Kusama voting - feedback and future


During the final moments of Referendum 234 I was contacted by an anon Kusama holder/s related to the status of the proposal.

The discussions were short, but resulted initially in the proposal passing, before failing within the confirmation period.

I won’t share the private discussions around that event, but in light of more general treasury activity with many projects getting heavily Nayed by this group, including the recent Brushfam referendum I’ll share the feedback i’ve been given on that particular proposal.


The following is edited for brevity.

It began with a link to this tweet.

Then followed with this rationale.

This is a mercenary project who are here for the profit, not the long term health of the network.

They are venture backed and this is a product, not a creative business founder and not a real developer

It was also a way to test the opengov design and people’s behaviour.

Moving forward

Feedback on proposals to Kusama treasury can solicit feedback ahead of referendums from this group, there is no guarantee it will be given.

In general, this voting behaviour fits within a bigger picture of reappraising Kusama’s role, value proposition and indeed future direction in the face of mounting economic pressure.

Do not assume there is not method behind the madness.


I have no direct control of the funds in question, nor do I have any intention of seeking delegations.

I am not making these decisions.

On occasion I have been asked for my opinion.


fwiw my motivation is to use the (extremely) limited tools at my disposal to nudge Kusama in Macgyver* like fashion toward being more interesting, chaotic and experimental.

Many regard this as the behaviour of a ‘bad actor’ - though are at a loss to define the term.

Others have encouraged me to “stop being a dick” - which is at least more direct, but equally non-specific.

The less confrontational suggest I “mediate my behaviour” - then ban my account in the forum.

Instead I prefer to to see it as more clearly assessing the primary value proposition of Kusama’s nomic game (credit @agyle for this linquistic nugget, imo single most insightful part of the Incentive Pools proposal).

It is this approach that has attracted the attention of holders wishing to exert influence on a network and more broadly an ecosystem with vanishingly little novelty or risk taking, save the governance apparatus.

By accepting and embracing this reality headon, rather than assuming wrongly that we are participants in some grownup social democracy with hundreds of years of hardened social convention we can release the self-imposed creative shackles and be more imaginative in evolving the project away from prosaic thinking and into more fertile territory.

Believe it or not, when you embrace chaos, rather than fight it, you’ll have more fun.

*That reference was for anyone over 40

1 Like

The entire point is that people should be doing what is in their own best interest, and for that best interest and the path of least resistance to lead down a road that yields productive results for the ecosystem. Why do people consider it shocking or an attack of value to suggest “someone is here for profit”. That’s literally what the purpose of a business is.

Was parity grifting and not working in the best interest of Ethereum when they developed an alternative client?

The mental gymnastics people go through is incredible. Are they here for profit? Then they’re here for the right reasons. The value they build adds to the value of the ecosystem.

Also, I will continue my work to mute the effect of your group. Kusama will end up Kabocha 2.0 over my dead body.

Definition of a bad actor here: https://twitter.com/shawntabrizi/status/1671519535495622662

As I said to you previously, if we were opening up a Tesco you’d be asking “What is meat really?”


People vote as they wish.

This is the system working as designed.

This is not “my group”.

I do not vote.

I sold my stake to fund projects that will make their home here.

People were whining about no feedback before.

I have spent a lot of time trying to change that.

There is now feedback.

The inference (as I read it) is there are better things to fund.

This is a nomic game.

It has a simple goal: NGU.

Current/historical strategies optimise for NGD.


Crypto is trapped in the attention game.

This is a ghost town.

Everyone “wins” when the game is interesting.

Right now it is boring as hell.

Price and (meaningful) adoption are inversely correlated.

There are many ways to skin a cat.

I am not being paid.

I have no stake in Kabocha.

I’ve been following this group since ethcore.

I’ve been doing this since 2005.

You will get what you want.

This is the end of the beginning.


Thank me later.

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

If some dude with no stake can rattle all these cages then there isn’t much substance standing behind it.

Says more about the fragility of the incumbent ideologies than my behaviour.

Here’s Wikipedia’s definition:

  1. (idiomatic, law) Individual or entity with the prior criminal conviction, or who has been sanctioned by the court or regulator.
  2. (idiomatic) A person with malicious intent.
  3. (idiomatic) Ill-intentioned, mean, ill-tempered person.
  4. Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see bad,‎ actor.

  1. Nope.
  2. The people assuming the behaviour is malicious are those benefitting from the status quo. The status quo has materially failed to deliver anything remotely like ‘impact’. Instead presiding over an insane amount of spending that is frankly embarrassing in its ineffectiveness. The tech is great, everyone take a bow, but right now you’re just playing to the cheap seats. This is just a self-congratulatory pissing contest.
  3. I’m quite fun.
  4. Bad, actor. You got me.
1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.