If that voting power was never used (the 42% you mentioned), then it makes no sense to talk about it, because it won’t be used in the future either. Meanwhile, you need to remember that there are a few CEX validators who never vote on proposals, and all these CEX validators have huge VP compared to others. But again, since they never vote, it doesn’t really matter.
However, what does really matter is the fact that the PHMN validator is trying to abuse the governance system by speculating with delegations. Moreover, aside from PHMN’s manipulations, we also need to acknowledge that he is calling all validators who oppose his “brilliant” idea scoundrels and henchmen of ICL. I wish we all spoke the same language so everyone could understand what he says about others on his streams and in his chats — thankfully, I have friends who share and translate it.
I see where you’re coming from, but to my knowledge you apply for the delegation program with your contributions. That’s like funding programs for organizations who have contributED public goods.
This right here is a pay check for clicking yes.
Paid with tax money of stakers.
We are talking about community pool funds. Idk if you have to catch up, but even 1.5 mil for Stargaze has been considered a crucial amount by many.
Community pool funds should be used to bring value to the hub, and they have historically failed to do so.
How’s that committees work look like? Scrolling through instagrams influencers and deciding which one will be approached to shill Atom?
It would be more honest to elect people for such a job, people who have a background in marketing. Rather than giving those ‚the responsibility‘ to do that because they voted yes (which gave them $$ in delegation before any work was done).
To your previous comment:
„ 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“
Does this look professional to you? Posthuman has a record of unprofessionalism - see his previous proposal in which he asks for money because his math was bad. Then check the follow up forum post in which he tries to go after forum trolls - which by his own definition are people who disagree with him.
Sounds odd?
You have a receipt in this very thread, in which he accuses me of being paid by CL, which is spectacularly ironic given that he’s willing to pay validators who vote yes.
That rant is only to demonstrate that you can’t expect professionalism from this proposal.
I’d agree if it wasn’t for the fact that they aren’t ignored by the on-chain governance processes. Because of this proposals having overwhelming support of the community are still barely getting passed. Check the Token Factory one for example. There are many implications to this like risk of the deposit getting burned, builders having confidence and being able to do long-term planning etc
I want to be honest and impartial as much as possible and gonna tell straight away that I haven’t grasped the whole picture myself. The assumption I got is that the activity is meant to be happening through both Daodao and the native governance mechanism. The latter requires addressing the highlighted problem and making delegations is a way to address it
In my opinion it’s an ambiguous situation: On one hand it’s meant for the committee with certain responsibilities, on another doing selection based on a specific vote is questionable.
It’s clear that you guys have a personal beef and some history going on with the proposal maker. As a sidenote I want to point out that both of you didn’t really go with neutral language feedback. I’m puzzled with what you were expecting to receive in response and also why you take such an offence in the work for CL
However I have absolutely zero interest in reading more of your personal matters and I think many will agree with me on that. The conversation needlessly went into personal right from the beginning and the body of the proposal was barely discussed
We would get there but some of us were really preoccupied with their vendetta. Nothing is stopping you from becoming a volunteer and making sure the funds are spent wisely.
Discussing this would only become relevant once there is a proposed of him being a member of the committee DAO. We didn’t even get until that part. What you posted didn’t negate what I said whatsoever. We don’t have a clear definition of the committee here. The on-chain part indicate that being in favor of the proposal make you a part of it. I am not saying that I find this to be an ideal way to go but by this definition supporting the idea of a group for marketing purposes make you a committee member
I believe that was exactly the plan for the proposed DAO structure
This is reasonable ask and I’d personally rather go for this as well
This proposal literally says that it is giving the staking part (+rewards) back in case of unsuccessful operation. The money needs to be used as investment, to experiment, to fund potential revenue-bringeres. Sitting idle on it forever isn’t a smart straregy
[quote=“kromsten, post:45, topic:16415”]
I believe that was exactly plan for the proposed DAO structur
Funny enough his requirements perfectly fit to what he thinks about himself.
What kind of a reaction do you expect from a half baked proposal that spent more thought on how much money it seeks than what and who judges the quality of the work done. Was there a mention of an oversight?
I called it bribe and grift because this is what it is, the vast majority of people agree with me. So where do I get personal? For sharing my opinion? Let’s see what ChatGPT says:
And now you’re lying. You’ve already received a response regarding the validators. I’m chatting in your centralized Telegram, where you’re behaving extremely inappropriately
You need to calm down, have some tea, and we’ll talk when you’re calm. Conversing with her while you’re hysterical is pointless; you don’t understand anything anyway
@RoboMcGobo - this person is a member of the ICF, but the community doesn’t trust the ICF by Proposal #952 - why Cosmos forum is moderated by person who we can’t trust?
He’s also been embezzling funds from the Osmosis community for several years now!
