Hi! Just some comments from muy side as If find many of the motivations to be missleading to the audiencia here:
Matematically speaking, this is not astonishing at all, you guys started from 0% few days ago, increasing few hundreds users per week is expected, but as usual for my own perspectiva, it seems you are sharing “beautiful numbers” instead of the relevant numbers. E.g. 5k active users on Celo is around 10% of the total G$ users, and you are not bringing clarity about this metric.
10% of active users on Celo is not atonishing at all, specially if these guys are already receiving more on this chain.
GoodDollar is about equality and inclusivity as a core values, and in my take this values should be the driver of any decision we do. This change seems to go against that as we would be actually taking more from those that are actually more and are receiving leas.
Yep! I have also seen a lot of enthusiasm on the social media, and I think it’s great! I just hope this change is not coming from a confirmation bias the team has to move to Celo, specially if they are not sharing a complete set of relevant metrics.
I have deep concerns about this since I don’t believe the main cultural components about GoodDollar are being properly respected. Fair distribution and inclusivity shall come first, for doing this I believe a proper Gini coeficient analysis among the participants in the two networks have been evolving (and proyections about how they can actually evolve depending on the numbers you choose) like to know or not if we are able to properly take this decision.
IMHO the main benefactor of this change (besides that 10% of active claimers that have the capacity to receive double UBI) is Celo Network, as this means more value in their ecosystem. If increasing the reward is a real Goal from @goodanna and her team, I would insist in making an open invitation yo Celo to bring more
I make an open call to Vote NO, at least