I think you do a fair analysis of all proposals, here’s some of my comments on your post,
- Snapshot date is set as the date of the actual Snapshot governance for the clear, incontrevrtible reasons I have outlined here
The only problem I see here is that many new buyers have bought in for the sole reason of being able to redeem VSTA (seeing the 100%+ value increase), leaving original holders and backers of the project with less. This in my opinion is unfair and lets raiders exploit the current situation. This is why we have taken a snapshot pre-proposals, in order to give all original holders a fair exit and exclude the anyone who is trying to arbitrage the situation. Although I do see your point in giving the remaining holder who do want to stay around, the convenience of having some liquidity and a reasonable price to sell their VSTA at. I would like to believe that new buyers are here for governance, but i have a hard time believing this. The success of the project should reflect that, not the current situation. We will take into consideration this point though. (Please correct me if I misconstrued your point in your previous comment on VSP-1) The rest of your points on VSP-1 are all fair and well thought out. Thank you.
Your points on VSP-2 are valid and I personally tend to agree with you, the tiering makes the whole process a complete mess and also shifts the playing field. Definitely a way to make this proposal more aligned for everyone.
For your final comments, current discussions internally are trying to compose a proposal that would do just that, give Vesta enough runway and a last chance to self sustain and deliver products, as well as permitting anyone who wants to exit, exit in a completely fair manner.
Thanks for the feedback, any new proposals from us will take into account what you have brought up!