Please let’s use a wording that is appropriate, we can definitely make our points without being offensive towards who thinks in a different way
Please, let’s bring back the focus on the draft proposal itself.
1 Like
Actually, there are a lot of creators who work for free at the moment. Some even view the work they do as a public service and don’t charge projects or teams to be featured and give them a platform to reach the broader community.
Prop 89 did open the door for this, especially it not being led by a collective of content creators rather than a single one.
1 Like
I saw this proposal as taking advantage of prop 89 and don’t have a good motive.
This proposal need to be rework to be accepted for exeple : “title is wrong format”.
Vidéo that you shown dont seem to be educational and most of them talk about others blockhain in the ecosystem.
1 Like
@DonCryptonium I suspect you have done this in sarcasm yet it seems that the vast majority of comments above dont see it that way.
Sad that even blatant joke proposals are met with serious replies.
I love cosmos but this shit is broken.
1 Like
Hey Don , many questions about the structure of your proposal.
So whatever this proposal is ironic , allow you to reach a deeper audience on Twitter or totaly real ( I strongly doubt of this possibility) , i will try to help you define the proposal.
First, my questions
- how this budget will be spend ? How many people will take profit on that budget ?
- can you define your structure, your company ?
- your company have a legal structure? In this case are your going to pay taxes on this amount and are you ready to give us proof of that ?
- those atom will be spend right away against USD or store in a specific wallet ?
- Since you are involved with stargaze chain , how can we be sure of your total objectivity.
- Looking at your recent tweets only , can you say that you are always objective and your goal is only about education ? If not , are you ready to assume this role and get ride of all the “fudding & aggressive” content for the sake of the community?
Secondly, my point of view about education :
Education is not only about content production but also about the way you actually spread the informations from my point of view , your content is not ready to do only this kind of content .
Thirdly , my point of view on how you should make a proposal :
More than create something with a copy pasta , if you really looking to put the emphasis on what’s happened with prop #89 , you should probably produce something that highlights how the last proposal wasn’t clear and why we should do better.
More than that you should probably had done better before posting this proposal.
If you can answer all my questions , I’ll probably take your proposition seriously, until then i won’t .
2 Likes
This is the problem with @cosmicvalidator in that they have opened pandora’s box. As a developer writing smart-contract that benefit gaia, why should I not be awarded funds from the community pool. Surely development is more beneficial than marketing, for without projects, there would be nothing to market.
The root problem is literally anyone can make a claim that their work benefits the ecosystem. The free market is there to determine what beneficial work is actually impactful, and allows the individual to monetize based on their impact.
1 Like
I think that everyone should be free to answer to this proposal as they like: if they think that it can potentially bring value, they will act accordingly, no matter if the starting point was a critique to the system itself. Governance is about respecting each other point of view at the end of the day, which doesn’t mean agree all the time, but see value in others opinion. Let’s stay focused on make suggestions/constructive criticism to the draft proposal submitted rather than try to judge others on why/where they see value that we don’t.
1 Like
We agree on this 
The state of governance is worrying but as someone who generally does not comment here I will now return to my corner.
If you already know how you will vote, why don’t you make some constructive criticisms here. What would Don have to do in order to get your support? How can he modify the prop?
That is the point of using governance forums. Give actionable feedback or get off the forum. I am still trying to make up my mind and this doesn’t help.
These are good questions by Cryptopital. I hope Don will address them.
This conversation may lead to a community criteria for spending community funds on content creator work.
2 Likes
Personally, I enjoy Don’s video a lot, however, I think we should first have a consent on some template or structure about evaluating different education related funding requestment. There would be much more funding requestment similar to this in near future and without fixed evaluation form, it won’t be fair to requestees and to hub, both.
(P.S, as prop #89 passed, I think its very reasonable for every educational content creators like don to request community pool funding.)
1 Like
It would feel odd to me to vote yes on this while your videos are basically the only reason why people delegate to your validator. Basically it’s like paying for what you have to do anyways to get delegations
Would make more sense if you don’t have a validator
1 Like
Well brother, who you are to call me get off? I mean actually who you are? You simply can’t ask someone to get off the forum. That’s not what decentralization means, that’s not how governance works. Learn first how these things works before asking someone to get off the platform. I already addressed what wrong things DON is doin. He should work on that points. The thing he should really work on is, produce quality informative videos, don’t attack community members or persons, stop baseless FUD on projects because maybe some validator is not happy with that project. I already told that why 6000 ATOM never justifies. Actually why no such proposal should exist. But here you’re implying your agenda on me. I get it you love DON doesn’t mean everyone should love what he doing.
1 Like
Agree with the comment @dimiandre made here but beyond that:
Paying a 100k/year salary for a product that can (and should) monetize itself which is not focused on the Hub but on specific chains in the ecosystem you so happen to get an interview with seems like a wrong choice for the cosmos hub community pool.
We will consider voting differently if a creator comes with a proposal dedicated to content around core ATOM development on a community governed channel. Something like splitting ATOM, news overviews, development activity tracking etc from a dedicated side-channel.
1 Like
Thank you I really appreciate it 
2 Likes
Dude you live on some different planet. I barely advertise my validator. Don’t have any support from any foundations unlike cosmic had. Something you have supported. I make no money from videos nor validating yet provide great support to the ecosystem.
1 Like
I like the sarcasm for this thread where it comes from as a starting point. Which also makes me worry though… what keeps literally ALL the other content creators from doing the same?
And what comes after? All the people forking ping.pub to provide an explorer, providing RPC/LCD nodes, or running a local community Telegram chat without members?
I don’t blame @DonCryptonium for starting this chat, by having the precedent set by prop #89. But I would like to use this to call out all validators to actually start caring what they vote and what kind of precendents they set. Because right now validators only treat every proposal as a loose proposal, but simply fail to understand what kind of consequences a certain vote can have. And that is seriously unacceptable for people we are paying to secure our chains and ecosystem. And that goes beyond just creating blocks
Pretty blatantly capitalizing on the fluke of prop 89 passing (barely, and with a massive whale validator inexplicably voting Yes at the last second) mere days ago. I’d hardly call that a “precedent”. Let the free market of YouTube decide if your channel is successful and funded. It’s the middle of a really bad bear market, so I don’t believe this is a wise use of community pool funds.
Would really prefer we shift toward a DAO-like structure for this type of thing (maybe on Neutron w/ DAODAO when that is live). It could be anything, like a “Content Creation DAO”, and any Cosmos-focused content creators could join and possibly be funded for certain initiatives that are deemed worthy at the time.
There are already some prominent educational Cosmos YouTubers, such as Liam and Cryptocito, who aren’t asking for funds (yet), so even if this didn’t smell like a money grab, i’d still be questioning if it’s worth the relatively steep price tag.
Considering the backlash at the prop 89 results, I think it’s pretty clear that this type of request needs a lot of time to breathe, more ideas presented for the funding logistics (like the DAO idea above), etc.
Strong no for me, personally.
1 Like
Omniflix team said in many occasions that they were looking to forming the very first contents dao in cosmos, and I think that considering their quite impressive experience would be great to listen to what they are proposing. I’m looking forward having them as guests of a community call on twitter. Much can be done for the hub creators community, but we should really start setting standards/guidelines
8 Likes