NOW LIVE! Dungeon Delver's Guide: A Sourcebook for 5E and A5E. An essential tome for creating, exploring, and running dungeons in your 5E or A5E game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8641683" data-attributes="member: 18">They don't walk it back very much, if we look at what they're actually saying. If anything, I'd characterise it as doubling-down, but in the most cautious/PR-friendly way possible. I mean, what they actually say is, once translated from PR-speak:1) "We'll make a demo blockchain to test this out, as a separate organisation, and we won't forcibly transfer our users on to that, nor will will use its tech until we're happy it works properly. We are going to build it though, whether you like it or not. When we are happy we will then use some or all of that tech to replace the existing KS, whether you like it or not, but we will seek "input" on what you find "valuable". No guarantees re: listening to that input though!"So that's a double-down. They are building it, like it or not, and they offer absolutely no guarantees that they won't force every creator in KS on to it's tech, in time.The positive side is, it may well perform horribly and/or offer no obvious benefit in testing (indeed, that's likely the case as absolutely no explanation of how using a centralized platform via the blockchain has been made), which might make it fatal to try and force a changeover.2) "We'll establish an 'advisory council' made up of people we like, who don't necessarily have any qualifications, and with no transparency on how people are selected. Oh and they're not here to help with the blockchain or even input on it, just to tell us how to do better with the current platform".I mean, okay but that's largely irrelevant and also in no way democratic or transparent. I mean, it doesn't have to be, but it's not exactly a concession of any real kind.3) "The demo blockchain's organization will be a Public Benefit Corporation".Fine? I mean if it wasn't going to be that would extremely worrying. So again, no concession or backing down, just as the bare minimum to meet expectations.4) "The new organisation will sign up to the same vague and largely non-enforceable/non-binding environmental commitments ("it's more of a guideline") as KS. We won't rely solely on carbon offsets which you've pointed out to us are massively corrupt and a giant lie, but we will use them, as much as we feel like, so long as it's below 100%. We won't use a "carbon-intensive" blockchain, but we also won't specify what that is, so basically we can use whatever we like as long as it's slightly cleaner than the worst offenders."This is pretty bad, frankly.They're acknowledging that they've been told carbon offsets are a lie (which they demonstrably are), and refusing to not use carbon offsets (just saying they won't "rely on them alone" on them).They're also refusing to commit to a lower-carbon blockchain, just not "carbon-intensive". So I guess maybe not ETH? But even then they might excuse it with ETH's forever-in-the-future promise to go to proof-of-stake.</blockquote>

Verification