I would like to thank the guys on the committee for the countless hours of hard work they have put in to get to this point. Although the results in some cases may not be as rutheless as some might have preferred, this will come with time. This round of delegation applications has freed up some Steem to distribute to new projects over the next round and it has provided a clear baseline as set in the rubrics in the google sheet attachments above (please browse at ur leisure as they will give you some idea of the staggering amount of work carried out by the team as well as give you as community members the ability to see exactly where the base line has been set and thus more easily hold the projects to account). Even though we do not all agree on the final decisions of the committee, i would like to point out that it has done an overall fantastic service for Steem in setting this baseline and I stand fully behind the measured and fair decisions it has made so far.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The true important thing after all. Can’t wait to see which members have to step away when deciding where that goes.
Each project should be held to the same standards, not getting leeway due to already having delegation. Would that project be approved if they had to apply from scratch? Would they receive funding with all the past discrepancies and lack of work on the actual project they are asking for funding on? If no, they shouldn’t have it now.
Seems very strange to reduce a projects delegation for ”has promise as a business that's not currently being achieved” and give just a empty warning to another who has done what DW has.
But I’m sure the committee has their reasons.. we will all just have to guess what those are I suppose.
Do you have any solutions / suggestions to improve the process?
Yes, hold those reapplying to the same standards you would to a new applicant.
Also perhaps don’t be afraid to ruffle feathers, as sometimes it’s needed.
I know it may not be great for the projects you all are attached to and playing “nice politics” is the way to be successful on Steem.. but it doesn’t always result in the best result for the community and longevity of STEEM.
Considering fundition is involved in the Steem business alliance, I hoped to see a bit more careful consideration of their past actions. The truth is one project had their delegation significantly dropped due to not living up to their business potential, and another.. whose actions speak volumes, did not. Why?
Understood. Please note our approach is a bit softer than what you describe above. We have discussed a lot about how to approach this, and we are phasing this system in. There is no need to make decisions that could appear too harsh at this phase. We have however communicated that things are changing and have given projects enough warning to be ready for that change, especially in the next phase of delegation applications, which will bring in new projects / delegations and set a more competitive standard. The end result you are looking for will be more or less the same, but the changes will be implemented over a slightly longer time frame so as to give projects time to adjust, rather than just remove delegations immediately.
As regards to Fundition and drug wars, fundition is a great project for steem, and we must do what we can to incentivize it to get going again, maybe bring in some sort of business model. We would like to give some time to see if this can be achieved before decisions are made to reduce the delegation. We do not want a great project to sit quiet and dead on the steem blockchain if we can at least try to get it kick started again.
Yes, fundition could be a good project.. but if you actually have to bribe or force them to do what they were supposed to be doing all along (while collecting a big check from community funds), instead of the bs they were.. then maybe it’s better to start fresh and build this thing you all see as valuable.
The only thing fundition has that’s unique is they already have a website. Pretty sure anyone could build that with 1M SP.
Seems quite strange to give them a pass because they could maybe do something of value.
Glad you are trying to go about this in a fair and logical way, but at some point it’s just being complacent and setting a bad precedent.
If we do this in a corrupt way or repeat the same warning again and again, without taking any action then I can understand ur point. We are not there yet however
Fair enough, but I see reduction of delegation for some and not for others.. and no real action taken to ensure they stop what they have been doing all along, and as far as I’ve seen - show absolutely no remorse for.
The “wait and see” option is valid.. but I guess it feels like we have been doing so for quite some time. Perhaps actions would be acceptable at some point.
Thanks for your time.