> 50% of the supply went to the community treasury and 25% was kept for the core team
If 50% went to the treasury, then the 25% reserved for the core team controls 50% of the vote. This gives the core team full control over voting outcomes, even assuming every other stakeholder votes. In practice, governance participation will be much lower and they will have to spend a substantial portion of the treasury before there is any possibility of having a vote go against them.
I love decentralization, and ENS is a step in the right direction, but let's not trumpet it to be something it's not. ENS is still fully under the core team's control, even if ALL decisions are 'fully decentralized' and it will be a long time before that changes.
> 50% of the supply went to the community treasury and 25% was kept for the core team
If 50% went to the treasury, then the 25% reserved for the core team controls 50% of the vote. This gives the core team full control over voting outcomes, even assuming every other stakeholder votes. In practice, governance participation will be much lower and they will have to spend a substantial portion of the treasury before there is any possibility of having a vote go against them.
I love decentralization, and ENS is a step in the right direction, but let's not trumpet it to be something it's not. ENS is still fully under the core team's control, even if ALL decisions are 'fully decentralized' and it will be a long time before that changes.