Proposal has been rejected!
Percentage of eligible voters who actually voted = 38.1%
This means that if EVERYONE who voted had ALL voted “YES”, the proposal would still have been rejected.
Percentage “YES” votes (of total eligible votes) = 22.2%
This number is less than 50%; as such, the proposal was NOT ratified. The current governance protocol requires this number to be greater than 50% for a proposal to be ratified.
Percentage “YES” votes (of those who actually voted) = 58.3%
This number is interesting, but irrelevant based on the current governance protocol.
NOTE: As required by @proofofbraionio’s call for proposals (available here), this post has 100% beneficiary set to @pob-fund, is tagged with #pob-proposal, and has two comments to which you are to cast your stake-weighted vote (any upvote amount votes your entire POB stake).
No ‘de minimus downvote’ option
The is a NEW proposal that is identical to my previous proposal that is still being voted on, except that [1] I have completely removed the de minimus downvote option (because several individuals have voiced concerns about that provision in the comments), [2] I have added the requirement that every downvote must be accompanied by an explicit comment citing the reason for the downvote, and [3] I have added clarification regarding how suspected alt accounts will be handled.
There is no precedence for doing this (one way or the other), but since we don’t have Roberts Rules of Order to govern how to amend a motion that’s been moved and seconded, we kinda have to figure it out as we go. So this is my attempt at accepting what’s known as a ‘friendly amendment’.
So, my take on the procedure for these two proposals is this:
- Whichever proposal receives greater than 50% “Yes” votes first will be ratified, and the other will become moot.
- If neither proposal receives greater than 50% “Yes” votes by their respective expiration dates / times then we are back where we started -- with nothing gained, nothing lost, I suppose.
I announced in a post a couple weeks ago my intention to file a formal proposal regarding rules to govern downvoting within the ‘Proof of Brain’ tribe. I have gone through all the comments and have done my best to incorporate constructive feedback. The biggest changes have been restructuring, with additional and expanded definitions, for ease of interpretation. Also, ‘Fair Use Violation’ has been added to the definition of ‘Plagiarism’ and HBD has been included in the definition of ‘de minimus Downvote’. The proposal has three sections:
- DEFINITIONS -- defining the key terms
- RULES -- detailing the actual ‘rules’ to be enforced
- GLOSSARY -- defining ancillary terms
DEFINITIONS
“Proof of Brain” post -- any post placed using the proofofbrain.io front-end or using any of the current “Proof of Brain” tags (e.g. ‘pob’ and ‘proofofbrain’).
“Proof of Brain” comment -- any ‘reply’ made to a “Proof of Brain” post or comment.
Valid Downvote -- downvote of a “Proof of Brain” post or comment for any of the following reasons: [1] plagiarism (requires documentation), [2] failure to properly tag NSFW (not safe for work) content, or [3] any action defined as ‘bad behavior’ via a tribe-approved ‘community consensus’ protocol. For a downvote to be considered ‘valid’, a comment must be placed as a reply to the offending post or comment, explicitly stating one of the above reasons, and providing a link to any necessary documentation (e.g. evidence of plagiarism).
Malicious Downvote -- any downvote that does not meet the definition of a ‘Valid Downvote’.
Plagiarism -- presenting content created by someone else as if it were your own. For purposes of this directive, plagiarism is further categorized as Copy/Paste Plagiarism, Spinning, Fair-Use Violation, and Partial Plagiarism.
Copy/Paste Plagiarism -- copying someone else’s content word-for-word without doing both the following: [1] placing the copied text within quotation marks (or as a block quote) and [2] correctly identifying the source from which the quotation was drawn.
Spinning -- copying someone else’s content by putting it into your own words without attribution (i.e. without identifying the original author and source material).
- If you are publishing as a “Proof of Brain” post any of your own original content that was previously published elsewhere, you must identify the content as having been published elsewhere, with citation and/or links to the original source material.
Fair Use Violation -- using too much of someone else’s content (even with attribution) or using someone else’s content without providing your own substantial original content.
- This includes merely presenting a ‘translation’ of someone else’s content, with little or no original content of your own.
Partial Plagiarism -- incorporating any aspect of either copy/paste plagiarism or spinning into a document, or deceptively misrepresenting or mis-identifying the original author or source material.
