Decide if the ongoing Shimmer Ecosystem funding vote should be stopped and changed!

[Delta9THC]

Am I understing this right, this proposal will be ignored?

Decide if the ongoing Shimmer Ecosystem funding vote should be stopped and changed!

In the currently-ongoing governance vote on the installment of Shimmer ecosystem funding programs funded by the creation of additional Shimmer tokens, the question displayed to voters in Firefly is: “Should we incentivize builders and activity on the Shimmer network by increasing the token supply to give the Shimmer Community Treasury DAO and the Tangle Ecosystem Association (TEA) each 10% of the new total supply?” It has been brought to our attention by several community members that this tex…

[XR-4_JERSEY]

Hello Dom so heres my feedback . I think the 3 options proposed are a good way to stop and correct in the true spirit of a DAO. If there was any misunderstanding by any of the voters then the result is not really valid and can be void or confirmed by those who really care on a second run at it. Also i woild like to bring to your attention a language technology that may be good to use when voting on important decisions. Unlike regular english where words can have many meanings depending how they are strung together. This technology uses 1 word one meaning. In fact it means exactly the same thing read forwards as it does backwards using propersitional phrases and syntax. There is no room for mistakes as it is a language of closure used in specialised contracts among those that know of it. It is also known as quantum grammar but the correct title is correct sentence structure communication parse syntax grammar. A correct propositional statement of intention and performance can put up instead of a question and then voters can agree with consent for or against. Jason Mathew Glass on YouTube is the only quantum grammar tutor i know of if anyone is interested in the technology with the mathematical interface keys for correcting language.

[Deep_Sea]

Would Phylo’s current proposal to halt the vote count as a Phase II proposal as you point out in #1?

So it could then go to a FF vote correct?

[shnellock]

This post is missing a /s
Way to go

[fearenough]

The fine details not worry me. For me all that matter with small community is with funding project’s will not stall and will help with the success

[elf]

alright,
the vote for more shimmer failed super hard, because no one did listen in math class.
now the IF pretends its a bad wording.
so bad wording is like=> 1+2=5 (maybe my math professor needs to give me a better grade)
“This difference sparked an understandable discussion amongst some community members. The IOTA Foundation acknowledges that the wording of the initial and follow-up proposal was ambiguous.”

This is so embarrassing on every level i know ( give me a model and IF embarrassing-level raises the level)

can we just cancel it and let someone rewrite the vote. ( like my niece, she will be second grade soon^tm lol funny xD moon,)

this just another fail to the iota history

[Werner]

We could try to solve this the way we intend it for the future governance framework.

That being, we make another proposal with interpretation 2. This would go into Firefly as well (given we reach a quorum here).

Then we attach a second question:

If interpretation 2 passes, should we use
a) Interpretation 1
b) Interpretation 2

This way everybody can freely express his opinion. After all you could be against the increase (and therefore vote against both proposals), but if it passes, you prefer the version as intended by Kappy. Essentially two hurdles, find a quorum for your proposal AND beat the other option if it passes

[elf]

dont get me wrong.

i dont care if its 20% or 25%.
but you simply cant do a vote like this … i am crying tears

[elf]

actually i think it has to be canceled. no way around it.
not everyone watches the place 24/7. it is holiday time as well.

stop everything, do the math like its teached at school and start a new vote

[Sissors]

@dom

This process does however come with certain responsibilities, which includes partaking in the discussions on the Governance Forum, the regular governance calls, and generally following the established process. As a call to action, I invite everyone to be a part of our community on Discord and help to lead the decentralized governance of IOTA.

Also based on previous posts I have seen shared, but how can you put the blame on the community for this? The proposal was changed on the last minute. You decided to put a last minute change up to vote in Firefly, and not the original proposal which was here. How could the community have predicted two months ago the perfectly valid proposal would be changed after they voted here? In no way could anyone from the bigger community have predicted this, so put the blame where it belongs.

In the governance proposal topic the idea is that a proposal is done, an initial voting round is done here, and if it is accepted it will be put up to actual vote on eg Firefly. The current proposal on Firefly has simply never had its voting round done here. Of course you can continue with it, and hey I actually agree it doesn’t matter that much if it ends up at 20% or 25%. However you are setting a precedent if you allow your first real governance vote to be not only just unclear and confusing, but also changed at the last minute. You can make a proposal here, people agree with it, and then you change the proposal last minute. Do I really need to argue that is not a wanted situation?

Also the original proposal was straight forward and correct. Only after the last minute changes it got ambiguous.

[wasm]

Just looking at this pie chart, the ecosys allocation looks a LITTLE bit thin, dont you think fam ? lol.