IDEATION : Governance Councils & Treasury Modules

Conversation Governance Meta
41

Jesus how long are you going to keep that bullshit going on ? You know what a research paper is, this thing is PDF meant to express research we made on the matter, and it is a “paper”… You can’t be serious with your allegation; Anyway you can keep focussing on 2 words mentioned just once in the paper (and I acknowledge that I should have been more careful on choosing these and never use them both one after the other). OR you can help this ideation move forward instead of wasting both of our time.

NO ONE in here has shared research paper in a scientific form… so what the hell is going with you targeting all your messages in this forum to this particular topic (literally 7/7). I would easily defend that this is smthg personal regarding the words you choose. Idk who you are, but your activity here seems only target to me; Which I suggest you stop now and bring some ideation to the table, otherwise I’ll start ignoring your messages like I would do with regular twitter trolls.

1 Like
42

I actually agree that this “paper” lacked of potential sources to back some claims. For my defense, I focussed my time on detailing why with the next pages. The first page was just a rough extract explaining the context of those researches. I thought page 2 would answer that question but maybe this wasn’t clear enough. This is the first paper I ever written. I’m a doer, not a writer. But I had to do this in order to have a seat at the table here. I was expecting people to be gentle. This clearly wasn’t the case. I’m much better at explaining ideations orally but that’s not the accepted form here. If it is, then I’ll be pleased to record a video update on that paper explaining all the thought process involved and the depth there is behind it to scale over time.

I did my best and I wasn’t expecting a cheer, but certainly not being taken non-seriously just because I couldn’t spend more time making a whole scientific backed research. Anyway I just went through the timeline of events here and I’d like to apologize, my answers to you have been rude, but your message wasn’t as tainted as Cosmos_Biais. And I’ve been harsh to you mostly because of how he pissed me off with his messages. You have been kind of squeezed in the middle even though you point was right. My labeling in the paper could have been better chosen to avoid leading people to believe I pretended to offer a scientific research paper. Which wasn’t the case.

1 Like
43

Your text explicitly mentions that it is a research paper but you indicate that it is not: curious to contradict yourself so many times or to not master simple concepts. But so be it, I will comment on your rag as I go along.

“While the early feedback has been quite negative (and understandably so)” : this sounds familiar.

“It is not a social instrument, it is a purely economic application that sometimes require some social coordination to function properly” : Can you source this statement ? On the basis of which work do you base this statement? This is the origin of your work and it happens that it is not based on anything tangible. I have never been able to see that this is the accepted definition of a blockchain.

“Therefore our standpoint is that we must solve to the governance problem with an
economically viable solution”: You haven’t defined the problem you claim to solve. And the introduction of the notion of economically viable solution is not justified and therefore one can legitimately conclude - as I wrote in my first message - that this work invents a problem to bring a crazy answer.

“First of all, there can’t be a single Governing Concil”: Why? What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof.

“they must compete between each other to bring economic value to the chain”: Why? What does this have to do with the value of a chain and the formation of councils? What is affirmed without proof can be denied without proof

“Others would delegate their liquid staked tokens via the treasury to different competing councils”: This sentence makes no sense, you do not master the concept of liquid staking.

“We will explore these in greater details through the paper” : Where?

“the treasury has to be a neutral entity” : Why? According to whom? On the basis of what? Neutral to what?

“bad actors would inevitably emerge but the economic implication of token collateral shall remove them over time” : What are the sources that allow you to assert this ?

“will allow governance to flow via IBC as seemlessly as any other type of content;
allowing the governance to evolve into a more complex mesh-like cooperating system.” This sentence doesn’t make sense. I had to reread it 5 times and it makes absolutely no sense, you use words without mastering them and you put them together in a sentence thinking that it is a deep thought. It is not.

So much for the first page of your “research paper that is actually not a research paper”. I can go on, but it sets the tone for the rest: you assert without proof many things and the lack of sources to support your statements makes them totally unintelligible.

Should I continue?

2 Likes
44

Nope, I decided to ignore you. I think I have got to understand your profile now. I should have just looked at the data provided on your profile here. You’re a troll, and you definitely came here just for me :wink: So you can keep spitting around. I won’t read you anymore

1 Like
45

I understand that you feel compelled to run away from the conversation that is totally out of your hands.

1 Like
46

[Moderator]

This conversation has run its course and is no longer bringing up new ideas or feedback. Let’s leave it here and refrain from any more personal accusations.

3 Likes
47

Thank you very much for this intervention; It has run out of hands and I wish this kind of unappropriated participation could have been moderated earlier. The overall conversation would have been more constructive

2 Likes
48

just want to point out the fact that validator cartels have set a scam laden tone with prop89 passing. vividly illustrating the fact that validators cant govern in the interest of the chain. so long as validator quid pro quo enables validators to pay themselves with community spending props, the cosmos will stand a better chance of death than making it into the top 10. I hope others wont let stakefish and cosmic validator forget the damage they have done to the cosmos.

3 Likes