Why have we prioritised e.g. Architecture over contested and awaited amendments to DPoS, or Dynamic Fees?
Our ultimate goal is to deliver a functioning blockchain application platform as fast as possible. That is the prime reason why objectives dealing with scalability, security and architecture need to be addressed first.
If we do not actively engage developers, there will be no viable Lisk ecosystem. Therefore we need to ensure developers are able to develop on our platform as soon as possible. This is another reason why we have prioritised the SDK implementation over sidechains.
Having said that, we recognise the importance of both improving the DPoS, as well as introducing dynamic fees, as it will play a vital role in establishing Lisk as a healthy and active ecosystem for developers to join. That is why dynamic fees are scheduled to come directly after we address protocol and SDK objectives outlined in the roadmap.
We are also implementing some improvements related to DPoS in the earlier phases of the roadmap. For example, we intend to improve blocks verification and finality in the Security & Reliability phase and we intend to provide a future-proof protocol change mechanism in the Network Economics phase. Both of the aforementioned phases set the stage for the DPoS phase.
We also recognise that how our DPoS mechanism will be changed is destined to be a widely contested issue. Therefore we want to encourage a more robust debate on that subject in our LIPs mailing list with the community.