TL;DR: By voting for this proposal, you are voting to airdrop Hive funds (mirrored to Steem balance snapshot) for:
lupafilotaxia,
thebigsweed,
farm-mom,
soufiani
For a bit more context:
I have a favourite article that I've come back to often when I think about the joining of the technical and social sides of Hive - you can find it here. (It's worth a read if you have some time.) In it, the author discusses how a hive out in nature has the ability to adapt and share information quickly and effectively, by having a network of intelligent nodes. Sound familiar?
The hive is a smarter, evolved network that is bigger than the sum of its parts. The hive:
- Increases the frequency of interactions between nodes and creates more touch-points within the hive. It’s how the hive learns and makes informed decisions in response to a changing external environment.
- Decreases friction between nodes and creates a higher level of synchronicity between members of the hive. This produces stronger ties between individual members and allows the hive to act collectively.
In general, the airdrop list that put some decisions on the drop on hold gives us really useful information, pulled directly from the blockchain. Here's what these people did in the ledger; now, how will we, as the socially and emotionally intelligent parts of the network, act on this information? So in this case, a threat to the whole was responded to, with speed and decisions that rippled out through the network - individuals made their own choices, and acted on the information available to them. Through this wild ride, Hive was born. Fabulous!
I'm making this proposal as I spend a lot of time talking to people in the community. Though I don't always get much time to post on chain, I am deeply connected to this giant network of people that make up the structure of Hive just as clearly as the code does. I think there are a lot of opinions both for and against airdropping that all have solid merit. My goal is not to convince you that the data chosen was right or wrong - all I want you to consider is that with such a fast, responsive, and passionate network that there's always the possibility that the human element makes a boo boo interpreting it.
The four names listed above are all community members who felt the urgency of action during the voting period, but who also didn't know too much about witnesses or voting.
They just knew they were being asked by their community to help out, and leapt in. Some of you may feel that by not triple checking something as important as governance being skipped is valid, and that's okay. In this case, we also have to consider we have a pretty complex system with a lot of people available to vote for, and the speed at which this happened definitely left some- whether on vacation, at school, or on a break- pretty confused and picking from whatever was at the top at the time.
I'd like to support a few of these nodes in our network despite those circumstances, and I know that many others do as well...they're just waiting for the proposal to vote on. The easiest way to get this done, or at least getting people talking about it, is to divide it up in small chunks, pitch in a little bit and just do it! So here you are. 😊
Please choose one of these interfaces if you would like to vote for this proposal to support these four individuals:
Voting on this post isn't actually voting for the proposal, and I'm burning the rewards anyways, so don't bother. Just click on one of the links below and use them: it's good practice for getting to know where to check out proposals in the future! This proposal has a length of 15 days, which extends it beyond the group voting period, should it need to be.
- PeakD.com
- HiveDao.com
- Hive.Blog / https://wallet.hive.blog/proposals
I'm voting for Proposal #103: "Hive Secondary Airdrop: No Additional Airdrops"
AND
I'm voting for this one - Proposal #104
That prevents bad actors from getting the airdrop, but allows such honest mistakes to pass.
We are supporting #103 and #104 as well, for the same reasons stated by @gtg. Specifically for the user @lupafilotaxian which is a well known member of the Spanish community
I do the same!
Thx for doing so.
Agreed - just did the same. 👍
If you are voting this, probably I should... blindly :)
Dont do it blindly but vote nonetheless. :)
Thanks for the support everyone, really appreciatethis!
That makes me welling to do more!
Same here. I am sure there are even more people who didn't mean any harm. Some people probably didn't even understand what the hell was happening.
Thank you so very much for your support, now this is what community means to me.
I am supporting #103 (no airdrops) and #104 (these 4 users)
I've heard it explained why this isn't a contradiction, but I must admit I didn't quite get it. How is one to vote against this proposal, say? If you are already voting that no one gets an airdrop?
a good way to think of the proposal system as a whole is not "I can only vote for limited options." It can be tricky to wrap your head around, but you can support anything and everything you may want. What that means is it basically you're lifting the things you wanted funded (or to show your support for) up past a threshold. The things lifted the highest are the ones that will be funded in descending order.
