Yeah, of all of them, the merger looks the most likely to swim.
Aggie has done alot for us.
It still irks me that y'all excluded an option to reject having one or the other.
It delegitimizes this forcing of structure on steem even more.
If folks want to fund things they should.
Why ask for permission if refusing to give permission is not offered?
Why seek community input if you only give the option to agree to the preselected solutions?
Seems illegitimate to me.
To clear things up, I am not involved with steem alliance and I didn't submit a proposal. Although I did comment and provide feedback on all of those left. I also registered to vote and plan on doing so.
It was already decided that we would have a foundation. If someone wanted the foundation to serve no purpose, it would have made an interesting and simple proposal to make and evaluate.
I am sorry my previous post (linked up top) mentioning the deadline was missed by some.
Several proposals have measures in place that will make funding optional.
People recognized that a lack of funds was a serious threat to sustainability. Lowering rewards is never popular, but in my opinion it isnt the worse idea either and seems to be sufficient to ensure sustainability.
My post pay outs are so dismally low compared to my effort, losing more rewards wont really affect me. In fact I think it will mostly affect people who are trying to squeeze the block chain dry. I hope that is next on the chopping block but it won't actually add value because those people will stop when it becomes unprofitable.
Other ideas involve just collecting donations, well nothing is stopping people from doing that now and it's not working. Perhaps a proposal to get it working would be nice, but I am skeptical. There are a few proposals that try to focus on incubating or membership fees. Again I am skeptical.
Merger relies on several different methods and that is its strength. It has the lowest risk of failing and is by far the most developed and cconventional.it is also looking at current needs and not future ones. Since it can be assume if new needs arise it was adapt.
I'm not saying I will vote for merger, but I do think it will accelerate this entire mess and a lot of people are apathetic to the entire thing, so why drag it on?
Steemit Inc. had to fire over half its workers. I dont know if the foundation will stop the ship from sinking or raise it beyond its former glory, but I do know wasting more time won't improve things.
Posted using Partiko Android
I'm against financing things through delegations.
Too many have dumped their steem and left.
Honestly, i would vote nota.
But i am against hierarchies on principle.
It privileges the few at the expense of the many.
Most people are followers, they go where they are led by those they accept as authorities.
Not all bad, unless you are getting led to a slaughter.
The track record of the stakeholders makes that a nonzero probability.
Eliminating nota is a mistake, imo.
If folks want to build a foundation they should, but don't ask for community support unless you are prepared for the community not to give it.
Now the community doesn't get that choice because those invested in the project have denied it to them.
One of those proposals will be foisted on us whether we like it, or not.
The time to submit proposal has past. We cannot keep delaying it because some people were ignorant of deadlines, or didn't like the proposals that were submitted in a timely manner.
There has to be an official channel besides Steemit.
We both know Nota will fail in any case. Also, because it wasn't submitted in time, it won't add any legitimacy to the poll it may damage legitimacy since we will be making exceptions.
If it was a completely thorough and smashing good idea with a lot of support, I would sympathize with your motives, but a lot of people worked extremely hard on this and please forgive them if they think you are just trying to derail it.
Edit: Voting is entirely optional and vast majority of people didnt care to register. Now that it is closed maybe we can get an idea,
Saying things confidently doesnt necessarily make them true.
Nota can be included up until the post is made.
Not including it is an arbitrary decision.
This decision has been made by folks invested in both the process and the outcome.
Rejection of which is intolerable to them.
People that have made clearly known their resistence to the idea of freedom of choice on the part of others.
Yall's choice is made and it has eliminated the choice for every other voter.
If you can live with yourself after making that decision for others, it reflects on you.
Whether, or not, nota prevails can only be speculated upon.
As long as it is excluded by fiat, or any other reason, we cannot know how many would have chosen it.
You can speculate, but without the availability of the option, it cannot be known.
This election is not about steem governance. It's about having one more addon organization which can help the ecosystem. Nothing is exclusive, if you can't find a favorite amongst the proposals there are other projects out there where you can participate.
Coming in here after all deadlines have passed, demanding changes to voting process and calling it illegitimate stinks.
Illegitimate is denying choice to others.
You can't claim to want community support if you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you won't get it.
By eliminating nota as a choice you force a choice on others.
You cannot claim to have free fair elections when you eliminate the possibility of rejecting the proposals.
Rejection has been removed as a choice.
I guess i should've known the type of people i was dealing with and headed them off at the pass, excuse me for figuring it out too late.
I thought i was dealing with credible people who would like to know the truth about how the community feels.
Clearly the investment made by said folks outweighs their willingness to accept rejection.
Better to eliminate the option totally.
Smdh.
The blockchain will record this stain on what could've been a legitimate measure of community support.
Thebdeadline tonsubmit proposals was April 5th. NOTA was suggested as a proposal April 7th. There was even an offer to extend it if a reason was stated before April 7th. I am sorry you missed the deadline to submit your proposal. Unfortunately, NOTA was not proposed in time. You cannot have an election if the dates are not fixed.
Please admit your proposal was too late to qualify and you would like an exception to be made. I am done discussing this issue otherwise.
Posted using Partiko Android
I guess we are done then.
I didn't submit a proposal, I asked for a fair, open, and unbiased election.
Leaving half of the choices off the ballot is hardly unbiased.
But, it is your deal, you deal with it.
We left an inifinite number of undeclared choices off the ballot. I am sorry your choice was not included. Registration period has a deadline to avoid accusations of intereference. NOTA is very similar to not voting. In anycase it would just mean a new election. Since there is no minimum tirn out requirement unless there is another reason for extension, I don't wee the point. Are you hoping people will give up? or Hoping a better proposal will be submitted? It is kind of selfish to extend the deadline for these reasons and the period to ask for deadline extensions has passed.
Posted using Partiko Android
I'm hoping to measure the level of dissent on the matter?
I am content neutral on the proposals.
I am also undecided on which to vote for, not vote for, or choose nota.
But nota has not been offered as an option.
My choice is yes, yes, or yes, no is not on the ballot.
can u come back or make a hive stellar anchor?