Looks great. Do your team holds enough bitDAO token to put the proposal on snapshot?
@kravi Thank you for your questions and your compliment, a multi-million dollar business and dealing directly with a DAO is complex, it takes a lot of patience.
1- For several reasons, in addition to the area of expertise of each governor and teams, our team reached important milestones with a small budget, we developed negotiations with the Brazilian government for months to participate in the internet access project, bring it to the Web 3 and develop these alternative local economies (Web 3 Data Economy, Helium, Content Economy and others).
My leadership is technical and I am the most experienced member, I have been crypto native since 2015, most recently I was Head of Crypto and Senior Trader at a Brazilian bank, at the same time my area of study was Tokenomics, Governance and Game Theory. Still as a senior and competitive trader, I reached rank 8 on exchanges like Binance and participating as a Market Maker on FTX.
I believe that our experiences mixed with the other members of our team and the milestones we have already reached qualify us to accept this challenge.
2- We concluded two grants with the NEAR Foundation that were vital for our advances, studies and great results, approximately 100,000 users arrived at NEAR through our activities, an operation of months with a small budget, the totality of the grants was 135K USD I must include in the frameworks the construction of programs with government authorities and very relevant private companies.
3- Our activities were totally converted to the NEAR Protocol and not to the Continent DAO individually, I think it was a right decision, because we focused all our efforts on the milestones I mentioned, dividing our attention on aspects such as the development of social networks ( only currently reserved), perhaps it would have divided our attention and we would not have developed the degree of excellence that we have achieved; soon we will be able to develop these other areas.
If we had targeted this audience to the Continent DAO or BitDAO, it would outperform all current DAOs on all blockchains in metrics. This is still possible and likely to happen (we still have calls and contact with everyone involved in the campaigns).
4- Professionally and as a leader, of course I had to analyze other scenarios from other stakeholders. But I believe that Continent DAO has the DNA of BitDAO since creation (there is some meme lost on the thread about this lol) and we will do our best to develop a partnership that serves everyone’s interest.
@Alex_Hunter A massive free internet solution also generates a massive amount of data, with the Web 3 Data Economy we will move alternative economies with it and people will have access and economic and social incentive to use crypto tools and products.
@RRRRX Thanks! Yes, after a moment of market difficulty (price dump) we reached the necessary funds, but we took this time to try to get as much support as possible from the community and large BitDAO holders.
Hey mates ,
We are returning after a few days of vacation here at Continent DAO, we made a reassessment of this moment of the market and news like the BIP-14 and future BitNetwork, so the Continent DAO team and I decided to make some changes to better fit with these factors.
When we created the proposal and published the Continent DAO proposal, BitDAO was taking its first steps to develop partnerships, with investments above 9 digits and a total bull moment in the crypto market, today we understand that the market is going through another moment, in addition to receiving new insights pointed out in governance and community feedback.
The new settings are:
We decided to change the total amount to be invested by BitDAO by $22M USD, splitting into two subsequent tranches of $11M USD; The first tranche will comprise the following assets: 50% BIT | 50% ETH | The same configuration can be followed in subsequent tranches or as defined by BitDAO. BitDAO will continue with the same benefits and as our main investor.
We understand that the huge traffic of users and new members will be directed to BitDAO through our programs, in order to help support this demand, Continent DAO is also committed to helping in the following topics: 1) Creation, Development and Maintenance of channels with Portuguese and Spanish language. 2) Collaborate and cooperate with official BitDAO channels in the translation, dissemination and creation of content. 3) Actively participate in governance and direct cooperation with the BitDAO and BitNetwork ecosystem.
Collaborate directly with BitNetwork and BitDAO.
Hey, thank you. We are focusing on receiving feedback on the proposal and looking for improvements. But we intend to propose it in a vote soon, we hope that some delegate or moderator can propose it, but if it doesn’t happen, we will do it on our own.
Great news, but why do you think it will help a lot? how will free wifi affect bitdao
This proposal is up for a vote on the BitDAO Snapshot Space
BIT Delegates, please cast your votes before the vote closes on Dec 16, 2022, 8:00 AM
@Don The discussion has been unarchived during the voting period.
First of all, thank you for your incredible support on the most voted proposal in BitDAO history (so far), Continent DAO BIP-15.
We would like to constructively challenge the following impasse and have an increasingly fair BitDAO with its community. For general context:
Documentation and Snapshot have different minimum requirements set up for a proposal to pass, while documentation says the minimum quorum is 100M BITs in the vote, Snapshot says it is 1000 BITs (voting power).
We do not received votes from known BIT delegates, but according to BitDAO principles they should vote to approve or reject proposals according to BitDAO principles:
“Anyone can propose partnerships and protocol upgrades for BitDAO. BIT token holders will vote on whether to approve or reject these proposals.” - docs.bitdao.io
There is no mention of abstention in the forum or documentation and the documentation expressly says approve or reject, “yes” or no".
An aggravating factor in this impasse is that the majority of the community believes that BIT delegates bought their tokens or received voting power from available tokens, and this is not true:
Delegates listed in the documentation who submitted proposals and voted, used Bybit’s BIT voting power in smart contracts (LOCKED tokens).
