Proposal #39 - Funding On Pause

Earlier this week, my proposal stopped receiving funding like several others around that time. This is because the return proposal received more support.

This is a new process for everyone, so I refuse to take this personally. I think it's great that we have the system at all. I can understand some people getting anxious about stability and all, but this is crypto. And it's an entirely new implementation of proposals. Perspective.

For now, everything that was pending for pull requests has been sent over to Steemit, Inc. I'll treat this like a hobby once again.

So never fear, there will be further updates with or without proposal funding. But I can't prioritize this for the moment.

His date works for Red Hat, who hired a coach for her, too. He advised her to 'rent lots of movies like Hitch. Guys love those.'

Comments 40

Last time I checked @gtg's proposal was sitting at ~14 mill SP(?) Right now it is at 20 mill SP. I guess people don't want to leave room for junk to be funded. Myself included.

Does that mean that your project is junk? Obviously not. But it seems to me that unless really powerful accounts cast their votes, only one per 500 proposals will surpass @gtg's return proposal.

PS. The more those accounts power up (the ones that have already voted for the return proposal) the harder it will be.

Unless gtg decides to... :P

21.11.2019 18:23

I decided. But not exactly that. I think I will stop voting for my own proposal. Even though it's awesome. I'm awesome too. Also modest and humble.

Now to be serious, the idea is to vote for all proposals you like AND return proposal. Then, after some time when system reaches some balance, check if your desired proposals are on top, and unvote return proposal until your all or most of your besties are above it... and unless there's other proposal that you definitely don't want to be funded having more approval than return proposal.

21.11.2019 18:32


Well, my stake can't affect anything...but I do hope that the heavyweight accounts read this comment

21.11.2019 18:35

I'm aware this has been mentioned before but would it not make sense to allow stakeholders to be able to 'slide' VESTS on the return proposal to give them more flexibility? BT's account, unless he chooses to split it up, is a bit like a master switch at present!

22.11.2019 11:11

It will unnecessarily complicate things a lot, and ultimately it really doesn't matter that much, because regardless of how big voter is, idea is same: vote for all they like, don't vote for one you don't like, vote or not for return proposal.
True, big vote moves return proposal up a lot, but it also does same with other proposals voted for.

22.11.2019 12:36

I understand it could be complicated to implement, but I don't think the accounts with the stake to make a difference would be confused.

It is a shame that salmon cannot read, or I'm sure they would want to see the proposal discussed in the post supported.

22.11.2019 12:52

Disagree, and I'll quote you to explain why:

Then, after some time when system reaches some balance, check if your desired proposals are on top, and unvote return proposal until your all or most of your besties are above it [emphasis added]

This can't be done when the choice possible on a huge account is 100% or 0%.

For the system to work properly people have to be able to vote not just yes or no but also on the specific ordering of proposals, and people with large accounts can't currently do that (other than by splitting their accounts, which is generally undesirable).

23.11.2019 02:32

Can't be done precisely. True.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be more convenient but it adds a lot of complexity (vs current implementation) to add precision to individual preferences, but those shouldn't matter much because (well, if) more big accounts will be voting?

23.11.2019 07:34

It is possible but seems a little bit like wishful thinking.

23.11.2019 08:26

It would be really interesting to know what the proposals were that caused the big vote to be given to the return proposal, or if it was all of them. Has anyone heard the reason? Given the timing, I really hope it wasn't just to vote out the non-binding one to reduce the powerdown time to 4 weeks, since that's not really related to real budgeting. Maybe it makes the case for having a separate voting system for funding projects vs trying to make decisions about features for hardforks...

22.11.2019 03:50

I don’t really know the reason behind this decision. It would be interesting though if a “disagreement” button was implemented. Something like a “downvote” mechanism

22.11.2019 08:00

Its the Korean Lobby... proxy.token. They don't want any downvote; or rather they want a centralized "criteria" for DV that "they" will control :)

22.11.2019 11:25

Was about to say so...remember a post they made recently with a bunch of "demands".

maybe this is their way, to push the return proposal as high as possible so that nobody receives funding. A sort of revenge, since many kinda bullied their attitude on that post...

Maybe I am wrong though...

