timdaub 🥝
@timdaub.eth
but would this all have happened if the DAO had required a 2/3 majority for dispersing > 10% of funds?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
Interesting idea
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub 🥝
@timdaub.eth
What I find noteworthy is that the proposal created a near perfect controversy. Didn‘t it create a near 50:50 situation? This is why there are camps now, or not? If it was a 2/3 quorum, the majority would dominate the minority and that would surface less as conflict on social media?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub 🥝
@timdaub.eth
I observed at least two or three camps here on FC: - Those that supported the proposal - Those that want to send more money elsewhere (e.g. to devs) (hard no) - Those that had concerns with the proposal (they wanted adjustments, soft no)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
To me these feel more like “groups” than “camps” (ie, there is a real pattern as you say, but I’m not sure median voter feels themself in “battle” as the word camp implies)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
timdaub 🥝
@timdaub.eth
Then please let me double-down on the term "camp". A camp is a temporary federation for a purpose. And here is the irreconcilable idea between at least the two camps: - One thinks money should go towards devs - Other thinks towards culture. This preference will exist beyond prop 28, hence "camp" not "group"
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction