Sikka has once again shown its creativity and execution to solve interesting problems. I will not repeat the proposal so please read this (and you should read!).

The proposal has set some good practices. In particular, we love that Sikka has chosen to apply for community pool. They have invited the community to discuss thoroughly and they have already done the architecture (here). This kind of public conversations is what has made Cosmos community a success. Forbole has so much to learn from Sikka.

But we have one concern which is unfavorable to this proposal:
Will this proposal rationalize the use of intermediary and other centralized solutions?

According to our interpretation of the tokenomics and on-chain governance design, we think only delegators have the right to vote. By using centralized exchanges, custodian service providers or your son’s wallet, you as the ultimate token owners (we may even deny your “token owners” status if we follow “not your key, not your coin.”) have given up your right to participate on-chain governance. If you want to vote, you should manage your token directly and stake it.

We may have overthought the scenario. Chances are those people who use centralized solutions will never manage their own assets. We may be overly dogmatic towards “disintermediation” which seems impractical.

Regardless of the above naysaying, the work is innovative. The work may also inspire more innovations in the future. The grant amount being asked is reasonable.

Conclusion
So, what will Forbole do? We decided to vote “Abstain” to Proposal 31 and “Yes” to Proposal 32 so that we can keep our belief without killing an interesting proposal which has shown sound governance practice.