With RealT, we’ve been here for many years now, and we knew xDai channel and their amazing team who supported us.
When the channel was bought by Gnosis, we initially saw it as a positive development, but we were forced to acknowledge that it severely damaged our relationship with the channel’s maintainers, reaching a breaking point.
It wasn’t a sudden, violent decline, but a gradual one, like the degradation of the agreements and services provided by the chain, such as RPC. Exchanges became increasingly lengthy and less productive. Little by little, we felt we no longer mattered, even that we were bothering the Gnosis team (I know this from a source who told me; it’s just hearsay, but I believe it).
Internally, we also considered and studied the possibility of leaving GnosisChain, or at least proposing an alternative. We had to acknowledge that it’s not easy to meet our requirements; GnosisChain, in its current technical state, is unique in the ecosystem.
All this to say that when there are choices, attitudes, and processes implemented and accumulated that don’t please the community, and when the same offering exists elsewhere, then they leave. That would probably have been the case for us if we had found a credible alternative.
There are genuinely good things about the GnosisChain, but I think there’s a real lack of consideration for the protocols on it, a problem with decision-making that doesn’t facilitate access to the chain for users, and absurd decisions (such as USDC.e, on which I’ve already commented and criticized the fact that the .e extension is everywhere on all chains, representing USDC bridged from ETH, whereas here it’s the one that will hypothetically be adopted by Cicle).
Therefore, there isn’t one answer to this question, but rather a series of decisions that lead to a result.
In itself, this isn’t a problem when it’s acknowledged, but here in the discussions we see misleading responses, or at least responses that lack definition.
When we read that the community is in favor, which part of the community is being referred to, and where were the debates or votes held?
I face the same kind of problem in our ecosystem. It’s clearly stated and acknowledged that RealT has significant control over the ecosystem’s service providers for various reasons, and we’ve also announced our intention to progressively decentralize. We take community feedback into account through the DAO. For example, RMMv2 (a fork of aave v2) has been inactive for a while, but funds remain invested. We hold the contracts and full rights to the protocol. RealT wants to shut it down permanently, although we could have done so unilaterally. We submitted the proposed closure and the process to the DAO, and before making any changes, we waited for the vote results.
That’s what’s missing here, it potentially stems from good intentions (or not, because there are various opinions, I’m not able to judge the reality as it stands) but I denounce the process, which inevitably leads to ever greater excesses.
Unfortunately, I’m limited to 3 replies in this thread, so I can’t continue responding. It’s a real shame, I had other things to say.