22.11.2019 11:31

Yes, I saw it was proxy token, and I also saw their downvote proposal. But what I haven't seen from them is an explanation for why they voted up the return proposal. I was guessing it was either 1) one specific proposal they didn't like or 2) all of them. I guess you've raised another potential possibility: retaliation for not getting their own proposal. I'm really hoping that it is "1". Anyways, I guess I'm going to ask @clayop (well known Korean witness) if he has any communication with them.

22.11.2019 12:42

It turns out that proxy.token is voting in favor of the 4 week power down proposal, so that is definitely not the issue.

23.11.2019 10:17

Of course they did! They want the option to get their money out as efficiently as possible. If there is a proposal to power down 1 day; they will vote for that too. It’s all about money for most of them.

23.11.2019 16:01

Maybe it makes the case for having a separate voting system for funding projects vs trying to make decisions about features for hardforks...

I don't see a real difference here. I mean people can vote carelessly or maliciously. But if someone really wants to knock out just one proposal and not others, they can vote both return and the proposals they like (along with other voters potentialy changing their votes).

Any ordering is possible if the votes are made/removed to get there, including both proposals and/or budget items being above or below the line.

Some engagement might make sense to address misunderstandings or resolvable conflicts, but at some point we do have to accept that voters vote the way they do because that's what they want, whether we agree or not.

23.11.2019 02:22

Thank you for your attitude towards this. I may not be someone who has donated a lot to the dao through beneficiaries, but my hope was always that it is used in the most efficient way possible to assist Steem and it hurts me to see comments like "well it's there so why aren't we spending it". Since we haven't been able to control the way inflation of steem is allocated and distributed in the past (now a bit better with downvotes), I think it's important we have a lot more strict use for the dao and not treat it like the rewardpool.

21.11.2019 22:38

I'm much delighted coz I'm able to delegate 50% of my funds here to new steemit users so that it will help as they are still starting here in the site. I guess it can help them much... And anyway, I'm planning to withdraw my earnings here, haven't tried it yet, can i ask anyone to help me here? I'm kind of anticipating for it, and I'm going to share a bit of it to a person who's also always on my back and i hope he will appreciate it as well. ;)

21.11.2019 23:05

Lol, that is an amazing XKCD comic. Rather than just reading them all I like to be surprised by them every now and again. Volunteering is good, but having a reward structure and system in place is also strong as well for a more robust infrastructure. Nonetheless, I'll support this and give it my upvote.

21.11.2019 23:48

Well said

22.11.2019 02:06


22.11.2019 05:20

What a trash post.. no way is this worthy of nearly 70 Steems.. what a joke. Insider much. Gross. #hypocrite #informationwar #centralized

22.11.2019 03:52

Guys I am looking for resteem bots to make a post list of them and also to make a guide on how to post on 10 tribes at the same time (Obviously for quality content reasons). Any ideas?

22.11.2019 05:18

Good jhob your post friends

22.11.2019 06:38

I’ve unsupported the return proposal for the time being for what little good that does. Along with reviewing the current proposals and making changes if needed.

Projects getting funding interrupted like this is sadly something people will have to take into account. Glad to see you are taking it so well.

While people want to see the funding get used as efficiency as possible as it should be. It would be quite inefficient if a bunch of projects that were getting funded stop receiving support and they never got completed due to that. This is the high risk that is taken with such a system in place.

23.11.2019 01:08

To be honest, I'd really like to see every single aspect of the Steem economy somehow activated/deactivated by a proposal. Can you imagine if we had that kind of control over the platform's direction?

  • Do we want to market to these geographical regions? If so, approve Proposal X.
  • Do we want to spin up extra AWS clusters to handle seasonal load? If yes, approve Proposal Y. If not, just unapprove it and let the apps get rate limited.
  • Do we want the reward pool to be bigger? Approve Proposal Z. If not, unapprove the extra funds and let the reward pool contract.
23.11.2019 01:17

please follow me

Posted using Partiko Android

24.11.2019 06:57

I hope you get your proposal money back soon. I don't understand why they are doing this. It seems they just have some money-making ideas and don't care about further development. Step 1 block all the proposals from receiving funding. Step 2 profit.

24.11.2019 11:43

I haven't lost anything. The pay stoped, is all. If it starts back up, I’ll prioritize accordingly.

Was there anything in my post that lead you to believe I got screwed out of something? If so, I would like to correct my post.

24.11.2019 15:47

K now it's back on... thoughts?

04.12.2019 21:49