Just to be clear on this. You have placed two separate comments -- one for a "Yes" vote (this one), and another for a "No" vote.
Votes to the post don't matter, only votes to those two comments. And, amount of the vote doesn't matter (so it is not stake-weighted, just fueled by engagement -- all votes are equal).
Is this correct?
PS: You might edit the "No" comment to put the word "not" in bold, just to make it more clear.
Yes, the vote % doesn't matter. It's boolean. True or False. I guess, you can abstain by voting neither or voting both. How others decide can be calculated later from stake or vote number. It looks like this proposal is winning either way so far. The last time I tried this kind of thing, with the self-voting question, hardly anyone voted on either the yes or no. I'm hoping people will vote more this time.
To be clear:
@trosparadox, Is this a vote to pay 150 POB per day for 20 days?
@leprechaun, when should the 3000 POB be paid?
Should it be done in increments like @calumam suggested?
I suggest weekly increments.
@leprechaun, I am for this if the community supports it. I think having the new front end with all the features it brings would be awesome. I know the front end takes support over time and will need minor upgrades over time as well. Hive-Engine gives us that support but we need to have 5000 BEE staked or delegated from the community. We may need to start buying BEE just to be able to have two options or even just have two versions running. What would you need to continue to manage the front-end into the future? I do also like that you are very invested at this point and stand to earn very well by adding a lot of value to your investment.
Also, just wanted to make sure you know that currently posts can be promoted with POB and it is burned.
P.S.
I like this way of making proposals to the community. We can basically do it like Archon governance but just do it manually for now.
I have yet to see a robust example of decentralized governance in terms of evaluating and funding proposals.
My impression of the Hive DHF has been that it is sub-optimal because it follows a "propose, decide, fund, execute" paradigm that is based on an inherently centralized way of doing things. I have my own thoughts about how to improve DHF decision-making, funding, and oversight -- I will be posting about that sometime soon (hopefully within the next couple weeks -- however, I've said that before, and it was more than 2 weeks ago).
I am not familiar with Archon governance -- but would like to know more.
In any event, my 'vote' in this instance is not a carte blanche vote for the proposal as-written, but rather a generic vote in support of the work @leprechaun has started (an open-source extension of the ecency front-end), in support of the community helping to fund the work (e.g. via @pob-fund), and in support of @leprechaun playing a significant role in overseeing (or doing) the work.
With that said, if H-E provides support (or is willing to provide support), that warrants some serious consideration as well. My guess is that the H-E support would be somewhat limited. However, if the H-E support can be synergistically leveraged with some of what @leprechaun is trying to accomplish, that would be great.
In summary, my vote is essentially to say "Yes" to front-end upgrades, "Yes" to spending something on the order of 3,000 POB for the first iteration of those upgrades, and "Yes" to @leprechaun taking a lead role in that, but all subject to direct oversight by @proofofbrainio (or your designee).
In other words, you (@proofofbrainio) should feel free (but not obligated) to move forward, and to do so only to the extent that you are comfortable with the scope of work, the compensation level, any stated milestones and deliverables, etc.
I think this is poor execution of a poll and is inherently biased. It might be good for finding out an interested party but there is a lack of visibility for an uninterested party. @phusionphil expressed distaste for the method and expressed his protest to this idea leprecon said that the downvote could be confused for a vote in favor which showcases not only the flaws in the system but his obvious bias and willingness to skew something that's been made clear so that it ends in his favor. It's difficult to even make sense of the poll and it's my belief that the proposal is done in this confusing manner to make it difficult to disagree. I am also completely against this initiative largely due to how deceptive this practice is. As soon as someone upvotes the pro side with many of the other comments being upvoted there is an obvious differential regarding the visibility of both options.
Yeah and paying someone you disagree with is the dumbest idea I have ever heard, that's why I downvoted, he wants to milk the rewards pool for his poll.
If this behavior keeps up, without a good proof of concept, I'm just going to downvote 100% of leprechauns posts because he self votes
@proofofbrainio Are you really going to throw away 3000 PoB to someone whose supposed qualifications is a failed project that had to be shut down due to lack of interest? Someone who also identifies themself as s 'priest' of science as if that's some kind of boon. The only thing this poll can show is who is interested not an indicators of who is against the project. Most people who don't like the idea probably didn't even make it to the comments to know the proposal works like this. There are so many things wrong with the logic of the proposal. For example the point about how he needs to get more than his curation rewards. Curation is still based on the way voting power works so having less time to curate isn't going to have a 1 to 1 ratio in loss of profits. Curation has diminishing returns on time invested. A person who is curating for 4 hours a day like they propose they are should still be able to fully optimize their rewards
Another flaw I noticed in this poll is that someone I know has used two different accounts to upvote this proposal so it isn't even an indication of exactly the number of people who are in favor of the project due to people having access to additional accounts. Internet historian made a great video on the flaws of polls with many good real world examples that is very entertaining and educational
Hi, @proofofbrainio
So... I didn’t know where I could talk to you directly, and on the recommendation of @calumam I’m writing in this last comment you made to ask you: Is there still a possibility to delegate more HIVE POWER to get more POB POWER?
I'm interested in increasing my POB POWER to focus more intensively on the POB community.
No, we are no longer accepting HP for PP. We could consider accepting some more at maybe 2:1 but we haven't decided to that.