Recently a proposal was posted which included incentivization in the project’s native token for participants in the voting process, it should be considered if a rule should be adopted in the DAO that does not allow incentivization of voting process participation.
I would support such a rule. The procedures in place are designed to ensure a form of due diligence is observed. I think airdropping tokens to participants can misalign incentives.
Yes a rule against incentivized voting would be great. Hopefully we continue attracting those genuinely interested in the growth of the ecosystem and not people simply looking for rewards.
I understand this rule looks like a bribe to vote.Our original intention was to encourage more people to participate in the Dao discussion.If most people do not want the rule to continue, we can simply remove it.Thank you for your support and interest in us.
I find buying votes very unethical. Even if votes and the text gets removed, the votes have still won. The big voters should take note of these shady ways even if it’s pushed through. I think there should defo be rules and penalties involved around voting for community CKB.
I noticed that this airdrop offer was not removed from the proposal on Metaforo and people have been posting their wallet addresses
I think this is evidence that the voting system can be manipulated. That there will always be scammers trying to get community money by what ever means necessary. Very disappointing and a lack of morals. As a community we can call out the project on twitter and other socials if needed.
I understand your concerns. We have been building HuntingNFT on Nervos since June 2021.With the support and help of the Nervos Group, we have successfully launched version V1.5, and have cooperated with Unipass, .bit, YokaiSWAP, Nervape form good partnerships.
What we want to explain is that we did not want to get votes through airdrops, we just want to make Nervos Dao more active in this way, and we guarantee that against votes will also get airdrops.
We belong to Nervos, and our TGE shares should also be shared by community participants. This is just a small gift we give to everyone who loves this community.
I think mixing airdrops with a grant proposal is always going to create controversy, even if you offer airdrops to against voters. It isn’t a good look for wallet addresses to be posted in the comments.
My suggestion would be, as a demonstration of good faith, that you withdraw the vote and resubmit without the airdrop part.
That way, people can vote on the proposal purely based on its own merit.
How do you or we know that it’s not continued behind closed doors?
I would be actively against any proposal that “incentivised” users to vote with giveaways, free tokens, and airdrops.
A genuine proposal should not need to incentivise users to participate in a vote. It could be detrimental both to this project and nervos if the proposal stays in its current form. I would suggest the proposal is withdrawn, reconsidered and reworded, then resubmitted.
I don’t think its a good idea to incentivize people to vote. It should be up to their free will not a soft bribe. Why? because the votes will not be genuine. You could have done this airdrop thing way before the proposal as a campaign to get love from the community and show off what you can do for them. If im voting for something its because I have seen whats been done and i think the vision could take a step further. The way youre doing it is literally trying to buy votes c’mon will you even have hardcore supporters that way?. Do it the proper way!
We start on Nervos and we belong to Nervos, our initial plans were some TGE shares should be shared by community participants. This is just a small gift we give to everyone who loves this community and make Nervos Dao more active in this way.
As you can see many supporters didn’t leave an 0x address and they just support what we did.
After receiving your feedback,we started to reconsider whether this was the right thing to do and we respect every member of the community.
Im surprised that this rule wasnt in efect from the beggining. A project that has potential and is solid doesnt need to bribe investors to vote for it, instead they should present their use case and potential and try to convice investors of their potential without airdrops and any kind of “payment” for voting yes.
Thank you for your interest and we are thinking about the rightness of doing this.
Believe me, most of the votes were simply in support of the project and they didn’t leave 0x address.
Our proposal said we would airdrop those who voted, which also included a negative vote, and the controversial discussion was helpful in improving our project.
Not to throw any shade at the huntingNFT team, because my issue is not with them. But just in consideration for the overall process of a community fund and dao, i think it would be appropriate to prevent any proposals that have the appearance of buying or incentivizing votes. I think that would be best for the community overall.
I am one of the people that voted yes and didn’t leave an 0x address. I wasn’t bribed.
@HuntingNFT.Team 2 things I think you should clarify as I have seen people mention this as a reason why people should vote no for the project.
You gave away 50,000 in USD now you have no money and need a bail out and so applied for community funds. I know this to be untrue but your words would have much more meaning.
You are bribing people to vote. Maybe provide an example of how little $HNFT someone who voted 1 million CKB would get compared to someone that got a best tester NFT and then paid the about 10,000 ckb it would take to get the gear to mint a dragon on mainnet.
I want to repeat, I don’t want anything in exchange for my vote, positive or negative. That includes being “approached” to justify why I voted yes. Voting without being anonymous is super fun…
There is still no rule in place that restricts incentives, although I agree there should be. The HuntingNFT team shouldn’t be penalized for our lack of community engagement while we decide where do we draw the line. For example, and I think this is as unfair as the criticism the huntingnft team has received. But why couldn’t someone have made the argument that offering to pay community educators could have been used to buy votes.
As a possible compromise here as it relates to being rewarded for voting if it will reduce the noise Maybe ask the people that posted an 0x address already to agree to add what they would be given directly to the 6 million best tester pool or the 14 million mainnet pool. For those unaware the 14 million mainnet pool is still available for anyone that mints a dragon on mainnet. That would allow for everyone to benefit equally.
