Whales and the Mirror Protocol: a case-study of self-determination

To be a Whale in #cryptocurrency doesn't mean you get your way. Case in point: a whale has floated two proposals on @mirror_protocol to lower collateral ratio to 110% for $mIAU and $mSLV: https://mirrorprotocol.app/#/gov 

Why? What is the angle here?

Gold and Silver are the most stable securities in the world. 

Shorting them is well-nigh guaranteed to be safe. And you make yields on shorted assets on @mirror_protocol.

Two advantages then:

1. yields 
2. capital preservation

If I'm a whale, and here's the material point: if I'm anybody, I want to put my investment with the highest return. With a 200% / 150% collateral bracket, for each $2 I put in, only $1 gets the (verra smol) yield. That must be so frustrating, given such a stable position!

So, I, this whale (n.b.: I'm not the whale, btw), put in proposals to rectify this issue. Let's adjust the collaterals down to reasonable levels. And the voters, to a T, agree, but then, what happens?

An even bigger whale, maybe Terra Labs, vetos them. Singlehandedly.

Further, look at the votes on the previous (vetoed) proposals. We, the community, OVERWHELMINGLY voted FOR these proposals.

https://mirrorprotocol.app/#/gov/poll/247

https://mirrorprotocol.app/#/gov/poll/248

It was one, and only one, vetoer that killed these proposal dead, with 4M $MIR. 

Guess.

Who.

What's happening here?

"Is @mirror_protocol decentralized?"

This is the question before us.

We have one whale voting in his self-interest, but fielding a proposal acceptable to the community that gets shut down by centralized control.

We're seeing how 'decentralization' plays out in real time,

Now, I'm not painting this whale as the 'Good Guy' and Terr- oops, the 4M $MIR-owner as the 'Bad Guy,' but I am addressing the question that affects me, and you, and the protocol, and Terra.

"Is @mirror_protocol decentralized?"

These very one-sided vetoes say: no.

Why is this a problem? For everyone?

Terra made a very public statement in its defense a US Gov't suit from the SEC stating it exercises NO control over @mirror_protocol: "@mirror_protocol is decentralized."

The US Gov't can now look at these vetoes and argue otherwise.

So, that's a problem for Terra, but it's a much bigger problem for us, the little guy, not the whale, for us.

Why?

What do our votes mean? We voted FOR. Almost to a person. Overwhelmingly.

The protocol's community voted FOR.

And was shut down.

That wasn't nice.

But if you know me, you know I don't do nice. I do what works, and what works, for me, is that if @mirror_protocol is decentralized, then ALLOW the community to chart the course of the protocol, whatever that course is.

Will we make mistakes? Yes, but how big a mistake is setting collateral for $mIAU and $mSLV? Enough of a mistake to shut down the vote? I don't think so. I think centralized interference is causing more harm than good, to all parties, in this case, and in most cases.

Here's my request, @terra_money. Let decentralization play out. We make a mistake with a vote? LET US make that mistake, and LET US correct it. The dangers of central intervention are clear, AND the disadvantages of decentralization are well-know.

So: let this play out.

Or, if you don't want the community to vote, nor have a say in the vote, stop pretending @mirror_protocol is decentralized, and just lay down the law. Masquerading 'decentralization' makes our votes meaningless and disempowers the community.

And isn't the vision of Terra self-determination via a decentralized currency?

@mirror_protocol is an experiment in self-determination. And this, right here, right now, is what that looks like.