Aye

View All Referendum Killer

Kill Referenda 287 & 289 Slashing Decent Partners' Benefactor

inReferendum Killer

2 years ago

treasury

slash

killer

malicious

rich

Timed Out

This proposal aims to accomplish two things:

Measure the ecosystem's support to slash Decent Partners' benefactor
Enable whoever has the 1,667 KSM to make this slash actionable

Let's see if the whales agree with the popular sentiment to punish Rich's behavior.

Expect chaos.

Comments (3)

2 years ago

You do realize the decision deposit is only 13.3 KSM, right? That's like ~$200 USD. Doubtful anybody is going to risk 1667 KSM ($27,000 USD) to slash that. Rich will just post the same thing again right away so it would be pointless. Some people actually support Rich . He has gotten >180,000 Ayes. Killing this proposal might only serve to increase support for his "work" from those who feel that it is unfair not to give him the same chance that every one else is allowed to have to access the treasury. Chill out and let things play out. Edit: Doesn't killing Rich's referendum contradict your anti-censorship forest rant from yesterday?

2 years ago

@Kekose ofPheeb

Here's the game theory. If A kills B, and C kills A, and B is some positive outcome for a beneficiary, then we expect the following outcome (assuming rational agents):

AYE_A = NAY_C

AYE_C = NAY_A

Therefore, we expect the exact opposite outcomes for A and C, meaning the prevailing outcome will win no matter how many killers are trying to kill each other. That's the only risk to consider when aiming to slash B.

I understand that this referendum would only slash 26.666 KSM, but it sends a message to someone who is littering the tracks and forums with conflicting values in an attempt to obscure his intentions. If you look on chain you can see I'm abstaining because all I wanted to do was enable some whale to place the decision deposit down. My enabling is merely my suggestion to consider a slash to send a message. Ultimately, is the message worth the risk? What do we stand for as KSM holders?

And I was going to let things play out but after seeing such a contradictory proposal in the root track, I realized that he's only trying to obscure his intentions which is behavior worth considering slashing IMHO.

I would challenge you to explain how exactly slashing the Decent Partners benefactor hinders Rich's ability to speak or his access the Treasury. I am simply laying out potential consequences for his behavior and expanding the discussion, not constricting it nor controlling his on-chain permissions. Consequence is not the same thing as censorship; this is all being decided by token democracy. Though I don't know if he's banned on this platform. If he is then I would be happy to faithfully relay his responses to the comments herein.

antigrifter

2 years ago

The Anti-grifter movement fully supports this proposal.

Following great leaders like Shawn Tabrizi, we'll oppose "rich" in on-chain votes and seek a blockchain-wide ban in Polkadot and Kusama. Grifters like "rich" spread negativity, troll, and need higher standards for reentry.

Implementing Tabrizi's suggestions: sybil resistance (limiting messages and posts) and banning identified grifters with a 2-year locked reward proposal.

Quote Shawn Tabrizi on sybil resistance:

Here are some potential solutions to problems in these open channels which are unbiased toward anyone.

Ultimately we need sybil resistence.

Here in chat, perhaps we should limit one message per minute per user. Doesn't lead to the absolute best chat experience, but will certainly reduce volume of noise, and spam, and ideas which are half baked.

Perhaps this is only needed to be enabled at certain times by mods, or on certain channels indefinitely.

For the forum, we could have a similar rule which is one post per hour.

Obviously i understand the downsides of these kinds of rules, but overall I think this is in the direction of what I think we need to get out of the status quo

On 2-year locked reward proposal:

so he should make a proposal for a 2 year locked reward, with notable and verifiable outcomes:

over the next 2 years, he will continue to do research, and make quality posts about Pokadot and Kusama, lets say once per month/week.

the quality of each post can be done with some kind of off-chain token voting system, giving him signal as to what the community is enjoying and not enjoying about his writing

then at the end of the 2 years, if the majority of on-chain signaling is positive, the lock is opened by a final token vote, and transferred to rich

i would also love if it included more than just writing, but some actual change to something as a result of what he wrote, whether he executes on it or not

Per Shawn Tabrizi, most community issues are caused by grifters. We must get rid of them before moving on. Urgent, drastic action needed to address this pressing problem. Please join us!

We are in a tough period. We trust leaders like Shawn Tabrizi's judgment on "rich." Harmful known grifters must be stopped!

PleaseLogin to comment

Proposal Failed

Summary

Aye

Nay

Aye (147)0.0 DOT

Support0.0 DOT

Nay (185)0.0 DOT