I looked into this, and at first glance couldn't see what you were saying. On diving in deeper it looks like there could be some merit here.
I would prefer before we jump the gun and nullify the DAO as you were doing before being thwarted, we ask witnesses and Core members to explain. It's possible this is some kind of oversight that can be corrected.
Or it is intentional and split up this way for record keeping since there are two proposals combined into one.
Assuming the worst before seeking clarification is why such hard lines are being drawn here.
@megadrive, @saboin, @tekraze, @eatmael, @symbionts
Can you explain what is going on here so it can either be fixed if it is doing this, or explained where the misconception is being made please.
I looked into it with my normal skepticism, and I'm also seeing things not looking right.
The arrow is for both of those in front of it.
It's showing this for those having a hard time seeing it.
proposal_pay:
"receiver":"symbionts.pay",
"payment"
"amount":"198723",
"precision":3,
"nai":"@@000000021" ,
"trx_id":"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
"op_in_trx":0
and then
proposal_pay:
"receiver":"symbionts",
"payment"
"amount":"115523",
"precision":3,
"nai":"@@000000021" ,
"trx_id":"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
"op_in_trx":0
As can be seen, this is being performed on the same block, which at first made me suspect it was a lot of nothing. Almost everything is identical (block number, trx number), and I was almost ready to dismiss until I bored down and saw the two payments he is talking about.
One for 198723, the second one for 115523.
When @symbionts made the "combined proposals", it was supposed to replace the previous one by @symbionts and the one by @eastmael. The idea was that people would unvote the two other ones and just vote for the combined proposal. I guess some people didn't get the memo. We can just contact the ones who are voting on the two proposals that were supposed to be deprecated and see if they will remove their votes and vote for the combined one instead.
@symbionts removed their return proposal since there is already one by @blurtofficial. There is no need for two return proposals.
If there is something that you think shouldn't receive funding, you can just vote up the return proposal and anything below the return proposal will not receive any funds.
Perhaps it would be easier if @symbionts and @eastmael were to remove the duplicate proposals the way symbionts removed the duplicate return proposal leaving only the blurtofficial return proposal?
Thank you for weighing in and adding some clarification on why this is happening.
There is a bug at the moment where, if you delete a proposal that has votes on it, the votes don't get cleared and they continue to count toward the 1/n. There is already a fix for this in code(here), but it's a hardfork, and I'd like to get a few more changes in there before we fork. So when we get a few more things added, we will do a hardfork that has more changes than just this one fix.
Ok, thank you.
For perception purposes, it might be worth the recipients consideration to return the extra allocations that were never intended as they receive them so they can maintain their good standing and be above reproach such as this post we're commenting on is wrongfully directing at the Foundation.
I don't have a bone in this personally, but it's a legitimate concern despite the error in presentation that was made. Both recipients are respected members and developers in the community and would hate to see this oversight become a valid opportunity for criticism to their otherwise stellar contributions.
Yes. I think that's a good idea. I'll tag @eastmael and @symbionts here to get their attention on this thread.
Thanks for the mention. I'll create a post to request users to unvote the proposal before I remove it.
A month's notice or so before removing it.
You knew there was a bug and nevertheless removed Return Proposal. Remove all proposals until DAO voting is fixed. Return all stolen BLURTs to @null.
I wasn't expecting for the return/refund proposal to be removed so soon. I'll create a post requesting users to unvote for my proposal before removing it. Reason already mentioned by @saboin here https://blurt.blog/@saboin/rjasml.
Do you realize that they removed Return Proposal? WHY? To remove proposal you have to sign it with the right key. It was done intentionally. WHY? To grow DAO Funds so they can grab more BLURT for them self from it?