ftrader wrote an article comparing the technical aspects of ASSERT vs Grasberg.
While I agree with most of the technical arguments presented, the even bigger problem is the leadership failure demonstrated by Amaury and by extension Bitcoin ABC:
Amaury did not propose this DAA in the last developer meeting in which he already said it was late for adding new ideas for the November update
A good leader should not be so bad in communicating and should not participate in technical discussions in bad faith (withholding their ideas)
Amaury mischaracterized the situation and claimed that no proper proposal was on the table despite this being discussed for weeks now, including with him.
A good leader should not be dishonest to further his agenda or to satisfy his own ego
Amaury voiced no notable concerns against JToomim's proposal, so accepting it would have been an easy home run in terms of healing our community from the damage ABC has caused with their IFP behaviour -
A good leader would encourage others to contribute, not reject their ideas in order to trump them with his own implementation in the last minute.
Instead of presenting his ideas as a counter-proposal to the community, Amaury immediately said "Bitcoin ABC is therefore moving forward with the Grasberg DAA"
A good leader would aim to bring everyone to the table and convince them of the merits of his ideas, he would not unilaterally decide such important changes.
Following the announcement, Amaury and George Donnelly have done no attempts to discuss their decision with the community, neither from a technical nor from a decision process perspective. Instead, the community is left to itself to interpret and speculate by such a puzzling decision has been reached at Bitcoin ABC
A good leader would understand that this proposal is controversial and do his best to defend it in the community
It is not the first time that Amaury has shown such significant leadership failures. In fact, in during the IFP events I wrote an open letter to Amaury outlining many of the same observations:
But I know that in your mind, you think that are doing the right thing for Bitcoin Cash's future. After all, you were there since its inception and a big part of its early success. Now, you feel that without being paid proper salaries, you and maybe some of your team cannot continue working on Bitcoin Cash full time. Unfortunately, the way you are trying to accomplish this funding is leaving you with very little support in this community. Trying to ram through unfinished, unreflected major changes to Bitcoin Cash's consensus rules is not the Bitcoin way. Neither is disregarding community feedback, not consulting with other client implementations, not offering any transparency regarding the unknown company that is supposed to get funded and not offering a plan for the usage of the collected funds.
(Source: https://read.cash/@ZakMcRofl/building-bridges-an-open-letter-to-amaury-sechet-66b63780 )
Overall, I think these failures in leadership are much more concerning than making a non-optimal technical decision. Even if Grasberg had technical merits over ASERT (in my opinion it doesn't), introducing it this way is hugely damaging to the ecosystem.
We should reject a leadership is not only incapable of uniting the community but also seemingly unwilling to do so.