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.
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