RULES -- (Proposed Rules to Govern Downvoting within the “Proof of Brain” Tribe)
- Malicious Downvoting of any “Proof of Brain” post or comment is hereby prohibited.
- First offense will result in a warning (which will be issued as a comment to the downvoted post or comment -- the offending account will be directly tagged in the comment).
- First subsequent offense (after issuance of a warning) will result in the downvoting account being muted for a period of 10 days.
- Second subsequent offense (after issuance of a warning) will result in the downvoting account being permanently muted. However, if the second subsequent offense (after issuance of a warning) occurs before the 10-day mute period begins, the 10-day period will be skipped and the downvoting account will be permanently muted.
- Alt accounts will be muted as well (after a detailed review of each suspected alt account).
GLOSSARY -- (general definitions that might help non-native English speakers and others better understand the above proposal)
Muting -- the ‘owner’ of the tribe (in this case, @proofofbrainio) can ‘mute’ and ‘unmute’ any Hive account at any time. When an account is muted by a tribe, two things happen: [1] anything that account publishes on the Hive blockchain (i.e. a post or comment) will be hidden from view on the tribe’s front-end (proofofbrain.io) (but will still be viewable from other front-ends, such as peakd.com,
Alt Account -- any account that is under the control of the same person. For example, the “Proof of Brain” tribe has two accounts (@proofofbrainio and @pob-fund). Both accounts are under the control of the same person and thus are ‘alt accounts’ with each other. In many circumstances, it is difficult to know whether an account is truly an ‘alt account’ with another. For purposes of this proposed directive, any account that has received significant token delegations or transfers (and vice versa) will be closely evaluated as a ‘suspected alt account’. The owner of the suspected alt account will likely be asked to provide evidence or adequate explanation demonstrating independence of ownership and control relative to the offending account.
Community-Consensus Protocol -- At present, the only ‘community-consensus protocol’ within the “Proof of Brain” tribe is the protocol being used to vote on this proposal. It was outlined by @proofofbrainio, the tribe founder, in this post under the heading Moving Forward (reprinted directly below for ease of access):
Anyone can make a proposal for a decision that is to be made and put a “yes” comment and a “no” comment.
Proposal posts must be tagged with #pob-proposal and have a 100% beneficiary to @pob-fund to avoid spamming. A vote on one of the comments at any percentage, counts as a full stake weighted vote. More than 50% of stake must vote on “yes” or “no” to make the decision.
To vote ‘Yes’ you simply upvote (with any amount -- percentage of the upvote does not matter) the comment below that has the heading “Upvote this comment to vote YES for the proposal”.
To vote ’No’ you simply upvote (with any amount -- percentage of the upvote does not matter) the comment below that has the heading “Upvote this comment to vote NO for the proposal”.
You may abstain from voting. Abstaining from voting is essentially the same as voting ’No’, because greater than 50% of the staked POB must vote ‘Yes’ for the proposal to be ratified.
I will update the vote tally below, hopefully on a daily basis. You can change your vote at any time (by removing your original upvote and then upvoting the other comment); however, once the required threshold has been met (with greater than 50% voting ‘Yes’ or greater than 50% voting ‘No’) then this proposal will have been either ratified or rejected. After that point, votes cannot be switched; a new proposal would need to be created to subsequently change the outcome of this particular vote.
If, after the payout window for this post closes, this proposal has not received greater than 50% in either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ votes, then it will expire (which will effectively be the same as if it had received greater than 50% ‘No’ votes).
NOTE: For purposes of the stake-weighted voting, votes will be counted based on the stake of POB ‘owned and staked’ (not delegated) . I will be retrieving those values from the Hive-Engine POB richlist.
I will be using the richlist values from “July 6, 2021 16:00 UTC” until the vote tally approaches 50% ‘Yes’ or 50% ‘No’, at which time I will update the stake-weighted values for the accounts with the largest stakes. Once the total ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ minimum threshold has been reached, I will update all vote values based on the then-current richlist.
FINAL Vote Tally (as of July 16, 2021 09:20 UTC, with total staked POB = 829,815.30):
Proposal has been rejected!
