Omniflix is already moving quickly to organize that DAO. I am excited to see what it brings. Also excited to work with other creators.
1 Like
I hope to see some sort of framework and/or DAO specific for these types of proposals. I do see the want for content creators to obviously get paid for the work they put it so I do hope that Omniflix or whoever can push this sooner than later before too many similar funding proposals get put up and cause more friction.
There should be a standard framework and evaluating criteria for funding and not throwing around figures about view count and the sort.
4 Likes
Well, instead of addressing the questions, @DonCryptonium is again attacking us on Twitter. We had a call with P2P in November to discuss some collaborations, and also about Neutron/ICS, and we invited them to review our draft proposal in the forum and provide feedback. Now, @DonCryptonium is sharing his conversation with P2P on Twitter without their knowledge and again attacking us because we had a call with P2P in November. But it is worse than this, @DonCryptonium didnât tag us or P2P so he can attack us and share misinformation without us being aware and able to answer and clarify his attacks
I donât think these are attacks. I think these are reasonable conversations to bring to light. You should have engaged the community on Twitter since you are asking for community funds.
I appreciate that Don opens himself up to scrutiny and is willing to take feedback in forming this proposal. I hope he will keep modifying the prop until the community is getting a clear value in return for the funds he is requesting. Thanks to prop #89, there is precedent for this type of ask. And Donâs prop should pass, although I am not sure how I will vote personally.
Really? He is now continuing his attacks on Twitter claiming that one of our delegators in Juno is apparently according to him âaffiliated with stakefishâ. Firstly, he provided no evidence of this and secondly even if true we werenât aware and anyone is free to delegate as they wish and also this delegator is as well delegating with six other validators.
1 Like
Please letâs all stick to the draft submitted to the community attention without dragging in past proposals/convs that are happening elsewhere. Letâs try to stay focused on constructive feedbacks and possible directions that we can take as whole, there is no win on fighting against each other. If the system seems not on point, letâs work together on reforming it step by step.
From now on, will start removing any non constructive comments/complain about prop 89/Cosmoc Validator from this thread
3 Likes
Somebody that shows a lack of respect with a very repressive message towards female persons should never be in a position to educate a community like cosmos, I have nothing personal against this individual who call him/her/it self cryptonium but I do hardly believe that our community must be based on respect, and someone who behaves like him/she/it should never represent our values and what we are looking for, in another hand I see an epidemic of opportunist âcontent creatorsâ coming to ask for money as it already happens in last proposal. This is a huge risk for cosmos ecosystem if we donât stop it now. If anyone want me to post one of those aggressive tweets of Cryptonium pls let me know.
2 Likes
Why donât we critique the prop to stay on topic and if you have an issue with Twitter, then reply over there to Don.
As I wrote ânothing personalâ I should exercise my right to express my self regarding to this âeducation fundingâ topic as a holder, staker, active user, voter so on and so for, Itâs relevant to process some truths about individuals who aim to be an educational source. But beyond the engineer youtuber influencer so on and so for we must also be aware of the person behind the avatar. Itâs what makes Cosmos-ecosystem different from others. (the people) Is not a critique but an observation of behavior should not be normalized or minimized to just address in Tweeter.
2 Likes
Don Cryptonium: Your Twitter posts are incredibly unprofessional, you attack people outright verbally. Not once have I seen the level of aggression out of Cosmic Validator. As much as Iâd like to see a community member non-validator receive funding, you are not the product fit for funding. You are too volatile and harsh with your Twitter posts. I will be advocating every chance I get to encourage a No vote.
2 Likes
No: the prop is DON! It is his behavior that is absolutely unacceptable. Why should we as a community support our community bank on someone who attacks and uses vulgar language to other cosmonauts? Is that really the voice we want to fund? Donâs harsh and insensitive and even attacking tweets are absolutely the reason Iâm here voicing my concern about using community funds to pay him. I donât think he deserves community funding based solely on his incredibly abusive and insensitive tweets. He is absolutely a non-professional in a field that deserves a paid professional.
2 Likes
No with veto is the appropriate vote.
2 Likes
If we refer to normal youtube ads fees, itâs around 1$ for 1000 views. The videos you propose are doing around 500/1000 views so a fair salary for 10 videos should be around 10$, and even 10x would then be 100$
And in general I agree it doesnât have its place here, itâs just normal Youtube work and itâs rewarded with the Youtube growth/visibility etc
2 Likes
I fully support for your opinion about this Proposals since is important for all our social media channel.
Can someone ELI5 on whats going on here? Started to read. Seemed all good. Then started to fight. What on space is happening here?
For what I have read the standard âI donât care about the essence of the proposal, but will attack the proposer insteadâ-story