Ben O'Hanlon's banner

Ben O'Hanlon

@benohanlon • 14,618 subscribers

L1 Ecosystem Operator | Operating Cardano's 2.7K-validator Proof-of-Stake network through ₳1.7B DAO governance transition and ₳350M treasury execution.

Shorts

And thanks to Reshma for capturing great content like this 😁

And thanks to Reshma for capturing great content like this 😁

31,858 просмотров

Videos

Anya Rossi

sweetdream.ai

SweetDream.ai•Sponsored•Livecam

Watch Anya Live

Anya is streaming live right now! Join her private show and enjoy exclusive content.

Exclusive private shows

1.2k viewers online

Private Show

Join now for exclusive access

Free preview available • Premium content

Redefining Institutional Trust: What ZK and Cloud Can Unlock Together. With Charles Hoskinson @InputOutputHK, James Tromans Google Cloud, Fahmi S. Sebastien Guillemot Midnight Foundation.

Redefining Institutional Trust: What ZK and Cloud Can Unlock Together. With Charles Hoskinson @InputOutputHK, James Tromans Google Cloud, Fahmi S. Sebastien Guillemot Midnight Foundation.

75,815 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

GM Vietnam 🇻🇳 Charles Hoskinson is on stage. Time to talk about partnerships, products and learnings. Great introduction by Tim Harrison. Listening with Trym 🧫🧠 Taichi Yokoyama🇯🇵 ハー Ha Nguyen Snek 🐍 Wes @ #RareEvo25 Morgan Schofield.

GM Vietnam 🇻🇳 Charles Hoskinson is on stage. Time to talk about partnerships, products and learnings. Great introduction by Tim Harrison. Listening with Trym 🧫🧠 Taichi Yokoyama🇯🇵 ハー Ha Nguyen Snek 🐍 Wes @ #RareEvo25 Morgan Schofield.

Ben ✈️🇰🇷🇻🇳🇸🇬🇯🇵

62,024 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

🚨 Option E (39 separate proposals) = 100× bureaucracy! Won’t it just be unmanageable overhead for Intersect just as Jack B ⎋ has stepped in and things are improving? People in my DMs are raising red flags about volunteer burnout and participation risk—and Logan Panchot $daoguy d/acc and Nicolas Cerny have voiced similar concerns. Let’s do some friendly challenger culture, Jack B ⎋: is Option E really workable? Intersect doesn’t even have deposits budgeted for 39 line items, right? Smaller, less-visible teams may get sidelined (80/20 Pareto + voting fatigue), and projects may lose patience Lloyd D - $radioastro? Won't delays risk them deploying elsewhere because teams gotta make payroll? In our first year of governance, we need to keep it lsimple. The options are: A) Single omnibus withdrawal B) Two brackets (> 67 % & 50 – 67 %) C) Two brackets with staggered withdrawals D) Five Ekklesia-based brackets E) 39 separate proposals/withdrawals Remember, 39 proposals = 100× bureaucracy. Dreps have already said they felt buried—doubling down here risks turning volunteers into “career politicians” (as Logan Panchot $daoguy d/acc warned). Intersect doesn’t have deposits budgeted for 39 line items, and this vendor-led approach (as Nicolas Cerny pointed out) undermines purpose-led budgeting. Do we want smaller teams squeezed, voting fatigue setting in, and projects that need funds most may simply walk away? We can reconcile progress off-chain first, then push one efficient on-chain withdrawal—no big ADA dump to fear, and milestone-based releases already exist to ensure delivery. If 39 feels extreme, a single withdrawal (or sensible grouping/milestone releases) preserves oversight and keeps projects moving in 2025. Option E is the worst—especially in our first year. Any other choice is better. 🤔 Change my mind, ゆうた@仮想通貨 Eternl Cardano YOD₳ phil whale?

🚨 Option E (39 separate proposals) = 100× bureaucracy! Won’t it just be unmanageable overhead for Intersect just as Jack B ⎋ has stepped in and things are improving? People in my DMs are raising red flags about volunteer burnout and participation risk—and Logan Panchot $daoguy d/acc and Nicolas Cerny have voiced similar concerns. Let’s do some friendly challenger culture, Jack B ⎋: is Option E really workable? Intersect doesn’t even have deposits budgeted for 39 line items, right? Smaller, less-visible teams may get sidelined (80/20 Pareto + voting fatigue), and projects may lose patience Lloyd D - $radioastro? Won't delays risk them deploying elsewhere because teams gotta make payroll? In our first year of governance, we need to keep it lsimple. The options are: A) Single omnibus withdrawal B) Two brackets (> 67 % & 50 – 67 %) C) Two brackets with staggered withdrawals D) Five Ekklesia-based brackets E) 39 separate proposals/withdrawals Remember, 39 proposals = 100× bureaucracy. Dreps have already said they felt buried—doubling down here risks turning volunteers into “career politicians” (as Logan Panchot $daoguy d/acc warned). Intersect doesn’t have deposits budgeted for 39 line items, and this vendor-led approach (as Nicolas Cerny pointed out) undermines purpose-led budgeting. Do we want smaller teams squeezed, voting fatigue setting in, and projects that need funds most may simply walk away? We can reconcile progress off-chain first, then push one efficient on-chain withdrawal—no big ADA dump to fear, and milestone-based releases already exist to ensure delivery. If 39 feels extreme, a single withdrawal (or sensible grouping/milestone releases) preserves oversight and keeps projects moving in 2025. Option E is the worst—especially in our first year. Any other choice is better. 🤔 Change my mind, ゆうた@仮想通貨 Eternl Cardano YOD₳ phil whale?

40,994 просмотров • 1 год назад

Больше нет контента для загрузки