Important notice: This is not a reason to FUD. DAOs have conflict resolutions or go through moments where Core distances itself from the community in general, our intention here is to make progress with governance in general and in this specific case of the proposal.
We do not intend to escalate this matter outside of official BitDAO channels, but we do have a duty to fight for the hundreds of people who voted and trusted us with their votes. I kindly ask that BitDAO Core/BIT delegates join this discussion, these errors may not have been intentional and we want to hear from you. Collectively resolve this.
Hi @Don, following our longer discussion in the BitDAO Telegram group, I’d like to cross-post the following points in response to your post above.
The vote threshold for a vote to be valid has always been 100M BIT. This parameter is defined in the Governance Phase 1 documentation, and cannot be changed without a vote by the BIT community.
Just as there is no guarantee that every snapshot proposal will reach quorum, there is no obligation for BIT holders or delegates to vote on every proposal. That said, the BitDAO community is exploring solutions to encourage BIT holders to participate in governance. Your input on the Improving DAO Ideation and Governance prompt found on bitdao.io is encouraged.
Update: Voting has concluded for BIP-15 with 251K total votes. As the Vote Threshold (quorum) is presently set to 100M BIT or 1% of the total supply, this proposal has not passed. Please refer to the Governance Phase 1 documentation for all proposal and voting parameters. This discussion will now be archived.
Proposal authors are welcome to refine proposals based on community feedback and resubmit as a soft proposal for discussion within the community, and as many delegates as possible. I can assist with this discussion.
I would like to start this post by thanking the people who are sending their perspectives and views on the voting that took place with BIP-15. Our aim here is to seek a term that is acceptable for us to continue united and stronger, always in progress. It is not our intention to overwrite the documentation or invalidate a vote that was carried out within the parameters presented to the public (BitDAO Snapshot).
With that in mind, let’s go to the facts at the moment the voting was initiated until its conclusion:
- The Key Settings states that the Vote Threshold for the proposal to be approved is 100M BIT.
What is the Vote Threshold according to the BitDAO documentation: The minimum number of weight of votes (BIT tokens) required to vote on a proposal. […]
Comment: This is confusing and leaves a wide margin for different interpretations, I will cite one of them: Is 100M BIT of voting weight required to vote on a proposal? This does not seem to be true.
Perhaps the author’s intention was to describe a quorum of 100M BIT. But the continuation is even more confusing:
If this minimum is not reached, the vote will not be successful, even if a majority of the electors have voted yes.
The definition of quorum is the minimum number of members of a group or committee that must be present for that group to take official action. Knowing this: The only place where this word is used correctly is in the BitDAO Snapshot.
- The BitDAO snapshot pointed to the 1000 BIT parameter as the minimum quorum and this was reached by Continent DAO.
Another point that was debated and questioned was the veracity of this, after proving that it was true we received the following responses:
This is a recent configuration of the Snapshot. - Refuted by the Snapshot team.
The community should report this and then the moderators would make the updates. - Refuted: During the 7 days of voting, several messages in the BitDAO and BitDAO CN groups referred to the proposal passing without the votes of Known Delegates; no one made a statement or clarification. - I think it is serious to blame the community for perhaps internal management errors.
In our opinion, there is a conflict between the two sources of reliable information: the BitDAO Snapshot and the BitDAO documentation. Continuing:
The above settings are managed by the administrators of the BitDAO Snapshot Space, who were appointed by the bitdao.eth dns multi-sig owners.
In Phase 1 Snapshot, the above parameters are policies and are not applied by code. The affiliated BitDAO R&D centers and multi-sig administrators will not recognize any proposal that is not in compliance with the above settings.
This is a very important part that is also very confusing. At the same time that they are appointed administrators by the owners of the BitDAO multi-signature wallet, demonstrating complete veracity in their representation, in the second paragraph it states that the above settings are parameters and not executed by code - Refuted: it is coded and was updated after the BIP-15 vote with this.
Continuing: The affiliated BitDAO R&D centers and multi-sig administrators will not recognize any proposal that is not in compliance with the above settings.
Again confusing, do the above settings include notes and texts or only the “Key Settings”? - If they do not recognize the proposals, why did they not vote against?
There are several other points discussed in the other channels that I have not included here so that the reading is not too tiring, but if necessary or requested I can include more.
Since after the vote and the beginning of all this confusion, the Continent DAO has proposed to seek a collective solution, since there was no recognition of the approval, the suggestion with the best feedback among part of the community, members of Davion Labs and Mantle Network were:
The Continent DAO will resubmit the proposal to the BitDAO Governance for full recognition now with the guarantee of the votes of the Known Delegates in favor of the proposal and respecting the votes of the absolute majority that participated for 7 days of the historic BIP-15 vote. I also mentioned that if there was any change that could be corrected, the Continent DAO could review and change it.
I would like to request @Je @Lbrian @jacobc.eth your help in contacting these Known Delegates (like @cateatpeanut, Windranger, Mantle and others) if they approve this term and we can resubmit the proposal as soon as possible so that the situation does not extend and we can move forward with our progress.
