Hello.
I could not attend the GWG meeting but I have an opinion.
I didn’t know where to write it, so let me write it here.
To be honest, the current Flow ecosystem is not vibrant.
It is certainly important to decentralize, but at the same time it is also important to revitalize the Flow economy.
I felt that Flow would never thrive if this were not done, so I call for reform in governance.
Specifically, we should change the way the Flow Ecosystem Fund is used.
One question.
Is there a public announcement of how this Flow Ecosystem Fund will be used?
I believe that the future of Flow depends largely on how this Fund is used.
The reason why the Flow Ecosystem is not vibrant is because there are not enough startups in Flow.
In other words, Flow needs crazy entrepreneurs who will realize the innovation of digital ownership in general.
If we compare the current Flow to the United States, The Flow Governance Working Group (GWG) and Tokenomics Working Group (TWG) are acting like the government.
This is very important, but at the same time, there is something else that is essential to the U.S. economy.
That is Silicon Valley.
Innovation is hard to come by in Flow today because a function like Silicon Valley does not exist.
The Flow Grants Program will not create important startups.
Applying for grants on Github felt like applying for a government grant.
Innovation requires taking a risk.
The way it works in Silicon Valley is that VCs decide which companies they want to invest in even if they have to take that risk, and the fund provides the money to invest in them.
I believe that we should set aside a portion of this FUND money to be invested as in Silicon Valley.
I propose my idea in more detail.
First, I recommend Roham Gharegozlou for a General Partner (GP) like position for this fund.
I think he is the right person for the job given his ability to raise funds, his connections to Silicon Valley DNA, his entrepreneurial foresight, and his desire to lead Flow to prosperity.
The GP has certain rights to invest the fund’s capital.
In fact, I would like to enter for this investment.
I believe that our project is essential to the revitalization of Flow.
I have written more details here.
I am not trying to push for funding for my project.
If the need for my project is rejected by the GP, then I will give up on procurement, let Product Market Fit be achieved, and try to procure again.
The reason why I am asserting my opinion is because I feel that the path to challenge does not exist right now for those who are serious about Flow and want to start a business.
In my case, I have the capital to hire developers to develop the product, but there are probably many entrepreneurs who do not.
Giving these people a chance is very important for Flow’s growth.
However, if Roham is made a GP, the relationship between the Flow Foundation and Dapper Labs may be criticized as too strong and decentralized.
There are several solutions to this point.
- Make someone other than Roham a GP.
- Establish certain rights on the part of the Flow Foundation so that GPs cannot run amok.
- This is the point where governance should be discussed.
By the way, I don’t think this problem will be solved by a hackathon.
The problem that Flow is facing now is not a lack of technology, but a negative network effect.
In other words, there is a shortage of people with strong business skills, not technology.
This is also explained in detail in the following FORUM.
I would like GWG’s opinion.