This should be spoken out. I have had enough.
Here is what I think and this is what I have observed over the past few months. We are having an internal conflict, communication breakdown and disorientation among the P-Reps. Min is clearly not happy with the majority of the P-Reps. Min has high expectations, ambitious goals, wants ICON to become a global leader.
But most of the P-Reps just fail to meet the cut. Not all, but most. The governance meetings have extremely poor participation rate. People simply don’t care, can’t be bothered. Even when there is a meeting, it is just a couple of P-Reps talking and sharing their opinions. It is a waste of time. Nothing concrete and substantial. Nothing progressive and action-oriented. There is no incentives or penalisation for P-Reps. This model is clearly not working because we are not influencing how we want P-Reps to behave. We are just letting them be whatever they feel like.
This is what I think should be done. You can’t just simply decentralise it and leave all the P-Reps to do their own stuff. Think about it. If you want ICON to be big, can you just let a bunch of random people from the world and run ICON? And then just let them do their own thing, and trust that they have the same ambition as you?
Anyone can be a P-Rep, there is no criteria of joining, no talent filters, no expectations so you invite low-quality P-Reps. This is the 1st problem. I can say more than half of them wants to be P-Rep just for the sake of having higher staking rewards, you think they care about ICON network?
Secondly, decentralising 100% invites this big vacuum of gap. P-Reps don’t know what to do, there is no standards, no guidelines, no expectations, no common values, no shared vision or goals. Min always call out P-Reps to do more. But what is the kind of standard that P-Reps should follow? I think we should first have some sort of central authority FIRST, maintaining order before slowly decentralising it and trusting the P-Reps to run it. Maintaining order is meant by maintaining the standards and quality or expectations/guidelines.
Third, we have to change the model in a way that penalises the P-Reps. We must make it such that if you are in just for the rewards, you will lose. You will waste your time and it is not worth the effort. But if you can build something and get things done, we will reward you heavily. That should be the model.
Fourth, we must set high standards and KPI on criteria to measure productivity. There should be a competitive model that works like the index. Only the top few makes it into the index. If you are inefficient, you are out. This creates a self-mechanism model where only the best are serving ICON.
Fifth, we need more communication, more talent, more substance. Stop talking and get things done on meetings. Be action-oriented in meetings. Don’t just talk talk talk and share about how great you think ICON is but yet everyone moves on with their own life the next minute the meeting ends. Set up clear action plan and penalise people who fails to follow. All these things need a central authority.
Six, A complete decentralise model means there is no clear leadership. Nobody knows who is in charge, and so everybody is in a chillax state.
Seven, you can clearly see how this is a big problem. We got to act now and act fast. At this rate, it is clearly not sustainable and not healthy. We should flush out all the P-Reps who are inefficient and useless. I have to be harsh here. Think about the big tech companies like Tesla, Apple, Google, do they give a shit if you sucks? If you suck you are not qualified. As simple as that.
If Min really wants to set high standard of ICON, then MAKE it happen. You also have a role to play and not rely on P-Reps completely. Because you know that won’t happen. A decentralise model like this will certainly not give you what you envision ICON to be.
To be honest, I am losing trust and faith in ICON if we don’t get this sorted out. Min just throwing everything down to P-Reps under the name of “decentralization” is going to go really bad. ICONLOOP has high standards from their products and I trust them. But now you are saying okay, ICONLOOP is going away, you P-Reps take over from now on? Whoa… what do you ICONists think?
We invest in ICON because of the the ICON team, not P-Rep. But now the bigger picture is shifting to we are investing in the P-Rep teams to build the future of ICON. If that is the narrative I am out. If you want P-Rep to take over, that is fine. But at least make sure they are up to standard? At least make sure they are on par with ICONLOOP?
Sorry for the rant. But I hope internal order is stabilised and controlled. Right now it seems that we are breaking apart. Just my 2 cents worth. I really hope I am wrong in this. I believe in the future of ICON, but not P-Reps.