Percentage of eligible voters who actually voted = 38.1%
Percentage affirmative votes cast (of total eligible votes) = 22.2% (which is less than 50%; as such, the proposal was NOT ratified)
Percentage affirmative votes cast (of those who actually voted) = 58.3% (This number is interesting, but irrelevant based on the current governance protocol)
- YES votes (total = 184,048.703 POB = 22.18%) (Must be greater than 50% for proposal to be ratified)
- @trostparadox (49,548.243 POB = 5.97%)
- @trostparadox.pob (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @calumam (10,038.332 POB = 1.21%)
- @josediccus (1,850.740 POB = 0.22%)
- @frot (12,400.000 POB = 1.49%)
- @revisesociology (94.851 POB = 0.01%)
- @revise.pob (1,019.356 POB = 0.12%)
- @tobetada (640.437 POB = 0.08%)
- @shubhwaj (365.260 POB = 0.04%)
- @suss (1,000.000 POB = 0.12%)
- @shralve (5,037.500 POB = 0.61%)
- @lucylin (7,199.990 POB = 0.87%)
- @sift666 (200.000 POB = 0.02%)
- @lols (1,200.000 POB = 0.14%)
- @snot (30.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @ripe (1.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @niff (20.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @pube (10.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @mg-nz (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @gimp (30.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @sugandhaseth (373.258 POB = 0.04%)
- @scholaris.pob (17,781.524 POB = 2.14%)
- @small1axe (666.815 POB = 0.08%)
- @stevescoins (105.773 POB = 0.01%)
- @active-truth (514.000 POB = 0.06%)
- @offgridlife (5,550.762 POB = 0.67%)
- @wiseagent (6,516.000 POB = 0.79%)
- @nevies (840.000 POB = 0.10%)
- @coininstant (3,038.656 POB = 0.37%)
- @dwinblood (910.832 POB = 0.11%)
- @shadflyfilms (122.339 POB = 0.01%)
- @marvinix (1,900.063 POB = 0.23%)
- @mineopoly (3,358.110 POB = 0.40%)
- @ralexandria (900.000 POB = 0.11%)
- @bobthebuilder2 (1,700.000 POB = 0.20%)
- @sodomlv (54.182 POB = 0.01%)
- @vikbuddy (doublevote) (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @ezrider (7,584.365 POB = 0.91%)
- @done (2,099.856 POB = 0.25%)
- @jeffjagoe (14,300.287 POB = 1.72%)
- @katerinhernandez (15.441 POB = 0.00%)
- @xyba.pob (6,698.539 POB = 0.81%)
- @pialejoana (400.804 POB = 0.05%)
- @barge (21.926 POB = 0.00%)
- @jaxsonmurph (894.100 POB = 0.11%)
- @thelogicaldude (554.434 POB = 0.07%)
- @thoughts-in-time (1,002.568 POB = 0.12%)
- @cjt (696.752 POB = 0.08%)
- @dalz.shorts (0.000 POB = 0.00%)
- @lesliestarrohara (44.012 POB = 0.01%)
- @junkfeathers (5,032.819 POB = 0.61%)
- @felipejoys (1,391.023 POB = 0.17%)
- @ashleykalila (1,280.970 POB = 0.15%)
- @fireguardian (2,444.675 POB = 0.29%)
- @vikbuddy (501.088 POB = 0.06%)
- @no-advice (3,061.990 POB = 0.37%)
- @kamran-rkploy (1,005.031 POB = 0.12%)
- NO votes (total = 131,823.914 POB = 15.89%)
- @onealfa.pob (80,000.000 POB = 9.64%)
- @ctime (6,835.357 POB = 0.82%)
- @botvotes (10,917.606 POB = 1.32%)
- @espandorr (2,100.333 POB = 0.25%)
- @ralexandria (900.000 POB = 0.11%)
- @espandor (1,717.543 POB = 0.21%)
- @trumpman (5,358.418 POB = 0.65%)
- @scooter77.pob (1,715.743 POB = 0.21%)
- @scooter77 (4,011.586 POB = 0.48%)
- @finguru (1,541.597 POB = 0.19%)
- @bluerobo (135.051 POB = 0.02%)
- @stratton.npc (120.706 POB = 0.01%)
- @shebe (1,139.936 POB = 0.14%)
- @jlordc (635.000 POB = 0.08%)
- @melbourneswest (1,783.306 POB = 0.21%)
- @phusionphil (5,038.475 POB = 0.61%)
- @jfang003 (1,599.909 POB = 0.19%)
- @photophile (415.408 POB = 0.05%)
- @honeysaver.fund (712.243 POB = 0.09%)
- @uwelang (2,823.754 POB = 0.34%)
- @yayogerardo (158.626 POB = 0.02%)
- @riandeuk (393.099 POB = 0.05%)
- @antisocialist (1,269.130 POB = 0.15%)
- @vikbuddy (501.088 POB = 0.06%)
Vote “YES” Here!
