RE: Proposal #39 - Funding On Pause

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

It would be really interesting to know what the proposals were that caused the big vote to be given to the return proposal, or if it was all of them. Has anyone heard the reason? Given the timing, I really hope it wasn't just to vote out the non-binding one to reduce the powerdown time to 4 weeks, since that's not really related to real budgeting. Maybe it makes the case for having a separate voting system for funding projects vs trying to make decisions about features for hardforks...

0
0
0.000
9 comments
avatar

I don’t really know the reason behind this decision. It would be interesting though if a “disagreement” button was implemented. Something like a “downvote” mechanism

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar
(Edited)

Its the Korean Cartel... proxy.token. They don't want any downvote; or rather they want a centralized "criteria" for DV that "they" will control :)

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Was about to say so...remember a post they made recently with a bunch of "demands".

maybe this is their way, to push the return proposal as high as possible so that nobody receives funding. A sort of revenge, since many kinda bullied their attitude on that post...

Maybe I am wrong though...

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar
(Edited)

Yes, I saw it was proxy token, and I also saw their downvote proposal. But what I haven't seen from them is an explanation for why they voted up the return proposal. I was guessing it was either 1) one specific proposal they didn't like or 2) all of them. I guess you've raised another potential possibility: retaliation for not getting their own proposal. I'm really hoping that it is "1". Anyways, I guess I'm going to ask @clayop (well known Korean witness) if he has any communication with them and if he can provide some insight into why they are voting this way.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

It turns out that proxy.token is voting in favor of the 4 week power down proposal, so that is definitely not the issue.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Of course they did! They want the option to get their money out as efficiently as possible. If there is a proposal to power down 1 day; they will vote for that too. It’s all about money for most of them.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar
(Edited)

Maybe it makes the case for having a separate voting system for funding projects vs trying to make decisions about features for hardforks...

I don't see a real difference here. I mean people can vote carelessly or maliciously. But if someone really wants to knock out just one proposal and not others, they can vote both return and the proposals they like (along with other voters potentialy changing their votes).

Any ordering is possible if the votes are made/removed to get there, including both proposals and/or budget items being above or below the line.

Some engagement might make sense to address misunderstandings or resolvable conflicts, but at some point we do have to accept that voters vote the way they do because that's what they want, whether we agree or not.

We probably do need percentage votes though.

0
0
0.000
Reply