I would love to discuss the changes to the roadmap between the 2020 Q3 version and 2021 Q1 version. We publish our roadmap quarterly in order to provide transparency into our plans and I accept the responsibility of explaining changes. The biggest change actually occurred between the Q3 and the Q4 version. Although we thought we identified a path to mainnet in Q1, it had a lot of risk to it. It was flagged with an asterisk and carried many dependencies. By the next quarterly call, we had a real view of the remaining work and didn’t even project a mainnet target. I have tried to keep the focus on our quarterly call to discuss the plan moving forward, so I don’t usually take the time to explain the reasoning behind changes in scope or timing. This is something I can improve on in the future. However, let me explain the reasoning behind the longer delivery roadmap to mainnet.Comparing
Q3-2020 Call Roadmap
with Q1-2021 Call Roadmap
Just makes me feel very sad.. it seems stuff is just shifting quarter over quarter..
Sporks allow features to be deployed to the network with risk mitigation as the goal. I personally believe the feature is brilliant, although - with great power comes great responsibility. It has to be the responsibility of some individuals to hold keys with which to enable and disable sporks. And in turn, with great responsibility, comes great power. That power has to be thoroughly understood by the holders of the keys and we can't put them in the hands of individuals who don't understand the technical and economic details of their actions. So, are keys within DCG a vulnerability for Dash? Absolutely not. Should there be great decentralization of spork activation? Of course, that is always a goal. With desires for anonymity, the need for thorough technical understanding, a vote of confidence by the network for the stewards, and other risk mitigating criteria, I believe the keys have been entrusted properly to this point. The track record of DCG's avoidance of risk is the evidence I need.