You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Proposal #39 - Funding On Pause

in #steemdaolast year

Last time I checked @gtg's proposal was sitting at ~14 mill SP(?) Right now it is at 20 mill SP. I guess people don't want to leave room for junk to be funded. Myself included.

Does that mean that your project is junk? Obviously not. But it seems to me that unless really powerful accounts cast their votes, only one per 500 proposals will surpass @gtg's return proposal.

PS. The more those accounts power up (the ones that have already voted for the return proposal) the harder it will be.

Unless gtg decides to... :P

Sort:  

:-)
I decided. But not exactly that. I think I will stop voting for my own proposal. Even though it's awesome. I'm awesome too. Also modest and humble.

Now to be serious, the idea is to vote for all proposals you like AND return proposal. Then, after some time when system reaches some balance, check if your desired proposals are on top, and unvote return proposal until your all or most of your besties are above it... and unless there's other proposal that you definitely don't want to be funded having more approval than return proposal.

Hahahaha.

Well, my stake can't affect anything...but I do hope that the heavyweight accounts read this comment

I'm aware this has been mentioned before but would it not make sense to allow stakeholders to be able to 'slide' VESTS on the return proposal to give them more flexibility? BT's account, unless he chooses to split it up, is a bit like a master switch at present!

It will unnecessarily complicate things a lot, and ultimately it really doesn't matter that much, because regardless of how big voter is, idea is same: vote for all they like, don't vote for one you don't like, vote or not for return proposal.
True, big vote moves return proposal up a lot, but it also does same with other proposals voted for.

Disagree, and I'll quote you to explain why:

Then, after some time when system reaches some balance, check if your desired proposals are on top, and unvote return proposal until your all or most of your besties are above it [emphasis added]

This can't be done when the only choice possible on a huge account is 100% or 0%.

For the system to work properly people have to be able to vote not just yes or no but also on the specific ordering of proposals, and people with large accounts can't currently do that (other than by splitting their accounts, which is generally undesirable).

Can't be done precisely. True.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be more convenient but it adds a lot of complexity (vs current implementation) to add precision to individual preferences, but those shouldn't matter much because (well, if) more big accounts will be voting?

It is possible but seems a little bit like wishful thinking.

I mean, to make a very specific and personal case here, there is only 1.3 million SP votes between the documentation for developers proposal and the closed source web site proposal. I'm very much in favor of one and very much not in favor of the other. Right now it isn't an issue because return is much higher than both, but it could very easily turn into a situation where unless I split my accounts (which by the way I am in the process of doing), I have to support both or neither, which is not at all what I want.

I understand it could be complicated to implement, but I don't think the accounts with the stake to make a difference would be confused.

It is a shame that salmon cannot read, or I'm sure they would want to see the proposal discussed in the post supported.

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...

 last year 

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.

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 :)

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...

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.

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

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.

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