Alright, this was a bit of clickbait. But it is and it isn't...
What do you mean we need to convince him to come back? We finally got rid of him! You're insane.
Hold on. Read the title in a new light:
My point is that by convincing Amaury to come back, I mean BCH should be such a good implementation of p2p cash that incentives should compel him to come back and build on BCH. The convincing should be passive, not active. And it's the best kind of convincing that can be done.
I don't want this to become a debate about Amaury, ABC, funding, roadmaps, governance etc. This is not that type of article. But it is the type of article which will touch on these topics, because they're definitely important. They're important because they rest at the heart of the big question: Where will BCH be in the future?
I think the fate of BCH can be assessed by how firmly it stands on 5 important pillars:
Community/network effect
Culture
Technical implementation
Convenience/Usage
Stability
You can have a great community, but bad culture (like a cult).
You can have great technical implementation, but without stability and no real usage (like a project that is only research-based and without much practical value or a proper network effect)
I won't give any more examples, but you can put together some of these, save for one or two, and quickly see how lacking one of the pillars can cause a project to fail long term.
I want you to think about BCH and ask yourselves: "what can we learn from people like Amaury, Tobias, Shammah, Vin, etc. losing hope in the way the project is?"
If your immediate reaction is "good! less psychopaths in our community!" Then you're not thinking clearly. It is impossible to truly, rationally believe that ABC and some of its main supporters are only bad news for BCH. I can also say from experience that a project can be taken over or influenced from people with personalities much, much, worse than Amaury's. I urge you to instead think "what were their main criticisms?" And, just as important, "how can we become better from those criticisms?"
I would like to highlight two main criticisms, mainly those of funding and incentivizing builders.
I think flipstarter is a great idea. Genuinely. But I also believe it should complement, and not take the place of, a more robust, free-market approach to allowing good ideas to be monetized and flourish. Relying too heavily on a donations based model could cause prioritization that may not be best for BCH. I can imagine a situation where someone who is greatly talented does not market his idea well. And even if he did manage to get the funding, if things came up that delayed the project or had things implemented differently, the outcry of donors could greatly hinder the creator's reputation and ability to raise funds again, causing him to feel like he needs to beg to be given another chance to create value.
I do not have all the answers, but I do not think relying on flipstarter as the backbone for value creation in BCH is best long term. Again, I think flipstarter campaigns should continue, and it a great model for many projects, but not all. Not too long ago I saw someone mention Jonathan Toomim was working on a BCH related project, to which Jonathan politely reminded the OP that his funding was for work "until November 15th", and that he may reraise funds for continued work in the future. I have no problem with Jonathan deciding to invest his time and efforts in other things (and he's clearly contributed greatly already) but this was a small exchange that really struck me. It highlighted that many people are invested in BCH development, but not totally. And flipstarter as a long term revenue source can be problematic. I have to concede that sometimes development is about doing the boring and doing the boring well. The importance of maintenance cannot be conveyed in a flipstarter.
This also brings me to the second criticism we have seen. One about incentivizing building. I will not take credit away from those who have been working hard to bring BCH to where it is and to take it further. You have my sincerest gratitude. But lately, some have been skeptical of where BCH is headed. Certain developers have already left while others have a foot out the door, and still others are starting to be more receptive to the allure of other projects/companies. This is the network effect in reverse. Maybe you hated one specific developer- but if they are friends with another and they manage to convince them that "the grass really is greener on the other side", we may start to lose contributors who have been working hard behind the scenes. In some of his tweets Justin Bons has implied that while he "reduced his allocation to BCH" pre-fork, he hasn't exactly raised them, definitely not back to where it was. He seems to be sitting on the sidelines until there is a clearer picture of what happens with BCH. That's not exactly bullish.
So am I fearful of BCH's future? Definitely not. But we can't stick our fingers in our ears and believe that everything will just turn out okay. I, along with many others, are on the ground trying to spread adoption of BCH as a real p2p cash solution. I have acquiantances, friends, and family that are slowly warming up to this idea of a digital "ard monnaie" and we are risking our reputation for BCH, despite market sentiment being against us. This is why it is so crucial that we don't take any of the 5 pillars for granted and keep them at the forefront of our vision for BCH.
I'll circle back to the beginning. Incentives matter. Was Amaury too stubborn and obtuse in his thinking? Yes. Should he have done many things differently? Absolutely. Did he go rogue? Maybe, in a certain sense.
But was he some psychopath trying to ruin BCH and pocket all the profits? I'm not convinced. Again, there are many people with personalities and incentives much worse than Amaury that we should watch out for. And there are also people of varying abilities and contributions that have been affected by everything that has gone on. We should be receptive to criticism. We should embrace it. And we should work to have BCH become a project that will be magnetic. A project so good that Amaury and ABC will want to come back. The road to adoption has to include having people on board that we won't agree with all the time.
Let's make sure to provide the best foundation for BCH. This means:
A healthy and diverse community (with good network effect).
An inviting, yet goal oriented culture. One that rewards building and creating, that has utility and provides growth for BCH to expand.
Technical implementation needs to be excellent. It needs to be thorough, it needs to be constantly vetted, it needs to incentivize users and incentivize developers. Good isn't good enough.
Convenience/usage. What is p2p cash if it isn't accessible? If it doesn't have usecases?
Lastly, stability. Your money can't work nearly all the time "except for that one time...". It needs to be there for you, always. Developers doing the boring should have room to continue doing the boring, excellently. Upkeep and research should not be threatened with "but maybe it won't be funded this time around..."
There are a lot of people in BCH that are doing great things. Unfortunately, some of them are starting to feel as though maybe the incentives aren't there anymore. And if they are, BCH might not feel "the same" to them as it once did. These people and attitudes are small in numbers, but we don't want a snowball effect. Let's go back to championing a BCH that is aggressive in its mission to provide a better future for the world.
Lastly, I'll mention that Shammah and Tobias have some great ideas in the works. They are an asset to BCH's endgoal. They know that. Let's put the hostility aside and focus on the mission. I believe that after letting some of the dust settle and refocusing on what's important, some things will change for the better.
There is a long road ahead to reach our vision, but we can get there.
Cheers,
Mono
No, thanks