Now, in the case where we're using the proposal system like this- visually collecting an opinion for or against things without any funding- you need to be able to compare a yes and a no. Whichever options end up highest are the ones that reflect the most support backed by stake. In the case of airdrops, as the main post lays out, the baseline is the "no airdrops" proposal. Any number of airdrop proposals can be made, but they need to be measured against something. Voting for the "no airdrop proposal" is voting no to everything. To vote specifically against something, you would need to vote up the proposal it is being measure against, to make it harder to get over the threshold. "I am voting against airdrops, but I am also supporting this specific one so I will vote for it as well." You would then be basically negating your no vote against whatever you voted for in addition.
This is very wordy and may not help at all, so here's a little visual of what's happening:
But when you get have specific 'yes' airdrop cases and a general 'yes' airdrop case, then your 'no' vote is applying to two different class of things. Same for two different specific 'yes' airdrop proposals. It's still not making sense to me. If I want to vote 'no' to the general airdrop to everyone, but 'yes' to the more specific airdrop case, then my 'no' vote is nulling my 'yes' vote. How does that make sense?
The secondary airdrop proposal is a blanket proposal for 100's of people with no vetting, I voted for no mass blanket airdrops (#103) how ever I am more than open to individual airdrop proposals if they make their case. So based on their behavior and the fact that I respect the people vouching for them I will vote to allow airdrops to these 4 individuals(104). Voting for no mass secondary airdrops doesn't hinder the ability to make individual airdrop proposals or even for someone to make another mass drop proposal its all up to us voters.
The "No airdrops" proposal would really be better named "Threshold for airdrop proposals". If you want the threshold for other airdrop proposals to be high then you vote for it, and if you want the threshold to be low you don't vote for it.
You can want the threshold to be high in general but still support one proposal, in which case voting for both is not a contradiction.
This applies to the rest of the proposal system too (with the "return" proposal 0 being the threshold).
My support for @lupafilotaxia who I know as a recognized and constant producer of scientific content, as well as being a prominent writer in the environment section of the Cervantes Ciencia magazine.
A couple points of criticism. Primarily I think starting individual or smaller group proposals before the general proposals have ended is premature.
I'd have liked to see more thorough explanation of this statement,
I looked at the first person listed and I see that they haven't posted on Steem and have posted on Hive. And they also left comments about their situation in two of the proposal posts. This stuff would have been good to link to, at least.
I think providing some links to profiles, both on Hive front ends and Steem front ends, along with any on-chain comments or posts on the subject they've made, should be a standard affair for appeals.
Thanks to the HIVE community for their support, especially #STEMsocial and #Cervantes.
I would also like to extend my thanks to: @crimsonclad, @guiltyparties, @carloserp-2000, @lemouth, @mobbs, @pgarcgo, @ritch, @howo, @lordbutterfly, for their responses and comments on the occasions I have asked them for advice, to address this unpleasant issue, which I hope can be resolved in a positive way.
Im glad this will finally get resolved. :)
So am I :)
You are welcome, although I didn't do much here :)
Can you comment a bit more on your methods for selecting these four users? Did they contact you? Did you contact them? Are there likely many other accounts who made naive voting choices without the intent-of-centralization that should also be included but are unbeknownst to you?
It also might be helpful to see statements from these users explaining their cases.
Absolutely. You can find a lot of conversation from these four accounts on the main Hive post, via support around the chain, and in some cases, they've made multiple posts themselves discussing it. I've simply picked these four to group as they're very cut and dried, and you can follow their actions on both chains clearly to figure out what you want to do.
Should I see more names that seem to be similar, I'll happily spend a bit to make a proposal for that as well. I have nothing to gain from this, and there are many people who will vote for the no airdrop AND this proposal, but not for the groups. Making the choices we want and then getting shit done is what this is all about. Community driven means someone in the community just has to do it!
Thanks for the info. I glanced at the four accounts (@lupafilotaxia @thebigsweed @farm-mom @soufiani) and they seem to post reasonable content and perhaps did not fully understand their voting behavior at the time.
