Back to collectionA Governance Invitation Meets a Demand for Answers
On the first day after the holiday, questions about the chain’s direction returned to the support channel. The operator said the previous announcement had covered the essentials: anyone willing to help should write a proposal, while those who kept spreading panic could be banned. The ban warning turned scattered grievances into an open argument and put the proposal up against a practical question: who would carry it out?
A creative chronicle combining project history with imagined scenes. Story events are not verification of network activity.
On the first day after the holiday, questions about the chain’s direction returned to the support channel. An operator wanted recurring complaints to become governance proposals. People who had bought keys early felt that a proposal could not replace an account of what the project was doing.
The operator said the previous announcement had covered the essentials: anyone willing to help should write a proposal, while those who kept spreading panic could be banned. That evening, a member holding more than a thousand keys replied that he had once expected much from the chain and now had to accept a loss. Threatening bans was poor management, he said. What information or guidance had the community received in the past three to six months? Half the projects from the airdrop season had fallen away; some had stopped, others had left, and the remaining rewards were nearly worthless. He had read the proposal and thought it good, but asked how Xai could carry it out after so long without answers. The proposal’s author posted a new section that day, calling the mood 'capitulation.' Some people preferred the harshest redemption option, recovering only one quarter of the value to leave immediately; to him, emotion overriding arithmetic pointed to a cycle bottom. He also observed that games on the chain were acting like retail holders: some closed, while others hoped to try again on another chain.
The ban warning turned scattered grievances into an open argument and put the proposal up against a practical question: who would carry it out? The narrator chose no side. He noticed that the clearest analysis and the deepest anger came from the same people who had paid for the first keys two years earlier. The proposal was still being written, and the project had yet to answer their specific questions.