Community Oversight Member Elections: Meet the Candidates

Due to SG1’s vote power on the hub (6.71%) and their NO vote on proposal 920, Mintscan’s graphical representation of 922’s lead over 920 is exaggerated.

In actuality, the difference between proposals 920 and 922 is only 109,704 ATOM (at the present time).


from: Mintscan, May 14th, 10:13 EST


from: https://elections.atomaccelerator.com/, May 14th, 10:15 EST

@clydedev I respectfully ask you to speak with your employer/validator SG1 about changing their NO on 920 to an ABSTAIN. As a candidate in the race, your affiliated validator should fully abide by the defined voting guidelines.

While voting NO does not impact the final vote count of the race – it can affect the voter consideration period for the next 10 days.

Therefore, voting NO in the context of this specific race can be perceived as an abuse of voting options or deliberately exercising an option voters were asked not to use, to manipulate voter perception by signaling an unhealthy bias.

If this NO vote was an unintentional error made by your validator, please correct it immediately. The voting behavior of organizations associated with us reflects our character. As a candidate for Oversight, you should demonstrate your integrity without being prompted to do so. It’s disappointing that I have to bring this to your attention instead of seeing you take the initiative to address it yourself.

The assumption conferred to every candidate in this race is that each candidate has the ability to recognize and practice proper conduct without needing it to be defined for them.

The last thing we need is oversight for oversight members.

2 Likes