Jeez peeps. This thread sounds like the IRS trying to investigate 650 USD of each US citizen in comparison to bank loans and shi*… I mean let the guys do the videos =)
I voted no.
I don’t see why you think this is something that the community should be funding. This is something that you should be funding with the commission from your validator. I think it is pretty unreasonable to think that you deserve 300 ATOM a month for a channel that has ~400 subscribers and few views.
I also think it is problematic that a validator is producing mid content, making a proposal to have the community fund it, then vote on it using your own stake/delegation.
I would hope this doesn’t pass.
6 Likes
Despite our initial Yes vote, we continue to have our reservations against this proposal.
We think your (Cosmic Validator) approach is interesting and certainly shows effort, however:
- The amount requested does not have spending breakdowns
- We would be more supportive of a $500 to $1500 “support budget”
- It isn’t clear whether this level of funding matches the current market environment.
- We would find your content equally as informative even if it was filmed with a mobile phone at a park bench without animations.
Funding each additional video creator in a new gov prop is NOT the structure we want to encourage.
We would be interested in first allocating a Cosmos Hub video creators budget, then make a mechanism to allocate the budget to creators within that budget (perhaps on a month-to-month basis for new projects, then quarterly after 6 months of funding).
For example, a $2500-5000/month cosmos hub video budget, then allocate budgets from $100 up to $1000 for multiple creators. Do that for 3 months and adjust.
This will also provide a starting framework from which we can accommodate all further requests from every aspiring youtube star who will want to follow in these footsteps.
If the Cosmos Hub can’t agree to allocate a general video budget and put it under the right management structure, it’s harder to see how allocating to one particular creator was the “right choice”.
1 Like
Hi 0xQuintin,
Thanks for sharing your opinion and feedback.
-We respect your decision but that is your individual opinion, currently in the proposal the majority of individual votes are supporting the proposal, so the community does indeed wants to support our proposal
-We voted ‘abstain’ in the proposal, it seems from your statement that you are suggesting that we voted yes in our own proposal which is false.
Hi Chill_Validation, many thanks for joining the discussion and your detailed feedback, here are the answers:
-Regarding the amount requested, before the proposal was put on-chain for voting, in general the feedback received was that the amount was reasonable. The estimation was done as mentioned on the proposal including the research and work to prepare all the content, the filming and required equipment, and the video design and then additionally releasing as well twitter thread and blogpost versions of the videos, sharing in the different platforms and engaging with the community, listening and implementing the feedback after every video, new projects like the upcoming twitter video threads with shorter clips covering some educational/in-depth assessments in previous videos among other additional costs.
-Our twitter threads and blogpost versions of the videos are equally informative also, however we want to produce the videos with high quality, we think this is important.
-Each content creator or anyone can put a draft proposal in the forum and then decide to put the proposal on-chain. This doesn’t mean that governance/community will approve every proposal.
-Your comment about the Cosmos Hub video creators budget is actually the Interchain Media DAO that Sistla is leading. However, some mentioned that while this would be ideal in the Cosmos Hub, the tooling is still not ready for this in the Hub, and hence presenting a proposal for governance to request funds from the Community pool was suggested as the best approach. It was also discussed that this proposal could help pave the way for other content creators to get support as well from the Community pool.
Thanks again for your feedback and for participating in a constructive discussion.
1 Like
If we can blindly hand over chunks of tokens to your team with zero oversight, we don’t see why we can’t do the same for a DAO of 1-3 people and ask them to run an excel sheet + wordpress/wix.
For on-chain, there’s an entire EVM chain, multiple CosmWasm chains. It should be technically possible to use DaoDao on Juno or deploy any one of many DAO Voting Clones on Evmos. We can even fork DaoDao and apply different branding and deploy on Chihuahua. Wonder what Sistla is being held up by.
1 Like
Hi Chill_Validation,
Thanks for the reply, the funds will be to cover the costs to produce 12 Cosmos ecosystem news videos during a period of 6 months as mentioned in the proposal. Therefore, there will be oversight since you will see each new video being released as well as the continuous improvements which we have been doing since the first video by listening to all the community feedback that we receive after each video.
