Already done, but without your support we will not resurrect Cosmos
We will lose everything
You will see ATOM by 2, after by 1,5, after by 1…
This is what we get without marketing, and with separatist possition of Cosmos Labs
If we will not attract buyers - we will see only constant falling down
I have read some retarded things in my day, but god DAMN this wins.
3 Likes
NWV - absolutely useless waste of the CP money which will have no impact
3 Likes
You failed with educational content and now you want to try yourself at marketing, with CP money of course. Your examples of advertising content are cringe. Bribing voters is complete nonsense.
1 Like
This just further radicalized me to want to burn the community pool. No. lol
5 Likes
No, it would be a mistake ! Community just has to be very carefull with CP spending. No more.
1 Like
Given the early feedback from community members and several validator teams, we strongly encourage you to withdraw this proposal. On behalf of the Govmos contributors and the PRO Delegators validator, we cannot support it as well.
That said, we appreciate that you chose to present the idea on the forum before taking it on-chain. Even when a proposal receives significant criticism and is ultimately abandoned, it highlights the importance of this space as a first filter for assessing what is viable and what is not. It also reinforces the need for a clearer governance framework to formalize these expectations and processes.
If you are interested, we would be glad to see you participate in that broader effort.
We plan to proceed with this proposal after passing the one we currently draft on the Validator Operation Agreement, so stay tuned in the forum.
6 Likes
After further consideration, we will be recommending that the ICF remove Posthuman validator from the upcoming iteration of the ICF delegation program.
Bribery of validators amounts to a usurpation of governance that should be taken seriously to ensure that no situation like the outcome of proposal 69 occurs again. Foundation delegations should not accrue to validators who act in their own self-interest or attempt to exert undue control over governance outcomes. Foundation delegations are a privilege, not a right.
As of today, three validators technically qualify for the upcoming program but will be removed for discretionary reasons:
- Skip: Removed for misrepresentation in their validator moniker
- Kiln (legacy - please redelegate): Removed at the validator’s request
- POSTHUMAN
StakeDrop: Removed for validator bribery
We will continue to monitor validator activity for cases that warrant removal from the delegation program, and reserve the right to make such recommendations to the ICF as these cases arise.
11 Likes
Proposal #952:
After that proposal, we can recomend to don’t have any deals with corruption scheemes of ICF, because you can go under the judgment together with them
If I have to testify in court against IСF, I will provide a lot of evidences
Also, where is admins?
Why @RoboMcGobo post in the topic about proposal information that is totally not about topic?
Is it normal practice of centralized forums?
Everything is cool when you get money.
Everything is bad when you don’t get money.
The pattern is as obvious as it can be.
Thank you, that you tell us about your patterns, but we are here not to speak about you
Please, write here about a topic, not about yourself
Okay.
Why did you list validators without consent?
Also, where is admins?
Why Posthuman post in the topic about proposal information that is totally not about topic?
Is it normal practice of centralized forums?
Why Posthuman postings names of validators without their approval and being aggressive to other people here?
If I have to testify in court against PHMN, I will provide a lot of evidences
I’ll try de-escalating the situation and returning the conversation back to the original topic
From what I’ve understood the proposal is talking about having a committee consisting of 2 parts: a DAO group with responsibilities a bit similar to AADAO or Neutron Grant Foundation and a selected subset of validators that are also a part of the “resurrection” through active governance participation.
For the vision to work the committee must get a boost in the voting power. This is a specific nature of the proposal and I think it’s a bit unfair to be addressing this as bribery this aggressively. If you use the same logic, you can also throw this one under the same bus.
At the moment the governance is undergoing through a serious participation problem. Most of the validators aren’t active and almost every single proposal is struggling to reach the quorum. Talking about usurpation is a bit dramatic with the current status quo in my opinion
It’s probably for the best to take the conversation about delegation program to another topic to keep this digestible but I think there was a bit of overreaction due to misunderstanding + conclusions being made in haste. The members of the DAO group haven’t been discussed yet but it’s already assumed the proposal is about personal benefits
Moreover, I think there is some vision overlap between @RoboMcGobo and @Antropocosmist. I struggle to see how the mechanism for gaining voting power and the mentioned Yield generation aren’t the same thing (staking CP funds)
As for the list of the validators my assumption is that there was at least partial agreement / approval of the proposed ideas but there was a misalignment / misunderstanding about the final look of the proposal
2 Likes
It IS bribery no matter how you try to turn it. Validators not being super active in these times isn’t an excuse .
Community pool funds especially shouldn’t be used to buy votes / pay validators.
2 Likes
Bribery is your activity here. You are bought by Cosmos Labs, and your opinion is bought
We want to use CP funds to delegate to validators, and to founding marketing, enthusiasts and developers
When socialist party tell: Vote for us, and workers will get bigger payment - this is not bribery
When capitalist party tell: Vote for us, and enterprenurs will get more funding - this is not bribery
We are party of validators, developers and enthusiasts
Vote for Cosmos Resurrection Committee, and validators, developers and enthusiasts will get delegation and founding
To buy votes - it\s when I pay tosomebody in advance
And we don’t pay to nobody
These are our election promises to support those who will support the Committee.
Just like any DAO promises to support validators and developers.
Now you’re writing some nonsense about bribery, solely because Cosmos Labs pays your salary.
And this is further proof of the irrational use of funds.
Cosmos Labs received funds from ICF, which they now use to pay private trolls who stand in the way of Cosmos’s development.
People like you are traitors to Cosmos and should be publicly expelled.
Unfortunately, the forum has now been taken over by the occupying forces of decentralization, represented by ICF, which the community doesn’t trust.
And for some ridiculous reason, discussions of proposals must be held on a centralized forum, where the admin is a representative of ICF, whom we don’t trust.
This is completely absurd.
The ICF delegation program is literally ‘bribery of validators’ 
3 Likes
What I was saying is that there is a specific technical need that the funds are being requested for. It’s not an arbitrary “vote for my proposal and I’ll give you X”. Call it what you want but there is a difference between the two and I simply wanted to highlight it. I think tying the committee validators to the “yes” voters is what making this controversial, so perhaps it can be chosen differently somehow.
This is misrepresentation of the objective. Paying validators for additional responsibilities has been one of the main use cases historically. In any case payments have never been brought up in this discussion.
The assumption that it’s a temporary issue is not correct. On the contrary, it’s persistent and it’s getting worse and worse over time. It’s related to the problem being addressed in the Nakamoto Coefficient proposal I had linked
At the moment there is ~28% of the voting power held by validators that have never voted on any of the proposals. There are also validators that have participated a few times only and in practice also don’t participate. They together make up around 42% of the total voting power that is never being used. The 2 biggest validators hold 16.87% and 5.94% respectively and their shares are only getting bigger due to how PoS algorithm works.
Due to this issue the quorum of 40% is now effectively ~69% (40 / 58). This is the primary reason every single proposal including the ongoing one are struggling with getting enough votes
According to the given proposal the VP boost for the committee of validators coming from staked 1M $ATOM is a mere ~0.36% . I guess it’s enough to dismiss the usurpation argument. Additionally, when the funds are distributed across a big set of validators a potential financial incentive ends up being so insignificant that it hardly can persuade anyone
1 Like