I really really appreciate your offer of help and maybe I’ll speak with you a little bit about it tomorrow.
The trouble is that we all have a limited amount of time in our lives. That means spending the time that we have on stuff that is enjoyable, with people who treat us right.
We are very poorly ranked on the hub and I strongly believe that the fact that we needed to hold the interchain foundation accountable – as well as aib – has caused us harm here.
Countless people have become upset with me because I’ve spoken plain facts about the cosmos hub.
But another countless people appreciate the work that you’ve done. And many would like to see that work continue.
We can continue to talk. But maybe the suggestions above will help make a more successful proposal and set a positive precedent.
I’ll consider putting it back up when the ICF makes an official statement on the status of grants.
It wouldn’t be the same but the real trouble here is It isn’t my role.
I shouldn’t need to.
They recognize this in private and do nothing in public and I believe that given that there has been no public statement made people are right to ask questions about why this didn’t go through the ICF.
So I don’t know it’s not only the threats it’s that it’s incredibly clear that the ICF does not see my time as valuable and that AIB has abandoned the project and I don’t think there’s any sense in going against the grain.
So it is a combination of factors, that I explain here:
They are the two largest stakeholders.
Who am I to tell them what to do?
Also, can just set other things up elsewhere, with less trouble.
It really was about prioritization exactly like I said.
You should work on how you communicate your message. Sometimes reframing way to say it, it’s better.
Reframe a proposal this
Blockquote * you should propose 15,000 ATOM proposals every quarter for the next 8 quarters (or some variation thereof)
should be much better.
With a better explaining task and how many people are needed.
I might try something like that
I really value all the feedback from various community members and stakeholders.
likewise we value you 
thanks for your time and look forward to the revised proposal!
Certainly the reason Loop got funded is not solely because of us. The entire DAO voted for their funding, at the same time that you were also very heavily in support of them. You are blaming people for things you did as well - at a time you were supporting their project openly as well. You can’t cherry pick the timeline to support your arguments like everyone else has access to a time machine. (https://twitter.com/GoldenStaking/status/1616448269273505793)
Loop’s final funding tranche was voted upon by the entire community and passed. We were the validator who wrote to them during the CW period and asked them to commit to open-sourcing their contracts as part of that proposal, which they agreed to.
For the sake of canon here - I’d like to state for the record that Jacob definitely didn’t “teach us how to operate our validator”. Though Notional has been helpful on validator-centric questions at times, this is far too much credit to take. We have also equally assisted you guys with your infrastructure questions at times.
Much love to Golden Ratio, Joe Abbey, Lavender.Five and many others who contributed to our technical proficiency in the early days validating. They absolutely did do this.
Please stop revising history, please stop making false statements about our business. Thank you.