I do not recommend this to the team. The centrifuge’s reputation will be damaged, and it may even go into the delist process. it may cause problems for the centrifuge project legally. Your confiscation of tokens is in no way acceptable.
I hope you realize this is a protest. So there is no chance that the proposal will pass. Of course, other reasonable proposals were not protests.
You think like Polyanna. You’re pretty optimistic, but you need to look at the statistics.
I suggest you look at tvl and token price. Tvl does not increase as it says and the token price is below the ico price. 
Again, I do not agree with you on this matter - so I we will just have to agree to disagree.
Of course the council will not just cancel proposals because they don’t agree with them - there has to be a really good reason to do it. And securing the stability of a blockchain that is crucial for financing real world assets is a very legit reason, in my opinion.
Again, we don’t agree on this - but thank you for contributing to the discussion. Your opinion is just as important as anyone else’s.
1 Like
Good day MiniQ.
Increasing the amount of self-bond up to 1000-5000 CFG will only benefit the Centrifuge network and protect all users.
As you know every new proposal and referendum should be firstly discussed on the forum (check our guidelines please. These is common rules that have a most project).
And I would like to emphasize that every CFG holder could start this discussion even if he doesn’t have the requested amount to create the proposal/referendum on-chain.
After discussion on the forum in case of good feedback any other Users, Councilors, Team members could create this proposal instead of a topic starter. And also will permit have a high chance that crated proposal/referendum will be passed successfully and will be supported by the community!
This way permits not only to save your CFG (prevent forfeit CFG amount in case of cancellation), but also permit to get community support, healthy dialog on the forum.
So in my opinion increasing of minimal amount will only benefit all and permit to protect the network.
2 Likes
I also thank you. The suggestion is not helpful in my opinion. I hope it will be useful for the project.
1 Like
In general, governance proposals are a good opportunity to educate the community or clarify confusion. Just because a proposal isn’t well-researched, or isn’t in the long-term interest of the community, doesn’t make it malicious. Similarly, protest proposals may have a signal value to the community that should be respected. I believe more Centrifuge participants would like to be validators.
I am philosophically against high transaction costs / capital requirements of governance.
However, a proposal should require enough staked CFG for it to sting a little bit if you get slashed. The current threshold clearly doesn’t meet that hurdle.
2 Likes
Thank you for your contributions to the discussion.
I have now created a poll that you can vote on here.
1 Like
Hi Rhano. Thanks for the proposal. Shouldn’t this made for bonding of AIR as well in the corresponding Altair governance process? 
Hi Tjure, if the amount of self-bond should be increased on Altair as well (it is currently 500 AIR), then a separate RFC and proposal should be made in the Altair governance section.
Whether a similar change should be made on Altair, is up to the community to decide. The reason behind proposing the increase on Centrifuge chain was to minimize spam proposals.
Since I haven’t seen any of them on Altair, I personally don’t think that it is necessary at the moment. But I am not the only voice here so maybe make a temperature check in the Altair Governance section to see what others think?
1 Like
You are right. Currently the amount of on-chain proposals on Altair chain is manageable. Once more proposals will be delivered we should keep an eye on the amount of self-bonding if the current value is reasonable
1 Like