it’s clear that you care deeply about Lisk future and want to see real, impactful progress. While I agree that governance and fund allocation must be taken seriously, I’d like to offer a slightly different perspective.
On Education and Sponsorship:
While it’s true that many resources are freely available online, educational content tailored to Lisk’s unique ecosystem can lower the barrier to entry for newcomers. If we want a thriving developer community, we need more than just documentation. we need tutorials, walkthroughs, localized content, and passionate ambassadors who can onboard users in creative ways. Sponsoring such efforts isn’t charity. it’s strategic outreach.
On Token Dilution and Project Funding:
You’re absolutely right that we must avoid “funding for the sake of funding.” But rather than halting support entirely, we should refine the criteria for funding: milestone-based grants, follow-up audits, and community-driven feedback loops can help filter high-quality projects. Every ecosystem needs experimentation — the key is ensuring that failed experiments bring learning, and successful ones bring value.
On Leadership and Decentralization:
Concerns about past leadership decisions are valid. However, the move toward DAO-based governance is itself a response to that centralization. If anything, it empowers us as a community to co-create the path forward. Rather than calling for new leaders, let’s build strong processes that make leadership accountable and decentralized by design.
In short, I support your call for responsibility and focus — but I believe growth also requires calculated risk, investment in education, and a spirit of inclusive collaboration. Let’s continue refining this ecosystem, together.