Upvote this comment to vote YES for the above proposal
To vote ‘Yes’ for this proposal, simply upvote this comment (with any amount -- percentage of the upvote does not matter).
NOTE: Only POB that is owned and staked by the voting account counts toward the vote tally. Delegated POB cannot be voted by the delegated account. Delegated POB follows the owner account.
You can change your vote from ’Yes’ to ’No’ by removing your upvote to this comment and placing an upvote on the ’No’ comment.
Yes
Vote “NO” Here!
Upvote this comment to vote NO for the above proposal
To vote ’No’ for this proposal, simply upvote this comment (with any amount -- percentage of the upvote does not matter).
NOTE: Only POB that is owned and staked by the voting account counts toward the vote tally. Delegated POB cannot be voted by the delegated account. Delegated POB follows the owner account.
You can change your vote from ’No’ to ‘Yes’ by removing your upvote to this comment and placing an upvote on the ‘Yes’ comment.
This was an insult to what I know as freedom of expression. Unlike the other proposal I can see a clear cut bias that actually pissed me off. I am not going to judge the author as I am sure they were just speaking to the moment.
I have thought about it all week. Something just wasn't making me keen on voting - either way. I don't want to see anyone leave the platform over this. I think that there is a way to move forward and making down-voting not an issue.
I think that anything that gets entrenched into the culture of a place becomes the law, where the code would take a back seat to the culture. I think that there are ways to develop a culture on POB that renders the downvote more or less obsolete. I am not quite sure how to do it, but I do feel that this is a good starting point to keep churning out what is important to people on POB. This proposal shows that there are a lot of people that would like to try a downvote free zone. I would like to see that too... but I would also like to do it in a way that it is just abolished.
Issues in the world are never stopped due to a law being passed. It is when the culture shifts that the magic happens. I would love to see, and be a part of, more discussion on how to build a culture on POB where there is no need for a downvote (even if the option is there).
I really hope that you stay here and try to build something great even if this proposal does not pass @trostparadox. I also know that my abstention is basically a no vote. I did not vote "NO" either. I wasn't enough on board to vote yes, and I wasn't too strongly opposed to vote no.
I will also be pushing for a change to the governance protocol, so that folks can genuinely 'abstain' without having their abstention count as a "NO" vote.
Thanks for the feedback. I plan to stick around and actively work to improve upon the status quo. I am still confident we will figure out a good solution to this issue.
That is likely to be my next effort -- pushing for an experimental DV-free-zone 'trial period'. I am okay with making POB a DV-free zone, as long as we have robust procedures in place so that we can swiftly mute plagiarism accounts (because under the DV-free scenario the tribe-wide mute becomes the only weapon to combat abuse).
I agree with that sentiment 100%.
I didn't vote at all. You may check here what I think about that : Proof of Brain proposal with Proof of Stake vote !
I will abstain from voting for my own personal opinion. Although I know how good it can help around here at the same time I don't agree with this type of subject discussed.
But I have to say that there were very nice improvements after the feedbacks and with your reposting through the community. I believe we can refine this even further!
After these two proposals have run their course, regardless of the outcome, I would like to know what changes could earn your enthusiastic support.
That's okay!
I see it as a necessary evil to be concerned about these things. But it's a subject I don't like so much just for the fact that I would like to see more positive ideas for projects that involve growth and not problem solving.
Although someone has to do this work that has been their case for proposals.
Can you elaborate further? How are ideals for growth not related to solving some problem?
Yes! I can. Does this refer to the positive empowerment ideas I mention? I can create a post talking and exposing this whole detailed idea.
Yeah. I think that would help if you didn’t mind.
Certainly
I will assemble this post in detail. This will also help with an idea that I talk to @calumam currently as well.
And I'll throw the idea, and stay to see if they find it interesting or not
Two issues are emerging with this voting system:
1. Sort order - if the order of comments is set to age rather than reward, both the Yes and No vote comments are hidden at the bottom. So potential voters don't see anywhere to vote, and just vote for the post itself, rather than either comment.
