UPD 02/17/2023

Opens the livestream from Colorado on February 17, 2023, and announces an upcoming Twitter Space debate on contingent staking, with Rick, Bullish Dumpling, and JJ coordinating dates.

Shows a community built pro and con board for crowdsourcing arguments about contingent staking.

Reads through a con argument that contingent staking contradicts core protocol security by letting pools classify stake as good or bad, and a pro argument that it gives operators a tool for freedom of association.

Frames the dispute as an argument over values and opinions rather than facts, pushing back on vague claims that the mere capability reduces consumer choice or censors the protocol.

Implementing the same idea as a layer two, like DC Spark's newly announced hundred percent fee pool, carries the identical philosophical implication as a layer one certificate.

Clarifies that contingent staking does not replace normal staking, delegators keep the option of an ungated pool, and the pattern itself has nothing to do with KYC, it only requires the pool operator to sign the delegation.

Gives a non KYC example of the pattern in action: an artist support pool asking delegators to include an NFT receiving address in the payload.

Calls DC Spark's layer two proposal disingenuous since redeeming rewards there still requires a verified NFT and leaves control with whoever maintains the smart contract.

Draws a home repair analogy, arguing it is reckless to let work happen first and negotiate payment terms afterward instead of agreeing terms upfront.

The layer two version turns a trustless permissionless system into a semi custodial one, where the smart contract operator can simply withhold rewards already earned.

Argues contingent staking does not materially change the system's values since the same block discrimination pattern already coexists today through smart contracts.

Rebuts the fear that this capability invites government mandated KYC, explaining regulators do not read protocol code, they simply demand compliance regardless of technical feasibility.

Predicts hostile regulation will just push stake pool operators offshore to places like Dubai and Abu Dhabi, echoing how other industries relocated abroad.

Rejects framing block production as a public good like net neutrality, calling it private enterprise driven by self interest and market competition.

Compares stake pool competition to private electric and water utilities, arguing free market competition delivers better quality, price, and reliability.

Operators will end up maintaining every Cardano side chain too, so without contingent staking they are forced into one identical staking model across all of them.

Walks through a hypothetical of Maersk and other global logistics giants moving a forty billion dollar supply chain onto Cardano and needing more scrutiny over which pools handle it.

Voters to remember, when CIP 1694 arrives, that banning this capability on principle would also cut off Fortune 500 business, government contracts, and political use cases.

Dismisses a road to hell slippery slope tweet as an emotionally charged platitude and demands a step by step explanation of how the feared abuse would actually occur.

Points out stake pool operators can already do this today via DC Spark's tooling, and argues the retroactive layer two version actually creates more liability for operators than an upfront contingent staking certificate.

Argues CIP 1694 exists to build transnational checks and balances so no single government, from the US to China to the EU, can unilaterally dictate protocol rules since operators can simply relocate.

Walks through the slippery slope logic point by point, mass KYC adoption, non contingent pools vanishing, censorship via input endorsers, and argues the design actually moves further from that outcome.

He is excited about the debate and calls it a teachable moment about how hard on chain governance is, with DReps set to represent delegators in these fights.

Reflects that governance is so hard both Ethereum and Bitcoin gave up and ossified instead, since every real decision in business, politics, or life requires some controversy.

Cites cryptographic primitives for rollups, recursive SNARKs, and input endorsers as another complex trade off decision still needed to unlock near infinite throughput.

Debates where DRep compensation should come from, proposing splitting the treasury's twenty percent block cut between the general treasury and a dedicated DRep fund.

Mocks the claim that an optional multisig certificate compromises the system's philosophy, then criticizes people who clutch their pearls and play the victim when called out, insisting anyone taking a position must own its consequences.

Uses US immigration policy as an analogy, contrasting a violent criminal with someone brought over as an infant, to argue broad brush positions ignore real human consequences.

IOG owns its early design decision to prioritize determinism, even though it makes some DeFi patterns harder to build on Cardano than elsewhere.

Notes the settlement layer was deliberately kept minimally expressive while complexity moved to side chains, and says IOG explains controversial decisions through blog posts rather than playing victim.

Argues that banning DC Spark's block discrimination pattern for consistency would logically require stripping Plutus of the expressiveness that makes it possible in the first place.

Closes by pointing back to the pro and con board, expects the Twitter Space debate in late February 2023, and welcomes everyone to the age of Voltaire governance.