FIL must undergo urgent reforms, or the future of the project is at serious risk.

[sviperj]

This is beyond embarrassing at this point. FIL has dumped below $1, and the team still refuses to make any meaningful changes or even address the situation.

Proposal after proposal fails, the ecosystem keeps deteriorating — and yet nobody is held accountable. Seriously, is anyone taking responsibility here?

In any normal company, leadership would already be facing consequences. CEOs step down for far less. But with FIL? Total silence.

No transparency. No urgency. No leadership.

It honestly feels like the foundation and governance bodies are just a group of overpaid insiders, completely disconnected from reality, ignoring the community while pretending everything is fine.

The community deserves answers — not silence.

[sviperj]

Update

[Reiers]

If you think governance/leadership is failing, please spell out:

1. What decision or process failed (be specific: which initiative, repo/process, meeting, or policy)?
2. Who had responsibility (team/role, and where that responsibility is documented)?
3. What specific change you want (policy, roles, budgets, reporting cadence, decision rights, etc.)?
4. How it would be implemented (e.g., a concrete FIP proposal, governance motion, or an explicit change to existing process/docs).

Also: token price isn’t a governance KPI by itself. If the argument is “urgent reforms are needed,” tie it to measurable network/ecosystem signals (e.g., storage demand, retrieval performance, onboarding friction, incentive alignment, etc.), not just “FIL is down.”

[sviperj]

1. What failed?
   What failed is not “the market.” What failed is the governance process itself: the gap between the formal FIP/FOP framework and how decisions are actually surfaced, reviewed, tracked, and concluded. Filecoin’s own governance docs say FIPs are the primary mechanism for network changes, and FOPs exist specifically for governance and process changes. Yet Filecoin governance discussions have also acknowledged unclear statuses, unclear responsibilities, scattered materials, and feedback that is difficult to track. A governance system that cannot tell the community who owns a decision, what stage it is in, and what happens next is a failed process.

2. Who is responsible?
   Responsibility sits with the roles and bodies that publicly claim to facilitate governance and review changes — not with some imaginary single dictator. Filecoin Foundation says its role includes facilitating governance, developing decision-making processes and policies, and managing community feedback. Technical proposals are reviewed by the community and the technical steering committee. In areas like Fil+, governance repositories explicitly state that roles, responsibilities, and dispute paths exist. So when proposals stall indefinitely, statuses stay ambiguous, and no one can point to a binding decision log or accountable owner, that is not “decentralization.” That is operational failure.

3. What specific changes do I want?
   I want basic governance hygiene that any serious protocol should already have:

a named owner and decision body for every major initiative or proposal;

a mandatory public response/update window, for example 30 days;

a public decision log with status, blockers, rationale, and next steps;

monthly governance reporting and published call notes;

quarterly ecosystem KPI reporting tied to adoption and network performance;

documented escalation and review paths for programs like Fil+ and allocator governance;

budget and funding transparency for governance-critical work.

4. How should it be implemented?
   Through a concrete FOP / governance motion that amends the existing governance docs and repo processes. Add ownership fields, response deadlines, status templates, reporting obligations, and explicit decision rights into the public process itself. If governance reform is serious, it should be written down, versioned, and enforceable through the same public mechanism the community is constantly told to use. Filecoin’s own materials explicitly place governance in the FIP/FOP framework, and FF’s recent reporting itself says governance is at an inflection point and is trying to build shared accountability and operational processes. Good — then formalize it.

And yes — token price is not a governance KPI by itself. I agree. The real issue is whether governance is producing measurable improvements in storage demand, large-client retention, paid deals, retrieval reliability, onboarding experience, and incentive alignment. Filecoin’s own ecosystem metrics work already frames network health around usage, client activity, and paid demand rather than slogans, and the ecosystem is now funding live retrieval-performance dashboards because those operational metrics matter. My point is not “FIL is down, therefore panic.” My point is: if governance cannot produce accountable action while the network needs better demand, better reliability, better onboarding, and better incentive design, then governance is not functioning well enough.

So let’s stop hiding behind semantics. “Decentralized” does not mean “nobody is accountable.” If you want criticism to be specific, here it is. Now the question is whether the people and bodies that say they facilitate governance are willing to accept measurable standards and public accountability — or whether they only want community input when it is harmless.

Paper governance with no owners, no deadlines, no reporting, and no consequences is not decentralization. It is just unaccountable bureaucracy.

[Kevin-FF-USA]

Hi @sviperj — appreciate you taking the time to write this out. There’s a lot of thoughtful points here, and you’re definitely not alone in wanting clearer ownership, and accountability in governance. I’m not a decision-maker on governance changes, but I can share a few places where some of those topics can be actively discussed specific to Fil+.
A bit of context (not a defense, just framing) There’s a mix today between:

• formal processes (like FIPs/FOPs), and
• program-level changes (like Fil+ updates, allocator guidelines, experiments like peer-to-pool)

A lot of Fil+ has been evolving in that second category, which can make it feel like things are happening without a clear “owner” or formal checkpoint. That’s part of what’s being worked on right now, especially with the shift toward SLAs and more measurable performance standards in the Fil+ side.

• There is a biweekly call for updates and discussions on these program level changes: A lot of the things you mentioned like accountability, reporting, SLAs, allocator expectations, are being worked through there in real time, even if it doesn’t always feel fully structured yet. The next calls will take place on March 17 at 9am PDT / 1600 UTC -and- 7pm PDT / 0200 UTC.

There is a larger effort underway focused on improving governance across the ecosystem. The Constellation program
is specifically trying to address some of the gaps you’re calling out of clear roles, better processes, more transparency.

If you’re open to it, bringing these points into the governance call or opening a follow-up issue with specific proposals could help move this forward with the broader Fil+ group.
Warmly,

[sviperj]

I don’t usually speak up, but I want to be clear that I’ve been a long-term supporter of Filecoin and I genuinely care about its future.

What concerns me is not just governance structure or process clarity — it’s the reality that the project itself is at risk of failing if we continue down this path. Filecoin is deeply tied to the broader blockchain market. If a project has real value and a credible future, the market will recognize it, capital will flow in, and participation will grow organically. That is not what we are seeing right now.

Instead, what we see is a shrinking ecosystem: market prices remain weak, storage providers are exiting, and external pressures — especially from the rapid rise of AI — are driving storage costs higher and making the current model increasingly unsustainable.

This is why the current tone of bureaucratic discussion is deeply frustrating. We are not in a position where incremental process conversations are enough. The situation is urgent.

If the project still has potential — and I believe it does — then it’s time to confront reality directly, make decisive changes, and act with urgency. Otherwise, we risk watching a promising project slowly lose relevance while a small group continues to maintain the appearance of progress.

This is not criticism for its own sake — it’s concern from someone who wants to see Filecoin succeed.

[Fatman13]

fil+ 王朝之三朝老臣，大宰相凯文。[doge] 紧追五代十国的冯令公。保五朝，争六朝。[doge]

[sviperj]

笑死 还得是你会说