W3F posted a formal statement on Subsquare today: https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/627#7. They’ve indicated they cannot support the proposal without broader stakeholder and economist engagement.
A few thoughts.
On process: This thread has been open for four weeks. The proposal was corrected, refined, and split into complementary pieces based on public feedback. W3F’s first substantive engagement came today — on the final day of voting — to say no. I don’t say this to attack W3F. I say it because “more discussion needed” rings differently when the discussion has been happening in the open this entire time.
On the path forward: W3F’s comment suggests emailing gov@web3.foundation. I’ll be direct: I don’t do email or DMs. This isn’t stubbornness — it’s a principle. Every communication I have in this ecosystem happens in public, where it can be scrutinized, challenged, and built upon. If there’s a formal process for requesting economist review that works through public channels, I’m happy to follow it.
So I’ll ask directly: What would it take? What does W3F need to see to support tokenomics reform on Kusama? If the answer is “formal economist review,” what’s the process to request one? I’m not asking for a guarantee — I’m asking for a door.
On this referendum: The math is difficult. Recovery would require significant movement in the time remaining. We’ll see.
On what comes next: People didn’t end up in Kusama by accident. Most of us are here because we believe in something — experimentation, sovereignty, building in the open. That alignment is valuable. What’s missing is a place where likeminded people can find each other, collaborate, and build together without our own economics working against us. That’s what this is about. Not one referendum — the longer project of making Kusama a place where that energy can thrive instead of slowly bleeding out.
This proposal has been refined three times based on public feedback. I’m happy to keep working on it — but what’s needed now isn’t another revision. It’s the door I mentioned above. A path to the review that would satisfy the concerns raised. That’s what I’m asking for.
In the meantime, I’ll support @olanod’s upcoming proposal on validator and core reduction. The work continues.