1 Like
Hello everyone.
I am a fellow content creator and I understand how difficult it is to make quality videos. I have made over 100 videos, repurpose the content, and interact with the community based around said content. While the monetary cost is low, the time cost for producing, improving, delivering, and getting eyes on these videos is likely close to 1,000 hours of work.
I am qualified to weigh in on this prop with experience and new information. Votes up to this point have been done so prematurely.
Right now my vote is “abstain” for several reasons:
- the community is already getting Cosmos-themed content for free
- the community is not asking for more content
- lack of oversight and accountability in the proposal
- lack of community involvement in the process
- it is unclear how being a validator is related to content creation
- validators appear to be rubber stamping props to pay each other with community funds
- the “no” choice is worded deceptively (possibly not intentional)
- Most important: Lack of Channel Data
Let’s focus on the missing data, which is easily obtained by Cosmic Validator but not shared publicly. For example, YouTube supplies analytics to content creators so that they can see how their videos are actually received. creators can see this for each video and for the channel as a whole. However, the public can only see “number of views” for each video, however this is not a reliable indicator, as most of those views are accidental clicks or misclicks due to the nature of the thumbnail. Most views are only a few seconds, as the missing data will surely prove.
I am requesting that Cosmic Validator team share the following:
1- The % of viewers still watching after 30 seconds for each video
2- Average watch time for each video (%)
3- Watch time for each video (hours)
4- Top traffic sources (YouTube search, twitter, ads etc.)
5- Total watch data for the channel
6- Other channels watched by subscribers
This should allow the community to decide properly and will likely convert some of the “abstain” votes to a more decisive position on Prop 89, giving a true outcome that the community can use as a precedent.
4 Likes
Hi CosmosJoe,
Many thanks for joining the discussion and sharing your feedback, this is much more constructive that your recent frequent “trolling” and attacking on Twitter. Here are the answers to your concerns:
-Can you please let us know other youtube channels producing Cosmos ecosystem news videos consistently, with that type of specific format for the content/video design? We mean organised by sections, focused sections of some projects, in-depth educational assessments, with blogpost/twitter threads versions of the videos, etc. We would love if there are others and we would be watching their episodes.
-In June this year, before launching the project, we did polls on Twitter and Telegram for the community and there was a high demand, as evidenced in the polls results, for consistent and high quality Cosmos ecosystem news videos. Therefore, your claim that the community is not asking for more content is not accurate based on the results of these polls.
-There is oversight, because the deliverables are 12 Cosmos ecosystem news videos over a period of 6 months, so you will be able to see each new video being released, as well as the blogpost and twitter threads versions.
-Before putting the proposal on-chain, the draft proposal was here in the forum for community discussion and involvement for several weeks. Moreover, we also shared on Twitter the link to the draft proposal for the community to provide feedback and in our latest video we also mentioned the draft proposal, and included the link and asked the community to provide feedback.
-Why can’t validators be content creators and produce quality content? Validators fully focused on the Cosmos ecosystem like us have good knowledge about Cosmos tech and projects and therefore can produce quality content. Also, we have been helping to test Interchain Security in the Game of Chains being high in the rankings, and this is despite having additional costs and needing additional resources to participate which has been a challenge for us being a small validator. Moreover, I think validators like us who have been supporting Cosmos for years, before the Cosmos Hub launch or the Game of Stakes deserve a bit more respect, and I think we have a good understanding of the Cosmos ecosystem to produce good content, at least not worse than some who recently join the ecosystem in the last bull run.
-You claim that ‘validators appear to be rubber stamping props to pay each other with community funds’, what evidence or data do you have to support this claim?
-About the wording of the voting options, since this has already been discussed and explained several times above in the discussion, this seems to indicate that you didn’t take the time to read the full previous discussion before sharing your feedback.
