Discontinue future Funding of Cosmic Validator Content

Hub Proposals
21

Would definitely support that prop.

I initially was against #89 for reasons already mentioned in the forum’s discussion.

We are 2 months past the grant, way out of the benefit of the doubt zone. Yet the quality of the video did not improve at all.
They show 0 motivation or real efforts to develop and advertise their channel, to listen to the feedbacks regarding the editing of the videos.

Some could argue it’s hard to develop a channel and I could agree with that, but it does not take much effort to listen to feedbacks and improved videos’s quality if they are TRUELY part of your projects and objectives.

If you are driven by what you stand for, what you are doing you really don’t take that much of a time just to figure out the basics of audio engineering given that you already have the funds prior to have a successful channel.

tho I have to say that the language mistakes argument makes no sense. Most of Cosmonauts are not born in an English speaking country, nobody should attack someone for something they improve on day after day.

I also feel like the content of this prop should be to stop the future fundings but should not say anything regarding them stopping the videos.
If that’s something they genuinely wanted to do perhaps they will continue their work and one day go big. I was more than open to fund specific videos that’d require more funds than usual with high value for the community.

2 Likes
22

Lets be grown up and practical about this: low quality content AND PERSONAL ATTACKS (I dont care who makes them) are harmfull to cosmos. Anybody can make any content they like on their channel so asking for not making videos anymore is impossible.
I suggest to keep it strickly:
yes - cosmos hub does NOT provide any further funding to Cosmic Validator to make videos on behalve of cosmos hub
no - cosmos hub continues to provide funding for the next/last bach of videos
abstain - no opinion but contributing to quorum
no with veto - you dissaprove this proposal and with the deposit funds for this proposal to be confiscated.

To all participants: Please stop bickering and keep the discussion professional/ constructive. We all have the shared goal/interest of making the cosmos hub thrive, grow and a healthy place to develop/contribute.

Just put up a clean proposal. The cosmos hub is capable and mature enough to decide if they deam the quality of the produced content good enough for further funding or not.

4 Likes
23

I agree that these videos are poor quality and poor value for money, and that the incentives should be taken away. However, I don’t agree that they are harmful to Cosmos, I think Don’s videos are more harmful.

24

Any proofs for your claims when it comes to the “big group of cosmonauts”? The quality can be improved, I agree, but claiming they (CV team) are negatively impacting Cosmos ecosystem is exxagerating. What I think IS negatively impacting Cosmos, is your childish trolling and hating. Really, look at the mirror, dude. Smh…

25

You’re totally entitled to that opinion. Since he isn’t receiving any funding from the hub the hub doesn’t really get a say in his work.

Personally I like his content but you’re not the first person to say that to me.

26

This is why it was placed on forum. Probably it will just request discintinuation of future funding for cosmic validator.

1 Like
27

@DonCryptonium, You still working on this prop or leave it and further funding for next batch goes through without community say?

28

First off, thank you Cryptonium for initiating this post. With that said, this prop honestly sounds like a personal gripe w/ a hint of ego.

Neither parties, CosmicValidator + DonCryptonium, should have received funding during this chapter of Cosmos Hub $ATOM’s community pool, respectfully. I think both parties are doing a decent job with the content their pushing, but we’re treating $ATOM as MONEY here with this type of childish proposal.

All this would be solved by focusing on drafting/completing our COLLECTIVE values, via ATOM ONE constitution, to rid such nonsensical types of discussions on the already crowded Cosmos Forum.

29

Don’s got a pretty large ego.

Love him still.

2 Likes
30

Atom One constitution is everything but collective.

edit : if a constitution is needed, it should emerge from a collective effort/brainstorming/work. Not from a guru.

2 Likes
31

I dont care about egos etc. Everybody, Pls keep that out of this discussion.

I just wanted to know very practically if after the first batch (six months/12 videos) Cosmos Hub wants to fund the next batch of videos at the cost of an other 1800 ATOM. That is all.

1 Like
32

At the end of the day, we are collectively here. “Family,” don’t always have to get along, but we’re all blood (digitally) here. So all respect to both parties, Cryptonium and Cosmic.

@tom, Yes! 100% agreed that it should emerge from a collective effort, however, most seem to be (understandably) more concerned about their own motives/agendas. Human nature of taking things for granted, I guess. At the very least, thankful Jae kwon initiated the working draft.

@Pookybear (lol great name btw) I would personally discontinue. AT LEAST until the Cosmos Hub $ATOM tokenomics have been fleshed out, because again, $ATOM is NOT money (queue reminder for $PHOTONS - but personally would go w/ a different ticker ID), and the current inflation rate is harmful for the “avg.” cosmonaut.

Appreciate yallz comment/engagement. Long live our ecosystem.

33

Following today’s new Cosmic validator video. TBH this proposal is still valid. In retrospect, I think we can see that these videos don’t do good for the cosmos hub; the number of views is stable or even declining, and it’s really not what you’d expect for $16 or $20K. The mediocrity of the production contributes to the low-cost image of our ecosystem, and that’s not a good thing.

  • At the very least, we’re entitled to ask you for a few metrics to prove to us that these funds have had an impact.
4 Likes