Proposal supported along with "No more airdrops", so I think my overall effect is a wash, but at least I'm not raising the bar for these accounts to receive their airdrop.
2 of them have been vetted by me and Joshman last month and 2 were added by @crimsonclad. Imo she should have at least linked my delegation post where they explain what happened in the comment section so everyone can check for themselves and make up their own minds.
More info here: https://peakd.com/hive/@lordbutterfly/please-consider-voting-crimsonclad-proposal-for-allowing-the-airdrop-to-happen-for-individuals-that-ended-on-the-exclusion-list
And here:
https://peakd.com/hive-174578/@lordbutterfly/i-will-delegate-100hp-to-anyone-that-ended-up-on-the-airdrop-blacklist-by-mistake
Thanks @lordbutterfly for the links. The discussion at your 100HP delagation post are very helpful because I read the direct appeal from the user as well as the outcome of your investigation. This sort of well documented on-chain evidence trail makes it much easier for me to know why I should support a given user in their airdrop appeals.
Thanks!
Glad you see it that way. They did a good job explaining their position and we found them very convincing after checking out their post/comment histories.
Just to emphasize, @foreveraverage is not included in this proposal since he wanted to make his own. (so i learned)
If you want to support him and his claim (which i will do) you will have to also vote his individual proposal.
I would advise him otherwise and suggest he joins the group proposal since voter apathy is a known phenomena but that is his call to make ofc.
Oh I would not be against that. The idea from a separate proposal came from the fact that I had that post already written (https://peakd.com/hive/@foreveraverage/the-hive-exclude-list-and-me-being-on-it) But I agree that there is strength in numbers
Edit: in all honesty I wasn't aware there was a group proposal like this going on until you tagged me (during week most of my time and energy is invested in work). But it might be hard to add me to the list now that it's out already. I would hate myself if this proposal loses credibility only because it was altered after people voted for it already
Is it bad that I’ve read enough conversations and posts here to know these guys are probably innocent?
Thanks a lot for adding @soufiani , he's really a good guy and useful to the community. He's a member of @dcooperation for almost two years. I know him all this time. I hope he'll get that.
Thanks for the mention, I wasn't around to see this post and because of you I did! I'm really happy to see my name there, this made my day!
I am supporting #103 for no airdrops, and this one #104.
Thanks man!
Yup, seems like the way to go to compensate for those who really did mistakenly vote for wrong witnesses.
Sounds reasonable, but only four people, doesn't sound like that many!
Something important that I think people are forgetting: you can vote for ANY of the proposals. You can vote for EVERY proposal, if you wanted. You can vote NO to additional airdrops, but ALSO vote for this one without supporting the others. It's granular, flexible, and can be adapted to any changes that might be needed :)
It's not. That's the whole point. We can continue to make proposals that we may need to. By making small groups, people who are voting to not pass the large lists can pick and choose. This allows them to both support some users, but not feel pressured to change their no vote.
Now that's what I'm talking about. I really like this. I hadn't voted for the 'no additional airdrops' yet simply because I didn't want to see the door shut on someone that could and would become a 'hiver'.
Thank you for once again explaining a complex issue and for showing a way through. I appreciate it!
You can vote for the no proposal, AND this one. Both of these things are okay. There may be more coming to vote. I just looked for the really obvious patterns, on chain, and in our social community, and presented a smaller group that people may feel more comfortable with themselves. Granularity on this issue can be as complex or as simple as we want it to be! Just have to step up and get it done.
I understand your POV, it would seem unfair for them not to get any stakes on Hive. I think in this circumstance their ignorance shouldn’t be held against them. That notwithstanding it may spur some other individuals to make similar claims to that of the four you mentioned.
This is the beauty of it. The more proposals, the more granularity there is. I will keep an eye out, but for now, you could easily vote the no proposal AND vote this one, for example. It's really about making the options we want to vote for and getting it done.
In this instance I'm going to trust your instincts @crimsonclad and vote with you.
I appreciate it! The chain is also full of posts and comments from these four as well, so it's mostly about that it's actually pretty easy to make some additional inferences beyond the first list.