-Our youtube channel is new, launched earlier this year. You previously claimed yourself on Twitter that for new channels all those metrics are not so relevant, and now you contradict yourself and ask a detailed list of many metrics. Moreover, as mentioned previously we are not focused on growing super fast, instead we are focused on producing high quality content/video design and growing organically. It seems that you are requesting this data to continue your “trolling attacks” on Twitter. The full proposal is above with links included with several examples of in-depth educational assessments in some of the videos. Based on the content of the proposal, voters are analysing the information, reviewing the videos and making a decision. So far, the overall majority of individual votes are YES, hence there seems to be a consensus within the Community about this proposal.
Instead of trying to troll and fight on Twitter, which we are avoiding since we prefer constructive discussions with education above all, why don’t you work on a draft proposal to support your Cosmos related videos and share it here on the forum? We would love to review it and share feedback and we would be happy if governance/community supports your proposal. Also, when we started the youtube channel you were really supportive and sharing our Cosmos ecosystem news videos, and now suddenly because of this proposal all this trolling/attacking? Anyway, it is great that you have decided to share your feedback here so there can be constructive discussions.
1 Like
I have not trolled or attacked you at all. I never said validators can’t make content and I never said content creators should not get paid from community funds. If you don’t want to respond on Twitter, that is your choice. This seems to be the official forum so I’m happy to address the prop here.
To clarify: I am looking for very simple metrics that YouTube provides. This would make the case for the abstain voters to decide one way or another.
I do not believe the data is an indicator of how successful YT is at onboarding newcomers, but it is certainly a good indication of how people are interacting with your specific content content. This data should probably have been volunteered early in the process when you put a specific price tag on your work.
Also, there is no consensus within the community. Only about 25% have voted (half of those voted to abstain) according to mint scan.
3 Likes
Hi CosmosJoe,
Thanks for your reply, here are our answers:
-We have to disagree but there has been constant trolling and attacking on Twitter for the last few days and you have been part of this also, we are glad that we finally can have constructive discussions here in the forum.
-You said ‘it is unclear how being a validator is related to content creation’ so this sounds like you mean validating and creating content shouldn’t be related, hence that validators shouldn’t be content creators also.
-Twitter is not good for governance discussions, there is a character limit and tweets get lost quickly, that’s what the Forum is for and of course this is the official forum for Cosmos Hub governance. All on-chain proposals are first discussed here as draft proposals to receive feedback before deciding to put proposals on-chain for voting.
-You claim ‘This would make the case for the abstain voters to decide one way or another.’, well you are speaking here as if all the abstain voters have the same opinion as you while actually this is just your own individual opinion. If someone wants to vote abstain, yes or no that’s the decision of each, why are you trying to influence the voting decisions of others or share your opinions as if they were the general opinions of a subset of voters which is not correct?
-By the way, there is a typo in your text you wrote ‘specific content content’.
-Also, you claim ‘there is no consensus within the community. Only about 25% have voted (half of those voted to abstain)’, well if you read my previous answer well I said ‘so far’, I never said that all the voters had voted. Also, I said individual voters which is correct, currently in total at the time of writing there are 5641 YES individual votes, 2523 NO individual votes and 5095 ABSTAIN individual votes.
Thanks again for sharing your feedback and participating in the discussion.
1 Like
I think if you wont address my initial ask, then further discussion is not needed. Also it seems my original post got deleted while I was trying to delete a draft, which makes the whole thing moot.
Good luck. I guess I’ll go back to YouTube where I belong.
Original post here FYI
Hello everyone.
I am a fellow content creator and I understand how difficult it is to make quality videos. I have made over 100 videos, repurpose the content, and interact with the community based around said content. While the monetary cost is low, the time cost for producing, improving, delivering, and getting eyes on these videos is likely close to 1,000 hours of work.
I am qualified to weigh in on this prop with experience and new information. Votes up to this point have been done so prematurely.