@HuntingNFT.Team I applaud your professional in responding to criticism over the past few days.
I think everyone here has their heart in the right place and wants the ecosystem to succeed. But in my opinion we have gone off rails here.
This community fund is just a precursor to the Treasury which has a permanent perpetual funding mechanism in place. Why there is so much hate for a project that is already built to the point it has incorporated most parts of the ecosystem is puzzling to me.
我是投赞成票并且没有留下 0x 地址的人之一。 我没有被贿赂。
@HuntingNFT.Team 我认为你应该澄清 2 件事，因为我看到有人提到这是人们应该对该项目投反对票的原因。
你捐赠了 50,000 美元，现在你没有钱，需要救助，所以申请了社区基金。 我知道这是不真实的，但你的话会有更多的意义。
你在贿赂人们投票。 也许提供一个例子，说明投票给 100 万 CKB 的人与获得最佳测试 NFT 然后支付大约 10,000 ckb 的人相比，获得在主网上铸造龙的装备所需的 HNFT 美元是多么少。
我想重复一遍，我不想要任何东西来换取我的投票，无论是正面的还是负面的。 这包括被“接近”以证明我投赞成票的原因。 不匿名投票超级好玩…
仍然没有限制激励的规则，尽管我同意应该有。 在我们决定界限在哪里时，HuntingNFT 团队不应该因为我们缺乏社区参与而受到惩罚。 例如，我认为这与 huntingnft 团队收到的批评一样不公平。 但是，为什么没有人提出向社区教育工作者支付报酬可以用来购买选票的论点。
作为一个可能的妥协，因为它涉及到投票奖励，如果它会减少噪音也许要求已经发布 0x 地址的人同意将他们将直接提供给 600 万最佳测试人员池或 1400 万的人添加 主网池。 对于那些不知道的人来说，1400 万个主网池仍然可供任何在主网上铸造龙的人使用。 这将使每个人都能平等受益。
@Digitaldoyle I did propose a compromise earlier, which was to resubmit the proposal without offering tokens. Concerns about it were raised from an early stage, and while I agree that HuntingNFT is overall acting in good faith, controversy could have easily been avoided if they had taken those concerns on board from the get-go and simply removed that aspect.
Two previous votes have shown that we don’t need incentives to reach quorum. Regardless of whether all or some participants benefit, if the project itself is offering the airdrop as opposed to an independent party, then it is still a less overt form of vote buying.
I’m actually surprised there’s even a debate about this.
As for community educators, public applications were opened 2 weeks ago and we concluded the selection process a few days ago. Well after the proposal had already been approved. Nobody knew beforehand if they would be an educator - and certainly not at the time of the proposal or vote.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece. I hope the community can achieve consensus that this practice is best avoided in future.
First of all, I want to thank you for your support, we know that you are also participating in the game and observing the DisCord community before vote, independent research and deep thinking can make people more attractive.
I can explan for the two issues you mentioned：
1.This is a previous event we held called “Early Access Event”，to encourage users to experience mNFT on Nervos and HuntingNFT.
Afther event ending,the Galxe will random 500 winners to get the $HNFT event reward not USD reward，and this event will bring 500 or more new active users to the Nervos mainnet.
This is a Market Strategy and we have to attract enough attention and users on Nervos before Listing.
2.I can also explain to you that the amount of our TGE, which accounts for 2% of the total share, and all tokens will be airdropped to game participants before V2.0 goes online. Among them, 6000000 $HNFT is used to reward Best testers, and the other 14000000 $HNFT needs to be exchanged by users using the Wright Dragon NFT minted on the main network.
If at this Phase we have a total of 1000 dragons minted and each one costs an average of 7500 $CKB, then that means each dragon can be exchanged for 14000 $HNFT in next Phase.
We are already thinking about vot for airdrop things，we did not want to get votes through airdrops just want to make Nervos Dao more active in this way at beginning.
In addition, we also regret that we didn’t promote in the community, so when people see the proposal, they don’t know who we are, the first reaction to any unfamiliar project coming into the community is to bribe people to vote to steal money.
Many projects are heavily promoted before launch, but nothing happens after the IDO/IEO/ICO, which is hurts the ecology the most, so we didn’t want do any fundraising activities.We also believe that the only way to make Nervos more famous is make many nice ecological project and feedback benefits to the users.It’s not as effective to advertise 100 times as it is to get users to earn $1.
Finally, we appreciate your constructive comments to Nervos Dao and HuntingNFT. I believe if more people like you participate in the community and support ecological projects, Nervos will become stronger.
We started building HuntingNFT in 2021 and we all meet through the Nervos community. The core of the team came from large technology companies and we had no income during this time, but were still enthusiastic about working on the project. The initial vision for the project was to use our expertise to contribute to Nervos.
Thank you again for your support.
Definitely support this rule. Sounds a bit unethical in my books. Nervos has been a league apart in this regard and needs to stay this way.