Hi @alagiz ,
I have to admit that it appears that you have done everything you can to help us, but lets be honest, the whitelist was done hours before the official TerraForm Labs proposal. The discussion was finalized before the whitelisting feature, and the actual formal proposal 1623 was submitted a few hours later after the whitelisting began.
Regarding the Burn and Remedy fee proposal, regardless of what one may think of it, the proposal met the deposit, it had discussion, and it even had voting results. @BurnTheSupply shared a link that shows a discussion where a TerraForm Labs representative clearly rejected the whitelisting as “intentional” after it has initially been displayed as whitelisted on the voting page. Then, in the following pull request it was only merged into the code after a commenter said “this really sucks. Democracy is really a joke.” Although you helped me tremendously, my proposal 1597 is still awaiting review, two days later, even though a later pull request was approved for whitelisting - almost immediately after request (one for proposal 1747). At this point, it appears that “whitelist” is meaning viewpoint discrimination (those proposals that TerraForm Labs likes or at least is willing to tolerate) over “spammy” material. Cutting through spam is possible, I did it in this list.
The governance community is a trust, and TerraForm Labs is its trustee. [Note: The link was removed, here is a cached version]. Changing procedure, including how a proposal is listed, without community approval is inappropriate. The governance documents state that when a proposal meets the deposit it has every right to be displayed before the community. I appreciate that they have finally put a “show all” (as of today) on the Terra Station > Governance > Voting section, but some of us have already lost days off our proposals why the “whitelisting” gave advantage to a handful of proposals - chief among them the official TerraForm Labs proposal.
I do not say that to disparage the work TerraForm Labs has done, or the support work you have done (and thank you for your immense help), but the whitelisting feature, the lockup of the delegation and staking mechanism, and although it was not required, the lack of a reminder to the community about needing to have staked LUNA to have the vote count, have all contributed to a situation that is less that appropriate for a fair and honest voting process (and quite frankly one that had new delegations stopped and the whitelisting functionality done without the approval of the governance community, even though it would affect voting). So, any new members (ie. investors in LUNA - because that is what all LUNA members have and will be, and if they feel they have lost representation, then let me remind them that they can still purchase wLUNA and translate it into LUNA to protect their stake), as well as previous members who had LUNA but did not have it staked (and did not realize before staking stopped that it would affect their ability to vote) have been effectively shut out of voting.
To be fair, I do understand that the delegation and staking were stopped temporarily out of concern for proof-of-stake security, but I believe it was meant to be temporary, and if it was known that it was something that would affect voting, particularly on such major topics as future direction, then it should have been accompanied with another mechanism that allowed staking for voting purposes only (since the governing documents imply that a person with LUNA would always be able to have a stake and therefore to stake for the purposes of voting).
Thank you again for all your help - I really appreciate you
With Thanks