When I think of us as all nodes in this network, it means that some of us have the knowledge others may need to make decisions on and validate information. Many other community members have stepped up for these guys as well, and I see that as the strength of the social and technological hive we're building.
The easiest way to get something done is to just step up and do it!
Thank you Smooth Crimmie
I am voting for Prop #103 - "Hive Secondary Airdrop: No Additional Airdrops"
and definitely Prop #104 - (@thebigsweed and @farm-mom)
Ok supported this proposal, hive on :)
To even have this doscussion is shameful and shows the vindicitive nature of the V.22.2 Cabal. Shame!
You're welcome to abstain, or vote for any and all drops; or, you don't have to have any discussion at all- those are all your rights!
Looking at one of the last Steem update to match the one you've posted here, the two compared basically show whale, orca, and dolphin accounts on Steem in total holding a larger percentage overall than on Hive. (Edit: or is this just the percentage of account size as part of overall populace? I don't really follow the stats posts. Either way, Steem's taking the cake on the more problematic numbers via your particular statement) Lots of work yet to do on the distribution front and welcoming people back to their platform of choice, but I can see at least some positive changes in the overall spread on Hive.
Congratulations @crimsonclad! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board and compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:
Vote for us as a witness to get one more badge and upvotes from us with more power!
👍
The only thing I understand about this sentence is that the proposal lasts 15 days. Could you rephrase it so I might understand what you mean please?
Thanks for acting on your honest feelings, and moderating your feelings with rational thought. Doing so really makes you stand out in a society where most people can't do all those things at once.
For people who are very concerned about the main groups getting their airdrops, those groups have an 8 day voting period. At the end of the time, the "no airdrops" proposal will be extended, but the vote on those will be over. Individual proposals are being considered beyond that time frame. It may be that there are people who will not want to look at anything until that those two main groups are up.
I do not understand what you mean by extended if the voting is over.
If you read the original Hive post, it explicitly states that the "no airdrops" proposal will be extended (ie remade) so that people who make individual proposals don't have to pay for or make their own "no".
Ah, I understand now. However, I would think that remaking the proposal will reopen voting, as well as negate the voting that had already occurred. Seems strange that prior votes would carry over to a new iteration.
Thank you.
Voted, thanks
Thank you so much! @farm-mom and @thebigsweed are valuable members of our community. And it is things like you have just done here, Crim that prove what a valuable community this is! Thanks for stepping up and knowing what to do to fix this!
I'll gladly support this proposal.
I'm voting for this. Hive airdrops for all.
Supported. Yep. Good move.
Hey, @crimsonclad.
Thanks for doing this. I very much appreciate it.
A couple of things I'm not clear on.
How does this proposal actually qualify? Does it only need to go over the Proposal #103, the no additional airdrops proposal? My guess is yes, but I want to make sure.
Second, how long does it have to be able to do that? Is it over once it does, or does it need to continue to surpass the other until when?
Voting for this as well as Airdrop for Proxy voters. thanks for doing this.
How much HP vote do you need for your proposal to successfully airdrop Hive to these 4 accounts?
I already voted for no additional airdrops, however, I will cast a vote on this one as I don't think there were any malicious attempts to support the grand leader.
I have supported 103 and this 104.
@crimsonclad, Thank you for writing this proposal for my parents @thebigsweed and @farm-mom. I got them involved in crypto and they have really enjoyed Steem ...Hive now for quiet sometime !! The main reason they use the platform is for the fun and the great communities. So, when they first told me about this whole mess and not getting the airdrop I felt responsible and upset. The reason is that I knew this mistake they made could have been easily avoided. I am usually the one to help them with the technically side of crypto but I didn't get there in time. So I just wanted to drop in and say thanks for doing this, my parents have been so encouraged by the community support on @hive.blog
I'm extremely happy to see my name there! You said it all, thanks again to all of the hive community for this chance!
👍👍
I also didn't get hive airdrop as I was not aware of any development and my vote was proxy.
Supported :)
Is the graph in this logo any "named" graph or it is random graph someone drew because it looks well?