There are two major things I don't like:
(1)
The committee is making discussions outside this forumI understand that the Telegram tool is a useful tool for efficient coordination when a multi-sig account is involved, but really that's all it should be used for.
All strategy discussions should be here, on the forum, transparent to every shareholder.
Do you change you opinions so fast that you need a real-time tool to communicate?
Or are you negotiating some kind of deal between each other? If that's the case, this is *not* what the committee is supposed to be IMO.
It feels like TPP - "you folks just back off, and wait till we are finished negotiating between ourselves".
WTF is this?
It was quite funny when
@BunkerChain Labs told us in the last Mumble that the "committee is working hard and soon will be able to show the result of its work".
I think you completely misunderstand the role of the committee.
If are on the committee, you should be engaged in the discussions here on the forum and be able to defend your case here on the forum so we can know what your motivations and arguments are.
And you should be actively contributing to all threads that affect anything related to pricing strategy and at least try to construct sensible arguments.
You seem to be absolutely detached from the forum.
IMO this forum is our Parliament, *not* the committee.
Either you are able to argue your case or you get voted out. That's it.
We need our best minds to be on the committee, instead of turning it into some sort of private club where internal deals are made.
(2)
The committee assumes some important decisions has already been madeWhy is the committee working on minute details of a new fee schedule *AS IF* the decision about rebranding the referral program has already been made?
Isn't this the most rational course of actions:
(1) First reach a consensus about the need to rebrand the referral program at this stage (i.e. before the liquidity issue is sorted out).
(2) *If* most shareholders agree with this new approach to the RP, then start working on a detailed implementation.
Otherwise you are wasting your time *or* you assume the big decision has already been made.