Thought I'd share my perspective from the NDC Twitter Space a couple days ago. I hope it's helpful coming from someone who has been very active, left to try something else, and is engaging again with NEAR and keeping a closer ear to the ground. Regarding this Space: https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1ZkKzjDYPpyKv It feels like some emotions are raw, which is totally fair after the solid lift from developers, managers, community regarding the NDC elections. First, it's easy to look at the output of a project and only see the rough edges. Building something from nothing is much harder than it seems, so let's start with kudos and congrats to the team for pulling it off. Is everything perfect? No, and I'm one of the silly people that accidentally voted on **one** person for HoM, thinking I could continue adding votes after research. That's a great example of a small hiccup, but a mistake that I also share responsibility for, cuz I didn't read the pop-ups. Continuous improvement; no big deal. (transitioning to blunt territory soon) NEAR has many advantages over competing ecosystems, but has a way to go. Decision-making is incredibly difficult in a decentralized community. It's especially difficult to hire leaders in a brand new space. There's no playbook for this, and even if one gets written, it would only apply to super-early-days of web3 when the communities were small, the VCs were cautious, and centralized bad actors have managed to besmirched the reputation of this technology. Right now is about as hard as it gets. From my perspective, the NDC elections were an amazing galvanizing moment in Crypto Twitter, which is still an important platform to be active in. It felt like an upswell of excitement for a courageous attempt to pick the decision makers we (the voting community) believe in. Take it from me, if you're a contributor to GWG/NDC and feel frustrated, this is a great time for a break. Can't recommend that enough, and make sure to recharge before the bull returns; you deserve it. Perhaps those folks can bounce from reading the rest of this now and return after a mini-sabbatical. ## Blunt talk The Twitter Space seemed to mention technicality involving V0 (where decision power isn't unlocked yet) the Enforcer, and Trust, and whatnot. I had to read Eugene's tweet three times and don't think I still understand the web of relationships. What I do know is this… We (NEAR) have room to grow. There are many ecosystems, and it's impossible to keep track of all the developments. So we need to "keep it simple, silly" and realize that the only thing that matters to the NEAR community is how acceleration is going, which often comes from accelerated decision-making. We're excited for swift decisions from people we all trust, and all voted on. Until that Twitter Space, I had no idea that I voted for people who wouldn't have power to immediately make decisions. And I don't feel like it's my fault for not knowing that. If there's a massive hype about electing decision-makers, and then there's an announcement of who those people are, then please let those people lead as soon as possible. Let's minimize any further impedances. I don't know the full story, but heard concerns about HoM hiring someone, or "hiring" someone, or signaling intent to hire someone who could immediately help. Some words were uttered along the lines of, "well, was the hiring process open to everyone and voted on by community? blah blah…" I hate to say it, but those arguments add viscosity and sluggishness to what we all want to see. **We voted**. We voted for these people who have put tremendous skin in the game for years. Let's not slow them down, please. If we have elections, that means we have electors, and voters, where voters choose who has the best knowledge of the domain and should make decisions. And many of these decisions would only be slowed down by direct democracy voting. The elections are supposed to **speed things up!** Let's please not let the quicksand drag us down by immediately questioning one of first decisions made by an elected House. We need to move faster. Faster decisions, faster turnaround, faster support. If we're going to second-guess small decisions like hiring an individual, we're starting from a place of "guilty until proven innocent" by assuming people are "hiring friends" and other notions mentioned in the Twitter Space. Please give the elected members the space they need to fulfill the very important tasks we all spent time researching, KYC'ing, and voting. Let's not let this turn into a game of Jeopardy on the technicalities of contract version, the restraints, and constraints. We don't care about that. We care about empowering individuals with solid track records to make swift decisions on important matters. They will mess up, since they're humans, and when they do, let's work to move past it and onto the next decision. Cringey, but kinda on point quotes to end with: "If you double the number of experiments you do per year, you're going to double your inventiveness." [Bezos](https://youtu.be/gjokosjYs_0?si=n81PGTu4AaIuc5DW) "Sometimes when you innovate, you make mistakes. It is best to admit them quickly, and get on with improving your other innovations." [Jobs](https://youtu.be/nt3tyUFaR4A?si=8LV4SbRRcEc8s7JJ&t=10)