I am at your disposal to provide clarifications and proofs.
Hi @Don. Thanks for providing above some context to your statements in other channels. Summarizing what we’ve already covered in Telegram, I want to reiterate that the vote threshold (quorum) has always been 100M BIT as you acknowledged here in September. It has never been 1000 BIT. If you’ve seen anything other than 100M BIT being claimed as the vote threshold, it is inaccurate and should be flagged and corrected to 100M BIT. As stated in the Governance Phase 1 documentation, any claims that the vote threshold is anything other than what is set in the Governance Phase 1 documentation (100M BIT) are not in compliance with the established voting parameters and their proposal(s) will not be recognized.
If you feel the vote threshold should be lowered, the correct process is to submit a soft proposal to the BIT community here in the forum. If there is significant interest to adjust the parameters, this can be put to a snapshot vote as was done in BIP-3, when the threshold for submitting a proposal was lowered from 10M BIT to 200K BIT.
We would like to bring to your attention a situation that is not provided for in the BitDAO documentation. The documentation indicates that these parameters are not implemented by code, however, they have been effectively implemented and updated only after BIP-15. We present evidence at the end of this post.
We consider that, since these parameters have been implemented in accordance with the standards established in the cryptocurrency industry and in accordance with legal observations, this situation should be reviewed by the administrators of BitDAO and, if not recognized, we should reach a reasonable agreement for both parties, as mentioned in the suggestions.
Regarding your claim that the community “must” report or be responsible for overseeing the activities of the DAO, we would like to bring to your attention the interesting comment made by member Igneus, according to which, when a legal text refers to an obligation, the correct term is “Shall” and not “Will”. Therefore, the community is not obliged to report or be responsible for overseeing the activities of the DAO, being this a voluntary activity.
As mentioned in other channels, any new definition or modification of texts and configurations cannot retroactively imply in the previously established terms, whether in proposals, documentation or Snapshot/Code configuration. Therefore, we are not requesting new guidelines, we are requesting that the conditions under which the approval of BIP-15 occurred are respected.
@Don I can’t make sense of these screenshots. You refer to it as ‘evidence’ but what are we even looking at here?
Every project in the top 5 on Snapshot has 1000 as a sort of placeholder default on their settings page. This is Aave’s snapshot as an example:
Here is Gitcoin’s snapshot settings page with 1000 as the default. This in no way means that the vote threshold for all these projects is 1000.
As you can see with the printscreen of the CN group there is a difference in display, so we can understand that there is a temporal difference between what I and the communities saw during the voting and what printscreen you claimed to be from the same time as the voting or even before. You sent the wrong message across the community on other channels.
I think it’s interesting that you seek validity by citing Snapshot’s other projects for two reasons: 1. There are Snapshot Spaces that do not need any documentation of their own, taking advantage of the common practice that the decision is made by code and must be respected. 2. Even taking this into account the fields are different, between the printscreens we provided and you provided, look more closely.
With this we can interrupt several repetitive arguments for you and conclude that: 1. The documentation is contradictory and confusing and does not address all possibilities; 2. There was indeed a difference in parameters contrary to what you said. 3. This field is new (Refuted). 4. The teams responsible for moderation and administration did not give due importance even with the public discussion of this issue 5. Code is important because of common industry practice and you sought to validate your example against this standard. (Including AAVE which has no terms of service or external page that overlaps the code).
That seems to be a Google translation of the BitDAO snapshot into Mandarin. I don’t see any indication that there is an issue with the way vote threshold was displayed on the English version of the snapshot app. The 1000 is a default text on the settings page of every project I have looked at. The 1000 is placeholder text. It means nothing. Please always refer to Governance Phase 1 documentation for the voting parameters.
Since BIP-15 did not meet quorum, this thread will be archived.
We do not intend to escalate this matter outside of official BitDAO channels, but we do have a duty to fight for the hundreds of people who voted and trusted us with their votes.
they all have similar transaction history, most even funded by the same address. It may work farming the arbitrum and zksync airdrops, but obviously not hitting quorum on a $22m proposal for BitDAO.
The quorum was populated with 1000, not like you are claiming as Snapshot’s “default”. Why did you update the values to 100M contradicting the documentation that states that the parameters are not implemented by code?
The BIP-15 passed according to the provided code and parameters. That’s a fact, if you don’t want to recognize the decision for the code, which is the standard and foundation of the industry, it’s something else and your decision alone. - Not provided by the BitDAO Documentation and the text expressly determines that there is no parameter by code.
The community requested that we slow down the discussion on this topic on telegram, if you lock the topic I will need to reply there.
You can check the history of voters in BitDAO Snapshot. At first, while I was following them, they were old accounts.
We were careful not to disclose the proposals in the public channels of those involved so as not to generate an external decision. But the BitDAO Snapshot is visible in the Snapshot overview panel (anyone has access).
You can check the history of voters in BitDAO Snapshot. At first, while I was following them, they were old accounts.
I did. Letting them age for a while doesn’t make it less of a sybil attack.