2. The default is NO. Getting 50% of stake holders to vote at all, let alone to vote for either YES or NO, is not easy. So far the total votes only amount to 23%. Is getting over 50% to vote YES an almost impossible hurdle?
Even if #proofofbrainio votes YES, we will still be nowhere near 50%...
Is this proposal voting system doomed to fail?
Time is of essence here. Let's just wait and see what happens, i think the new proposal has a chance of being accepted compared to the last one. !PIZZA
@frot! I sent you a slice of $PIZZA on behalf of @marvinix.
Learn more about $PIZZA Token at hive.pizza (3/10)
Yes, it seems that way.
Treating an abstention as a "NO" vote is not ideal, imho.
Perhaps. It seems the current voting protocol (requiring > 50% of all staked POB to vote "YES" before a proposal can be accepted) might be too high a bar.
And this will get harder and harder as the distribution of tokens becomes spread over more and more accounts. In other words, the more decentralized the distribution becomes, the harder it will be to reach 'community consensus' on any given issue.
@proofofbrainio might want to consider adding a provision stating that, if the 50% threshold is not met, then a proposal can still be ratified if 2/3 of all stake-weighted votes cast during the voting period are "YES" votes.
That would provide the following advantages:
I decided to do a post of my own with a few reasons as to why I am voting No: https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-167922/@scooter77/downvoting-proposal-on-pob-why-i-vote-no-to-the-proposal
With de minimus or without. I care more about something being implemented. Anything can be changed at anytime. The point is to arrive on a consensus fast and move forward.
I think rules are made with an intention. And those who are going to supervise and implement them the most are smart enough to consider why they are present at first place rather then using them as some guidelines engraved in stone. So if something doesn’t work out and slaps back, can always be ratified.
like one of the commenters suggested there should a third option--absentation (I choose absentation). I honestly do not want to get involved in blockchain politics anymore. It has always proven to be very messy.
however, I am of the opinion that downvotes should be regulated the same way upvotes are. if reward abuse is a thing then certainly downvote abuse is a thing as well and should be regulated.
i do not see the need for downvotes on a tribe level because cases of abuse, plagiarism, etc can be addressed with a simple mute.
Well-stated.
That option is definitely on the table and will likely be where I focus my attention next if these proposals both fail.
Agreed. I am hopeful proofofbrainio will modify the governance protocol in the near future so that an abstention does not equate to a "NO" vote.
Thank you for giving clear explanations on all the words!!
Well done 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
I am glad the changes were made on the de-minimus part.
This is a welcome development and it tackles constant abuse of posting plagiarized content on the blockchain.
I believe this will be a first step taken in the right direction which i am positive will be of help to everyone in the community, both new and old users.
!LUV !PIZZA
@trostparadox! I sent you a slice of $PIZZA on behalf of @marvinix.
Learn more about $PIZZA Token at hive.pizza (10/10)
YES - I fully support this proposal and my vote is for YES. That No vote was a mistake and I changed it to yes straight after I did it, so feel free to take my vote off the No list next update.
Maybe incentives to vote will help?
Trying to herd cats is difficult work.
Mostly, my takeaway is that the crowd wants these things handled on an individual basis so that their moral outrage carries more impact.
Set the rules you find convenient for your purposes and be prepared to defend them from an angry mob.
This is how this is gonna work, anyway.
Might as well plan for it from the start.
Reading that link should help you better coordinate this aspect of the work ahead of you.
Good luck.
I don't think written rules will help here, too much subjectivity.
I'd propose that the crowd sort it out.
You'll likely need to go throught the power totals at the end as I know people on here have powered up. Some may have powered down.
Yes, I do not update those every day because it would be too time-consuming. If the total percentage gets anywhere close to 50% yay or nay, I will start updating those data along with the new votes.
I updated them for the final tally of the first proposal, so future updates to the "new" proposal will have richlist data current through this morning.
What a great proposal, it's an added advantage to the platform
Look at that, adaptations made in response to the communities feedback. It's almost like nothing is set in stone and the benefits of experimenting can show us grey areas that we can build on...
Means the community might have a voice that sometimes requires yay or nay to bring into light. Im voting yes because the proposal is decent
Precisely. A voice that shouldn't be feared because the prospect of rewards is held and dangled by some.
