RE: LBI Voting Proposal Rebuttal
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
@taskmaster4450le as the author of this proposal I have responded to a few of your points below:
To start, we need to understand what LBI stands for. It supports the Leofinance platform and the tenets being set forth. Thus, we try to model the practices that are designed to be in the best interest of the ecosystem.
Being an 'Investment' token, aren't investors looking for the best returns on their investment? My proposal is looking at other ways to increase that return on investment. Yes, I agree that receiving auto-votes may not be in the best interest of LeoFinance and the ecosystem and I respect that, however, my proposal was to engage in another idea to add an investment revenue for token holders. Yes some of these ideas may be a little flawed and need some refinement or deletion, but in the absence of any other proposals or this type of engagement from the LBI community, I decided to put this out there for discussion.
In other words who is going to be on this committee. Are these people going to magically appear? How many people have volunteered to do things. The percentage of wallet holders who actually do anything for LBI, i.e. give their time, is very low.
I acknowledge that there are very few who offer their time or suggestions of any kind for this project, hence why I took the time to put together a proposal as there have been none. I am not going to be offended in anyway if investors shoot my proposal to pieces or it is not in anyway the purpose of the project. However, I see very little engagement or ideas from most of this community and I wanted to put forward something, that at the very least, has generated some comments and discussion. An idea that people might be able to engage in, discuss, suggest changes and re-work to something that might be suitable? All too often I see people 'suck up' and comment crap to larger stakeholders and projects, never questioning or putting forward something for discussion.
Perhaps instead of a proposal, someone should offer to step up and write a post or two a week. After all, with 250 accounts with LBI, you would think that is at least 1 or 2 who could put together an article.
It's interesting you should make this comment as this is exactly what I did in the early days of the LBI token being launched. I offered to write a weekly or fortnightly post for the team but the offer was declined. Perhaps my content or writing abilities were not deemed suitable but I was keen to offer my time for the benefit of all LBI holders.
I was also the first person to nominate for the lbi-gov team as no-one else seemed to want to put their hand up. I felt my nomination opened the gates for others to step forward.
I appreciate the time and effort that others put into the project, hence why I have offered my time to assist as well. You are correct when you highlight that many people do not want to give their time to the project, but I can't help but think how people might not want to take the time and effort in putting forward a proposal when it could be torn to pieces and ridiculed somewhat. If this was not your intention then I accept this, but it does have me questioning why I would put in the time and effort again. My understanding was we might look at proposals objectively as a community and discuss the merits, downfalls and changes that might make a proposal of benefit to the community. I always teach that feedback needs to be constructive, outline the flaws or concerns but also acknowledge any merits and/or provide suggestions where possible. Perhaps your feedback methods differ or you don't see any merits in the proposal at all.
The points made in this rebuttal are all legitimate points and I can see how this type of proposal could be abused and could take a lot of time to manage. I acknowledge the concerns from the feedback and would normally put forward an update or suggested changes to the proposal but don't really see the purpose in putting anymore time or effort into it after the feedback from your response and the comments from the community.
I do appreciate you taking the time to read through the proposal and providing your rebuttal and I also acknowledge that this comment is probably longer than most posts on this ecosystem!
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Yes it is and this is a problem. Not with your comment, but the fact that we are seeing so few posts that have the quality of this comment. It is about a subject matter of interest, took time to create, and shows the thought you put into it.
Sadly, that is not evident in many of the posts we see. And that is a problem as one who is spending time manually curating content on Leofinance each day.
I have no problem upvoting content, LBI or otherwise, that reflects the standard shown in this comment. Sure it is impossible to see everything but the posts are gone through.
There is no deciphering who is LBI and who isnt with upvotes, it is based upon the post itself. The vote values will be changed based upon the post itself, some simply are not worth a higher amount but do merit something.
Also we are spreading the token out a great deal more which will enhance the value of the return LBI holders get. When distribution is stronger, that helps make the tokenomics even more resilient. Thus, one might look at it as getting a few extra LBI is an improvement of ROI; another way is the improvement of the system will create a greater ROI as compared to a few tokens.
Finally, as stated, there are ways for people to get the "auotmatic" upvotes from the LBI account. Simply post a comment each day in the LBI post and will it get one (as long as it isnt one of those dopey Wow nice post I love it type deals). Engagement in the LBI post will end up getting supported.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Although I disagree with your proposal I do respect that you took the time to up it together.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta