My answer is same as to @khrom, which is no. Proposal system is broken anyway. By the way, did you know that every week this blockchain prints more than 760K new BLURT? At least half of that total goes to megadrive. Week after week.
Wouldn't it be more reasonable if these
gained with "fake stake" funds would go to the developers instead of into his pocket?
In my opinion, DAO should be removed from this blockchain and megadrive (guy who doesn't want to burn fake stake) should delegate it to people like you, fervi, khrom and a few others.
Firstly, thank you for your manual (I owe you that much for being a manual post voter!) 100% upvote, reblog, and making your comment short.
I must admit that I find your early stance somewhat surprising given that you are an investor in Blurt. I was hoping you would support other proposals, not immediately but a little later to see if our proposals move the needle, in addition to your own, even if that excludes mine.
Regarding the issue of the proposal system being broken, I don't quite see how it is unless you are referring to the fix (the recount
proposal_votes_forin all account) planned in the next hardfork.Furthermore, I don't understand how denying funding to external developers and marketers, such as @khrom, myself, or others, who could potentially help grow Blurt, would negatively impact @megadrive to a greater extent than it would impact your own investment in Blurt. Besides, I doubt that @megadrive is particularly concerned about whether or not my or @khrom's proposal is validated.
In any case, both of our proposals remain valid for the time being, and I hope that they will encourage action from all sides and others to also try to make a proposal. I encourage you to revisit the proposals later on, and see who is voting for what.
Personally what I expect from the foundation is to support the costs of the primary architecture (official RPC nodes, official image proxy servers, official portal, blocks explorer, etc...) as well as providing viable tools for developers (like Testnet), the development of the Blurt core, and ensure the sustainability of the blockchain. The external devs (and others) must keep their independence via a financing mainly covered by the system of proposals.
I’m curious what type of developments in Blurt do you perceive deem for funding?
ok but the lack of funding for developers, infrastructure and the best ideas will discourage anyone from doing anything and @megadrive probably won't let go anyway.
You can give him an ultimatum, but he set the situation in such a way that he will be ahead anyway because he can withdraw the fake stake from blurt booster at any time and it will be a disaster. Not to mention that of course the blurt booster still creates money.
So I understand your approach, but what do you propose instead? Instead of developing blockchain, doing promotion or new applications, we will write posts to get donations?
The second thing is that from the point of view of the promoter it looks very bad. Dao is a key element of dppos. This reduces the potential for attracting new people.