I am leaning towards a NO or NWV after seeing how Antropocosmist reacted to feedback with various basic manipulation tactics:
Threatening to quit contributing
He repeatedly suggests that if the proposal isn’t supported, he will stop contributing to the Cosmos ecosystem or move his efforts elsewhere. This is a classic “loss aversion” tactic - implying the community should comply or they will lose something valuable.
Appealing to guilt and loyalty
There are several appeals to community’s sense of loyalty, such as “If you don’t support me now, how can we be sure about future development?”. This puts emotional pressure on others to support the proposal out of guilt or sense of some sort of obligation.
Framing opposing opinions as betrayal
He frames any opposition as a form of “betrayal”, “trolling”, or lack of support for the community, rather than treating them as legitimate differences of opinion. This discourages honest debate and makes people afraid to voice concerns.
Minimizing the ask
By repeatedly emphasizing that the requested amount is “just 0.061%” of the community pool, he tries to make the request seem trivial, but it is still a noticeable amount of money. Community Pool doesn’t mean free money.
Personalizing the issue
Discussion is often shifted from the topic of the proposal to personal sacrifices and history of Antropocosmist, making it harder to objectively evaluate the proposal itself.
Implying social consequences
He hints that the community will “make this discussion public” and that everyone will see who supports Cosmos and who doesn’t, which can be easily read as a threat of social shaming for those who disagree.
Labeling concerns as “drugizm” and other “-izms”
He used a common cheap political tactic to reframe a legitimate concern (that someone might have been on stage under the influence) as discrimination or shaming, thus discouraging further discussion and painting the guy who mentioned it as prejudiced.
Pulling rank by dismissing new accounts as trolls
He attempted to discredit criticism by claiming that new forum accounts are likely trolls, ignoring the fact that several new accounts appeared just to support his proposal. This double standard is another way to silence the opposition and control the narrative.
Obfuscating the real goal with the topic title
Even the title he chose for the topic is designed to obscure the real goal, which is to refund himself personally for event expenses. This kind of title is likely to get quick, automatic support from people who don’t read the details, because it hides what the proposal is really about.
I don’t like this behavior of threatening and shaming people into getting what you want. In my opinion it should not be rewarded.
Your message contains clear signs of promoting and normalizing the use of illegal substances, which is a criminal offense under German law (§29 BtMG – German Narcotics Act). While personal freedoms are important, associating public communities like Cosmos Hub with drug use is both inappropriate and damaging to the integrity of the ecosystem.
Equating responsible criticism of drug use with “discrimination” is a false narrative. In Germany, and in many other jurisdictions, drug laws are in place to protect public health and safety. Promoting or trivializing the use of controlled substances—especially in public or professional forums—can lead to legal consequences.
Cosmos is a place for inclusion, innovation, and responsibility. There is no room for hate speech, but there is also no room for promoting illegal activities or discrediting the community with behavior that violates local laws. I think after that you should not be associated with Cosmos Hub anymore and I hope COMMUNITY understands that and will do smt with it.
In this case, if we are talking about attracting new users, marketing, and building a positive image of Cosmos Hub, your event and the justification of illegal substance use clearly contradict these goals.
Cosmos must not and cannot be associated with such behavior, just as there should be no place in the community for individuals who associate themselves with Cosmos while openly violating the law.
I strongly believe that you should leave Cosmos Hub ecosystem after all your statements. Moreover, I hope that all the projects collaborating with you will see this and seriously reconsider whether they should continue working with you.
Do you really believe that a validator, being a public figure, can afford to communicate in such a manner?
I initiated a discussion of your proposal without any ill intent, with a sincere desire to understand why such funds were spent and how this whole situation unfolded. Instead, you began making personal attacks, bringing up forms of discrimination while simultaneously belittling another person’s opinion.
I believe this is unworthy behavior for a public individual and a validator.
Moreover, it’s very disappointing that top 30 validator encourages drug use and conscious violation of the country’s laws.
Bro_n_Bro will definitely support such proposal!
despite some accusations happened here in comments we trust to Poshuman’s efforts of making good for ecosystem, and willing to support them!
I genuinely believe that the biggest troll here is you. From the very beginning, I was asking questions about the event, while all you did was call every person who disagreed with you a troll, a hater, or an egoist.
Can you please understand that you came to a PUBLIC place asking for COMMUNITY money, yet you’re doing everything possible to lose the community’s respect through offensive behavior by calling everyone against you as hater, troll or an egoist, drug propaganda and direct incentives to violate the country’s laws? Do you truly believe that your actions and reactions are worthy being associated with Cosmos?
Moreover, I said nothing bad about you, your personality or anything while you trying to disrespect all the people who don’t agree with you.
Don’t trust, verify. Verify these amounts correct. Ask for receipts. There must be invoices, otherwise numbers like 1k for web designer could be easily faked. What if he asked someone from posthuman to do it and pay 1k which would be insane.
Don’t trust, verify, and don’t be part of the problem! Ty.
Yea dude. I will not give you my private info. And I will not create a username because you ask me to do so.
Somebody who preaches privacy but demands information I don’t want to share shouldn’t be taken serious at all.
For this proposal to be taken seriously, it must contain receipts of the payments he lists. That includes information about the people he hired, for example for the website design. By information I mean a website of the graphic designer for example.
Without that, numbers can be made up and the proposal would be a textbook proposal for NO WITH VETO.
Until the receipts are shared with everyone, publicly, I will not say anything more.
I’m already quite confused. You asked someone to message you privately and now you refuse to publicly share receipts and other documents that could clarify the situation. The person wrote to you in private, and now you’re demanding they confirm their identity? Are you serious?
After you publicly justified drug use in countries where it is prohibited by law, you’re now sharing private conversations without the consent of the other party — once again violating European legislation — despite the fact that you asked them to message you privately in the first place. What kind of game are you trying to play?
