Hi Steve, Thanks for asking these questions and highlighting the need for a more effective way of making sure key information hasn’t been missed.
Hopefully this answers your main question:
The objectives are described here in our first post from August 2023: PGOV1 - Evolving Pocket’s Governance: Introducing 3D Governance
As you can see it specifically calls out the objectives, challenges and proposed solutions, starting with:
While community feedback over the last 6 months have evolved the specifics, the objectives and reasoning remain unchanged. Although we linked this in the proposal above, we didn’t explicitly call it out as containing our detailed reasoning which was a mistake. I will add it to the proposal.
If we are being precise then it’s important to state that I/we haven’t used the word disenfranchised anywhere. Saying ANY builder who attains a particular credential, and not just those named personas or paths in the existing system, reaches my threshold for saying enfranchised but I’d need more time to think on the semantics. Were Stakers, who can now use an adapted token weighting method to vote via their Stake included before?
Questioning whether Stakers or Investors or Gateways are already included highlights an important reason we think the proposed change is helpful:
I hope this gives a bit more clarity. Let us know!