As we pointed out earlier, the current voting system incentivizes members to buy GRC (against fiat or other crypto) to increase their voting weight. This favors disproportionately the rich over the poor. Viewing the acquisition of GRC to increase voting power as acceptable, while attacking a poor subsidy campaign can be explained only as a form of alienation.
Nevertheless, if you are eligible for the fund distribution and wish to be excluded, please sign a message indicating this with your wallet and post the transaction id here.
I attack the "poor subsidy" campaign because it is combined with a requirement to vote in a certain way. If you want to help the ones with less GRC - great! If you exploit them to vote for your ideology by abusing their vulnerability of not having a lot - not so great!
woow suddenly everyone hops on their moral high horses and starts lashing out. remind me again, didn't you just write earlier that
(I'm just here to get my share of the money they send this person)
at least they are offering some grc, if you are so concerned why don't you just dish out some of your grc to the keep moo voters? let the invisible hand of the free market feed them poor folk eh? at least these guys are doing something about a problem (in their perception), what are you doing?
first of all, that quote was obviously a joke... I thought that was obvious. I don't "dish out" some GRC for a vote because that's exactly the point I made (I never said wether I was for or against the vote actually). As I said: "If you want to help the ones with less GRC - great!", but the way it is done - to make people vote for something they might not agree with - was of my concern.
Imagine this: There is a poor country and I promised everyone 100$ to vote for me as their next president. You could now say: "cool, he does something for the poor." or you could say: "oh, he buys votes. That is highly immoral and just makes himself more powerful."
I'm on the second train. Buying votes - which is what this clearly is - is nothing I support. Just pay everyone, even the ones voting "keep", then I don't have any problem anymore.
your analogy is invalid on the account that in normal voting every vote counts equally. that is exactly the issue here: in grc you vote with your wallet. this has been reiterated several times, i will not do it again. if you want to have an informed opinion read the thread again.
That does not change the fact that the votes are bought...
You can make the case that it is not fair that voting depends on the amount of money you have and I would not completely contradict with you. That is just not the point I raised...