[bisq-network/compensation] For Cycle 12 (#537)
notifications at github.com
Tue Apr 14 16:15:52 UTC 2020
> > I also have a question, why all my CR were approved with a 99% threshold? Why are you trying to block all my contributions and requests only now?
> ### Cycle 8
> I called you out on some strange items [in your very first request](https://github.com/bisq-network/compensation/issues/416#issuecomment-559582652) back in Cycle 8.
> ### Cycle 9
> Although I never publicly commented it, I rejected your [Cycle 9 request](https://github.com/bisq-network/compensation/issues/463) in the DAO. The numbers were flat-out ridiculous for anyone familiar with web work. I've built and run a number of digital properties away from Bisq, so I know what I'm talking about. One doesn't need to be an expert in digital marketing to see that asking for 100 BSQ to update the copyright year of a website is unreasonable.
> Perhaps contributors would like to know that the already-extreme Cycle 9 number of 5896 BSQ you requested is **half** of what you were going to originally request.
> ![Screenshot from 2020-04-14 11-34-55](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/735155/79243893-bf082480-7e65-11ea-9df4-968505ab7cc5.png)
> ### Cycle 10
> Despite all this, I again allowed your request in [Cycle 10](https://github.com/bisq-network/compensation/issues/479) even though I knew it was another extreme one...2000 USD for a domestic trip for 1 day? Crazy. Why did I do it? To be professional to you since there was no prior discussion on trip expenses, and I didn't think rejecting it outright would have been honorable on my part (I noted these concessions [in my approval comment](https://github.com/bisq-network/compensation/issues/479#issuecomment-586314620)). Most importantly, budgeting was just going into practice at the time, and I knew nothing like that could ever happen again.
> This isn't a new thing. Your contributions have been suspect since you started contributing. Hindsight is 20/20, and DAO stakeholders feel ripped off.
> I will reject this request, and I hope others do too.
Cycle 8 was my first Cycle and my first contribution request, I made a couple of mistakes and I acknowledge that.
About Cycle 9 and 10 don't tell me about overvalued work. Every CR in Bisq is overvalued.
I asked what I though it was right to ask based on other people's CR.
There are approved CR with like $200 for a 3min video on YouTube with less than 100 views.
My works, especially ones about Search Engine Optimization, added huge value to the website. And you know that.
> It was merely a suggestion on a way to show contrition, good faith, and rehabilitate your reputation.
> I can't _freeze_ anything, and you are always welcome to put up issues for vote by the DAO, as is anyone, right?
> As you point out, your last request was 99.9% approved but we can see only 45654 votes were cast where as most other contributors had over 500,000 votes cast on their requests. So I guess my goal is to help educate the voters on why they may not want to continue to **abstain**.
> I won't rehash all the evidence that has been discussed but I will link this:
> [#463 (comment)](https://github.com/bisq-network/compensation/issues/463#issuecomment-597069076)
> I do sincerely thank you for helping to harden some of the security weaknesses in the Bisq project as far as social attacks on the DAO. When I first started reviewing all the DAO voting history last year, it seemed quite worrisome that almost no request was rejected at all, indicating that the default was to just rubber stamp these CRs. It's nice to shatter the illusion of perfect good faith by the contributors.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bisq-github