We all know that the omchain ecosystem is community driven and you care about us, but if something is going to change for the project, my suggestion is that the community leaders should initiate it;
10 or 20 wallets holding the most omc should have the authority to submit a voting proposal for the project, if the voting is reasonable, it should be written on the blockchain and you should present it to the community without changing it.
In fact, this person should be able to become a delegate by adding a few more wallets, that is, by establishing his own boutique group, and establishing strong groups and competing with each other, I think it will benefit the ecosystem. COMPETITION IS GOOD
1 Like
Top 10 big wallet holders can submit ideas by asking them to the Team community and better ideas can come up good idea
In case such an offer is accepted in a coin where the team share is burned; may result in the seizure of their right to speak about the coin by others.
A project where those who have money, not those who know about the coin, are doomed to disappear.
This is exactly our main concern. Initially we are looking for community participation. This is somewhat started right now with community members providing visual content for social media. Our current token holders in my opinion are not aware of the crypto market or trends or the results of the potential actions. That’s why, when there is no team tokens team won’t get to have any saying on the final product if we directly go that way. I believe that we still have a little more time for that road but eventually our plan is to have a treasury that is funded by the token holders and then token holders can propose things - members from community can pick up tasks and earn OMC by delivering the proposed work.
For example we could be pooling 10M OMC tokens at some point, and one could be creating a proposal to spend 300K OMC tokens for developing an NFT marketplace for example. And a developer could build an NFT marketplace and provide proof, once proof is majorly accepted, funds could be released to the developer hence the ecosystem being self sufficient.
Although burning the team share is important for the coin to gain value, I think it will cause problems in the future in terms of project ownership.
The “autonomous administration” practices in state administrations have always resulted in unrest. I am of the opinion that the team should always be the leading and dominant factor in this project.
How accurately does it translate what I want to say, Google Translate?
I mean everyone is one group and there is no leader for omchain. Our main goal is to establish omchain groups and give more people with leader spirit.
for example, if I have the wallet authorization of 8 people (I’m not talking about owning the wallet) and we can compete with different teams to improve omchain and we can give prizes to the winner, everyone will want to build a good team, in short, I want to see COMMUNITY TEAM BATTLES
Okay, now I like that idea 