Right now my vote is “abstain” for several reasons:
- the community is already getting Cosmos-themed content for free
- the community is not asking for more content
- lack of oversight and accountability in the proposal
- lack of community involvement in the process
- it is unclear how being a validator is related to content creation
- validators appear to be rubber stamping props to pay each other with community funds
- the “no” choice is worded deceptively (possibly not intentional)
- Most important: Lack of Channel Data
Let’s focus on the missing data, which is easily obtained by Cosmic Validator but not shared publicly. For example, YouTube supplies analytics to content creators so that they can see how their videos are actually received. creators can see this for each video and for the channel as a whole. However, the public can only see “number of views” for each video, however this is not a reliable indicator, as most of those views are accidental clicks or misclicks due to the nature of the thumbnail. Most views are only a few seconds, as the missing data will surely prove.
I am requesting that Cosmic Validator team share the following:
1- The % of viewers still watching after 30 seconds for each video
2- Average watch time for each video (%)
3- Watch time for each video (hours)
4- Top traffic sources (YouTube search, twitter, ads etc.)
5- Total watch data for the channel
6- Other channels watched by subscribers
This should allow the community to decide properly and will likely convert some of the abstain votes to a more decisive position, giving prop 89 a true outcome that the community can use as a precedent.
Edit Post
2 Likes
Would you be willing to work with me on a true community spend prop that addresses content?
I have been testing ideas to involve community in the content and I have actual data that it is effective.
The current prop, as written, does not involve the community to the extent that I would like to see as a small stake holder deeply connected to the “regular” community members.
1 Like
Hi @CosmosJoe - I can see that your post is marked ‘deleted by author’. You should be able to revert that edit yourself by viewing the edit log but if you can’t access it, I can restore it for you as a moderator.
Let me know.
2 Likes
please do that. sorry for the mistake
Hi CosmosJoe,
The average views per video in our youtube channel is ~704 views at the time of writing. On Twitter some mentioned this and asked Cryptocito for his opinion. He said that considering how new our youtube channel is and the number of subscribers, this number of average views is actually great. Cryptocito has been recommended and featured in some CoinBureau videos, who is the largest youtuber in crypto. Moreover, Cryptocito also said on Twitter that there are many ways to seek compensation and choosing to go on-chain is a great step and said he would vote YES.
The community was involved before the project was launched since we did several polls to hear what the demand of the community was. Then, after each video was released we listened to all the feedback from the community and we have been improving the videos and implementing all this feedback constantly. If you check the recent videos and the first few videos you will notice important improvements in terms of the content, the presentation and the video design and this has been just because this is what the community wanted so we just listened and implemented their demands. And now from the total number of individual votes, we can see that the community finds our videos valuable and hence they want to support our proposal. Some community members told us that they prefer reading versus watching videos and therefore we also launched blogposts and twitter thread versions of the videos. Furthermore, recently we received feedback about adding subtitles in different languages in the videos for those who don’t speak english and we are already working to implement this. Additionally, there is another project to share shorter clips on Twitter of important in-depth assessments of news in previous videos.
When I made my initial post, I was considering changing my vote from abstain to YES.
You trolled me on this forum, even making sure to point out my typos. Your own Twitter doesn’t mention the prop, which shows a lack of effort to engage the community which is largely on Twitter.
Without sharing your YouTube data, the community has no idea what they are paying for.
I have changed my vote to NO and made it known publicly.
There is no need to reply here, as I won’t check again.
But as I have invited you in the past, you are free to join my Twitter spaces and talk with actual community members who are going to be paying for these videos.
3 Likes
In our previous messages we just answered politely in detail all your concerns.
This is not true. We previously shared the link to the draft proposal on Twitter and asked the community to provide feedback. Moreover, in our previous video as well as the blogpost and twitter thread versions we mentioned about the draft proposal also and asked the community to provide feedback. In addition, in our upcoming video with the review of the 1st half of December being released today or tomorrow, we mention as well that the proposal is on-chain for voting.
We think the forum is best for constructive governance discussions. Also, here in the Cosmos Hub forum there are actual Cosmos ecosystem community members.
Cosmos ecosystem news is live! 
-Osmosis Stableswap pools
-Migration from Junoswap to WYND DEX
-Juno constitution
-ibc-go v7.0.0: IBC to non-tendermint chains
-Upcoming Gno.land ‘Game of Realms’
& MORE!
Enjoy Cosmonauts!
https://youtu.be/6oBM3oQgPSo
1 Like