I wrote about the motivation of fear not long ago and how it compromises the Proof Of Brain mechanics within a DPoS system.
Here is a prime example of someone using that motivation to manipulate.
Well, most people allow this to threaten them. This user himself has muted me on all front probably because I don't do what he Wants. But thats me, I muted him in return and all the prospective reward he might give me because I cant conform to whatever he offers. So Many will continue being motivated by fear, its almost everywhere in the world
I'm sure he'd mute me as well if I stopped giving him a warm feeling in his heart every time I drop him a comment.
His mute button is a weapon he likes a lot. He's always trying to force his ideas on others and when you don't conform, he mutes them and I actually think that's anarchial in nature.
Hey @Josediccus,
as I understand anarchy, it is not a ruleless agreement between people, but a form of community in which the most minimal, yet clearest rules are already included, because we are human beings and not just instinctive animals. We know and recognise fairness when we see it, just like the opposite. Dominating someone for purely self-centred reasons is probably not one of them. So I don't necessarily define such as anarchic, but as arbitrary. However, arbitrariness is not something that would be tolerated in an anarchic community, nor is it in a "more developed" one. I see arbitrariness as an impulsive act that has not allowed deliberation to take effect in the agent. Where people only react to stimuli and action becomes more important than non-action, we live on shaky ground. Such things are generally perceived as "lawless" or "ruleless", which brings us full circle :)
Greetings.
The almighty one has just threatened to IGNORE me...
This is like a Monty Python skit!
You can actually say that again
No I can't 😃
Downvotes seem to cause all kinds of Trouble on Hive…. Especially ones made out of spite, vindictiveness, anger, envy, jealousy, etc… there has to be a better way.
That's what we're aiming for here.
The "Proof of Brain" tribe is an experiment aiming to capture the essence that Hive and
Steemhave failed to instantiate -- we will keep iterating to keep improving, as long as it takes, probably forever ...Blurt has eliminated the Downvote wars by getting rid of the Downvote button. They have developed a proprietary algorithm to stop bad actors … some very smart developers over there. https://Blurt.blog
It's great to see things being decided in a collective spirit and valuing community interaction and users' right to vote for what they consider better or worse.
Long live for the POB project!
This is an improvement over the last one thanks!
But I'm confused about the 50% upvote thing, does that mean we're supposed to go an downvote what we don't agree with?
Also I'm no so sure about the first past the post system? I don't get that?
From what I read, the 50% upvote is based on 50% of the staked POB within the system...so if there are 1000 POB in the whole system and 5 people who have 101 POB each upvote and another 50000 people downvote, the upvote worth 505/1000 is greater than whatever the 50000 people are holding because it would be less than the 501/1000 mark. I have 1700 POB staked. That means my vote is worth 1700 of the total POB, as I understand it. If you have 2 POB staked, your vote, regardless of the percentage of the upvote you cast, will be worth 2 out of all the POB available...that's how I understood it. This means when onealfa voted no, it was a big no vote because he owns about 9% of all POB. Collectively, there are enough yes votes equal to 13% of the POB as of this writing...so far it is 13:9; however the vote has to have more than 50% of the POB available to pass. Based on what I saw, my vote is worth about 0.21%.
Ah I SEE what you mean, thanks for explanation.
Great user name btw, shame some cheeky fuck had already claimed just the name itself!
that's funny...on Steem, I was @bobthebuilder but I lost my passwords. I thought I had printed them out and had a copy at my desk at work and another copy at home. I had my password saved on my personal computer and I guess I was too good at hiding all 3 or I threw them away...and my computer harddrive crashed...soooo....here I am @bobthebuilder2 lol 😎🤓
oh shit that is some bad luck!
At least it gave you a chance to update your profile picture i guess!?!
I'm surprised the oligarch vigilantes haven't downvoted you for "impersonation".
Or maybe they have... muwahaha
I have read this in full, and think it the best idea I've seen on this blockchain in five years. Many thanks, you have my full support, and if this goes through it will give me some real hope for a workable platform for the very first time.
I so much agreed with you and proper proposal like this should be review and given a try to Control the downvoting rule
Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more
looks pretty reasonable,, thanks for the work
@trostparadox, you were given LUV from @marvinix. About LUV: https://peakd.com/@luvshares