Well, it’s clearly a decision of the team.
I would have understood any decision. But absence of vote was not an option. Either you delegate team tokens and vote, or you don’t delegate team tokens because they are taken into account in the quorum.
I really feel like this was a deliberate decision to not support the proposal by not voting at all.
I’m just lost and don’t understand this decision, especially while Zac is publishing stuff on Twitter about shorting Tesla on the DEX TestNet.
Well, it’s clearly a decision of the team.
And who knows, my ancestors fought along, “we” come from Arnhem, near German border
yes, not voting was an active decision to impede the proposal, not a neutral one.
its ok for me if the company didnt want the proposal to get through. But they should not say they were neutral. Because they weren’t.
Will you try to get investment from other funds?
Which ones do you like best?
there are really many chains that are possible and even more funding opportunities.
we will decide that with our NFT and influencer Marketing expert that joins our ranks soon after he moved into his new flat and this is also a question in the form we want to ask our seed community.
exactly, this was also comunicated during the AMA, there too they got really dismissive on the question what was preventing them from abstaining.
this is great loss for the project and an bad sign for things to come, this is the 2nd great proposal that flopped this way, both community project, while team proposals pass no issue.
you guys got duped
Hello everyone, and sorry to see this unfortunate situation. So it seems the vast community did in fact push (I did my best, we all did, so that side was not in vein).
Richy is right that question raised was also abstained in the ama, the only thing atm that was abstained.
A) What puzzles me is that, what would be the harm in doing so??
B) What was their thinking behind this decision?
C) why was this appeal not meant, with the number of reminders for the company validators to abstain at the very least?
D) do we have a right to know?
E) does the team feel this was good for the eco?
F) did the team consider the repercussions of this also failing, esp with the vast voting yes?
- What is the communities sentiments as it stands, not good tbh.
A) has this caused an upset and demoralisations to the project shillers/investors… ?
B) has this made one think about long term priorities not met, from those who are the actual end-users? Which is the communities.
C) did our feedbacks, time and efforts get backlogged for other programmability features, which were not deemed important, ie have in-app wallet voting, asap.
D) there is also a concern of trust.
It was made clear they will need funding to employ new devs and team members. With a figure of salary pointed out. It’s not about Rome or two legs, everyone has to start somewhere in any project.
Did the team think we will be not affected by such a thing?
A) wasn’t there enough evidence to suggest we wanted this, with the volume of social sentiments?
- Do we have any other metaverse or anything coming up? It’s gonna be a very long time seeing this come to fruition to fx.
A) the sum required was of low end, comparison were shown with other projects.
B) the sum was extremely low in contrast to what would have been built.
C) even if it wasn’t triple A, I’ll take a single A game now, because we have nothing atm been roadmapped.
- Did the team not see the potential here?
A) how the engagement back and forth could have been built with DAOverse and communities?
B) being active with parts of the game could have been exciting and fun for fx eco holders, telegram groups, and other products introduced by release date in daoverse.
- How do we recover from all this?
A) time will heal us, the eco.
B) what’s the responses from team on the matter, maybe more opinions should be shown to ease the situation.
C) maybe more interactivity from other Dev teams on forums and telegram is encouraging imo, generally speaking as well.
- We had a chance here to make some noise for fx eco.
A) now only shouting at the disappointments
B) some brewing internally
C) some issues raised here in this learning curve can even question other products.
- Slashing of validators for not voting needed asap, esp for the next proposal.
There is much more to add here.
I just don’t have the energy today, this is first and final draft. Of course I felt we needed this proposal, we won’t get another huge open world metaverse with that deep integrations of px/fx/purse tokens ever again imo. YOLO
PS I am not angry, just disappointed. Just dishing out factual infos and feedbacks.
I hope the team listens to their community. We’re all in the same boat. And I personally want to know where we are sailing. What a plan. What route.
Lots of questions for which there are no answers yet.
I don’t understand what you’re all upset about?
People tried to sell a dream, fiction, hype on the topic of the metaverse. Do you seriously think that modern games, and even those with ambitions for the metaverse, will be created by two good guys who are unfamiliar with each other? But outside the window it seems not 1990 and we are not at the beginning of the entire computer games industry when such an approach to business was relevant. Let’s be a more pragmatic and real community, starting from very simple smart contracts to more complex products.
Blanco, it’s not even about this particular project. And about the conditions. The team declares its neutrality. Does not vote neutrally. It just doesn’t participate. But without their vote, not a single proposal now has the opportunity to be adopted. Even the most perfect one.
And it was clear even before the vote that without the participation of the team such a result would be.
am sorry but we weren’t selling dream but actual product to be built, i understand you see nft and gaming as no use and i accept your perspective.
but many others believe in NFT and MetaVerse.
and i really sad to dissapoint you but we could actually made an impact to fx ecosystem with such project.
Anyhow we will build this project we didnt say we wont do it.
I agree with your opinion
Thoughts from someone watching from the sidelines.
@Alchimist and @KuzoIV I am sorry for you losing this proposal. I have participated in other DAOs and want you to know that in those forums it is perfectly acceptable to fail the first and pass the second. It is not uncommon at all.
I voted yes with my emotions, especially you used BlindBox which I find very good. but I would like to point out issues. Almost all technical DAOs have a tech co-founder, and a tech team.
@Alchimist you have carried more than your burden, now it’s your duty to search for a tech co-founder. YOU CANNOT OUTSOURCE AAA TITLES. I will vote YES again if you ever propose the proposal again.
One guy, helped by some dudes in a chat, invented Bitcoin. How could one guy disrupt the whole technology industry from his flat ?
How could a young guy code a simple video game in Java with simple blocks and made it the best seller video game of all times ? (yes, I’m talking about Markus Persson and Minecraft).
I think that closes the point. Those guys are two guys offering to start a real adventure, hire people with skills to complete their own, etc. It’s not just 2 dudes, and they really explained it all. You have the right not to believe it could work : but FX ecosystem has nothing else beside wallet, NFTs, interblockchain and real-use applications for now.
Hope we’ll see much more very soon.
I agree too
I think Daoverse should chill seek funds to try again ( I already offered to provide ) after for filling some of the gaps under question and except it; like someone said here already most proposals don’t pass on first attempt, By storming off and seeking another path out side of FX network maybe more treacherous then adjusting to appease those with doubt, ask for more guidance from those team people, if David BenKay could ask of the team members that did not vote - obviously they have a reason; ask for a list that can be delivered by those and see how many requests you can fix to know you appease the remanding voters, do more of a social network wind up before votes even begin; to me it like came out of no where it was a day in before i knew you where going for it, should of lead with the NFT giveaway not wait to the final days - Pundix are the only projects I pay attention to full time, I voted yes but I think Daoverse fell a little short in some things and the vote reflected it; except it, fix it, go again like a true warrior
extension not to Daoverse
Of course the team has to hold good strength of vote in the eco system; it’s still in development other wise people would destroy the intended direction and intended purpose of the network; you know don’t confuse a request to apply outside app’s to those by the project always where intended to reach it’s eco system development goals, remember you are applying to be an extension of their life’s work, please people I ask to always stay respectful to the CEO’s and the project developers I don’t believe for 1 second anyone’s passion for the growth of the PUNDIX’s eco system is bigger then these people’s, think about that before you question their motives & maintain respect when you do.
I agree with your opinion