This person paid $100,000 for the production of 10 videos that were screen captures.
Because of @RoboMcGobo the price of OSMO dropped so dramatically.
The ICF engaged in irrational spending, which led to the proposal of mistrust of their activities.
On what basis are people involved in corrupt activities still administering the Cosmos forum?
And now the ICF is paying Cosmos Labs to ward off the threat. In other words, Cosmos Labs is receiving corrupt money, and with this money they finance the hysterics of the private trolls @StunZeed , who are throwing tantrums and attacking Cosmos contributors
This is not a just red flag, this is coumminist demonstaration
Can you provide any proof of your words—like receipts, transactions, or anything? You’re always saying something bad about everyone and everything, but you never provide any evidence. Same as on the other side — you’re always talking great about yourself, but where is your portfolio of successful projects? Oh, sorry, I forgot — you’ve never completed a single successful project - you always only asking for money, but never showed anything worth it
This your message alone contain more value than half of the discussion here. It literally addresses the points that you find missing or not addressed properly. Despite the tone it’s for the most part more respectful than most of what’s been before. Didn’t understand the second sentence though (nor want
While you can make am argument about a bribe being a valid neutral assumption, the grift shows it was personal earlier than that
My intent here wasn’t to teach anyone morals. Nor do I consider myself having rights for that. I’m simply an engineer who likes to see things getting better. In this case CosmosHub specifically. I might be wrong but I don’t think everyone here has the same objective in mind
Nevertheless it was nice to see a smaöö sign of improvement. Imma head out for a while and leave you all to it
The vast majority in here thinks the proposal is shit.
We see another episode of baseless accusations.
We also see him twist things:
here he lies to his community that those validators that said they don’t want anything to do with his proposal (cito, everstake) were on board but then icl started pressuring them and they got scared and revoked their participation agreement https://youtu.be/Lo6Hl3x5QNw?si=r7BGjo8HcY_DIGlT&t=2705
Sir, I would very much like you to hear me out before you proceed with ICF to exclude the POSTHUMAN validator.
Let’s look at this proposal from a different angle. You will probably agree with me if we talk about facts, right?
The POSTHUMAN validator has done and continues to do tremendous work with the community, which speaks to his merits to everyone living in the COSMOS ecosystem. You probably already know all this. The main task of the forum is to discuss proposals and make adjustments, offer your views, and generally take the initiative to propose ideas. That’s true, don’t you agree?
I disagree on some points, so I believe that, overall, this proposal needs to be revised, but you want to deprive someone who has devoted all their time to the ecosystem of their rights for their contributions.
If we consider the fact that online casinos profit from ordinary users for their own benefit—and their scheme is actually quite simple and profitable—I will now explain it in more detail:
A casino makes a deal with bloggers on platforms such as YouTube, Twitch, and others. The bloggers simply play in the casino publicly in front of their audience, and this scheme works. So what if we take this idea into consideration? It’s always easy to criticize someone, but we also need to be able to offer alternatives.
I think we can all agree that at this point , cosmos Atom actually needs sustained marketing, the question is, which is the best approach to use or combine together to achieve much needed impact
I think this proposal is poorly constructed—messy and chaotic. I genuinely don’t see how this committee of influencers and validators plans to responsibly distribute such a large amount of money in any efficient way. Especially coming from Antropocosmist, who has always struck me as disorganized, unprofessional, and ineffective. All this money will simply be distributed poorly, with no tangible impact beyond a handful of Twitter KOL warriors moving air in a completely dried-out CT environment. At this point, I see those supporting this proposal as scavengers interested only in free money.
As others have stated, I would much prefer to see a quote from a professional team operating in this field, with clear KPIs and defined objectives. And for a pilot test, the requested amount should be drastically lower than what is being proposed here.
Looking at this with a clear head, this proposal is trying to treat the symptoms instead of the underlying condition. Cosmos doesn’t suffer from a lack of noise. It suffers from a lack of tangible reasons for builders and users to stay. No marketing campaign, no matter how flashy, can fix that.
Marketing without real adoption is a megaphone pointed at an empty square. You can spark short term excitement, maybe generate a wave of hype, but you can’t replace actual value. What we need first are live applications, active developers, good tooling, and user experiences that demonstrate why Cosmos matters in practice. The tech is here, but it needs real world expression, not slogans.
If the ecosystem becomes strong, marketing can amplify it. If the ecosystem stays fragile, marketing will only create more noise and unrealistic expectations. Funds should go toward strengthening the core, not decorating the shell.
In short, we don’t need an aggressive marketing campaign. We need proof that this ecosystem is worth building on. That’s the foundation; everything else is cosmetic.
If this ever reaches the chain as a proposal, it’s a No with veto from me.
