Сейчас обкатывают новый способ распределения наград, на мой взгляд он будет единым для всех, при положительном результате.
3 Likes
Спасибо!
В таком случае претензия по возможному плагиату снята.
Приношу по этому вопросу свои извинения Михаилу, автору этого предложения.
The claim for possible plagiarism has been withdrawn.
On this issue, I apologize to Mikhail, the author of this proposal.
2 Likes
Возьмите меня в жюри! 
у меня вообще ни одного ТОН кристалла нет…
Думаю в жюри можно для разнообразия взять одного бедного фрилансера…
Я буду честно судить, даю слово!
1 Like
Как фрилансер фрилансеру, могу накидать тебе рубинов 
1 Like
Вот ничего в этом блокчейне не скроешь!
1 Like
Added some initial members. At least 1 seat vacant
2 Likes
If there is a vacant place, then I would like to participate.
1 Like
The person took the initiative, developed a development plan for this area. It is worth supporting, not criticizing. I am ready to join the team to develop our community to the best of my ability. I joined FreeTOT from the first day the DOD was published and participated in many contests.
2 Likes
Set of initial members is complete
1 Like
Хорошее предложение поддерживаю
1 Like
Удачи в развитии, большое количество людей придут к использованию через конкурсы
1 Like
Hi gang. Unfortunately this is not the right approach if you want to get your idea passed.
-
this is not the correct process to forma sub-governance. It’s not like a contest or am outside partnership proposal. A sub-governance is first and foremost a group formed in Telegram and grown to a substantial number of members. In it you have to define what the (future) sub-governance will do, organize certain minimal platforms (a list of tasks, etc.). Use WIki as an example. Maybe ask some of the Wiki members how to form this. You need to grow the group and observe who are the most active members who contribute. This takes time. Then form an initial members group from those active members. Then the next thing is to make a proposal, including a plan to first run a jury selection contest to include jurors from outside of just your initial members group, and also from outside of the sub-governance. After all of this is demonstrated, and your group is mature enough and ready for action as viewed by the community, then and only then is it time to make a proposal. Global governance will very unlikely vote positively for something like this that just came out of the blue.
-
Decentralized support was run in 2 contests. It was agreed by the community long ago that this will not be something that will be a set of ongoing contests. It was a one-time (or rather a two-time) thing, and that’s it. It’s over. I do not see any merit in continuously providing tokens in this way.
-
The idea of this sub-gov paying out tokens for work such as this, i.e, done in hindsight (meaning something was done previously and now please pay us) has been attempted again and again and again. I will repeat what was said before and discussed SO MANY TIMES at this point. That is not how it works. It was tried as a direct proposal. Then it was tried as another proposal. Now it’s being tried as a sub-governance. The only way to pay tokens for previous work is through contests. I doubt this kind of activity will get the votes you want. I would remove that part completely.
-
You cannot change the voting mechanics. They are built into the voting smart contract and they only work (for now before we get to governance 2.0) as they do now, so a lot of the voting procedures you have presented simply can’t be executed. In addition, you do not need to describe jury rewards in a subgov proposal. Each contest does that individually, and the only examples of 10% to jurors was in a few minor examples where the prizes are very low. That is again something that’s up to every contest draft, but if the jury rewards seem excessive, it is yet another reason to consider that the proposal might be rejected based on that (too many tokens built into the jury rewards). Of course it does depend on each contest. If certain contests have conservative rewards for winners, then 10% for jurors might make sense. In all, writing the actual contest in a subgov proposal is unnecessary.
-
The amount of tokens you are asking for is a bit insane. I would seriously suggest starting with something small, under 100K and then delivering some results based on KPIs in the first 2 months +/-, and then prove effectiveness and then propose another tranche. But again, this is only once this sub-gov has been properly developed before making a proposal. We’re talking at least several weeks best case scenario.
Again, I would look toward the Wiki subgov proposal as guidance and maybe ask some of the folks there for their help in drafting yours, but only once your group ha matured and demonstrated activity of some kind with really solid members who contribute. And yes I can see you have a few now but it needs to be in a pre-sub-gov group setting.
I hope this is helpful.
3 Likes
I support the proposal. The development of these areas will be useful for the FreeTON community. I will be glad to help in this endeavor.
2 Likes
that’s a good idea. if the goal is to expand the community, then I would like to divide the contests into professionals and amateurs. or dividing tenders into 2 stages, concept proposal and implementation.
1 Like