Why All in Bits Recommends a Strong No with Veto on Prop 82
Why All in Bits Recommends a Strong No with Veto on Prop 82 pref 1920×1080 68.7 KB After careful thought and consideration, All in Bits (AiB) recommends the Cosmos community cast a strong No with Veto vote on prop 82, ATOM 2.0. As co-creators of Cosmos and its longest-standing contributor, AiB has a duty to safeguard the development of the Hub and protect the interests of the community at large. Unjustified changes to monetary policy deprioritize ATOM holders and fail to preserve Cosmos’ core values of accountability and transparency; while unproven experimental ideas and lack of prudence in proposed designs place the security of the Hub at risk. We are working to build a viable lasting alternative to the current financial system. Prop 82 recreates many of the existing problems we’re fighting so hard to resolve. Innovation Should Not Compromise Economic Security Cosmos has grown from an idea in a whitepaper to a flourishing ecosystem of independent interconnected chains – the Internet of Blockchains. At AiB, we are proud to have incubated, collaborated with, mentored, and learned from some of the brightest minds in the blockchain space and visionaries in their…
Excerpt (1193 of 8086 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
This is a well-written rebuttal to the Atom 2.0 WP. I agree with all of the positions in this post.
There is much that I like about the individual components of the Atom 2.0 WP. In fact, I like most of the WP ideas, except for the huge inflationary expansion of the Treasury. Furthermore, I do not like how Atom 2.0 is being pushed through as an “All-Or-Nothing” omnibus proposal.
The individual components of Atom 2.0 can be evaluated and vetted on their specific merits and voted on independently. The sum of the Atom 2.0 WP parts can be greater than the current whole and can be made even stronger by breaking it down into smaller bite-size chunks.
A “NoWithVeto” is necessary to support minority rights within the community and force the supporters of the 2.0 WP to pass their proposal with a Super Majority. We can continue to have an open discussion on Atom 2.0 innovation ideas and move forward as a united community.
Vote “NoWithVeto” because it’s necessary. The authors of the Atom 2.0 WP gave the community no other choice because of the way they framed and presented the WP.
[Mod note] Please leave this in the ‘essays’ category. It is not a proposal in and of itself, and the ‘hub proposals’ category is used for filtering so that people can see all drafts and ideas that are being worked on to propose in the future. I really appreciate everyone’s help in categorizing and keeping the architecture tidy so we can find things easily.
If you think another category should be made for something like ‘vote explanations’ - let me know! 
I disagree with your mischaracterization of this thread. The composition of a proposal and the governance procedures related to how the proposal should be organized or reorganized is 100% relevant to the proposal process. The content of how a procedural vote should be facilitated is not outside the scope of discussion to clarify how a proposal should be restructured to achieve the proposal objectives. The very nature of a proposal being submitted for discussion by a proposer on this forum always implies they are either seeking an affirmative (Yes) or negative (No) vote by default. Therefore, explaining the procedure difference between a “No” vote versus a “NoWithVeto” vote is well within the standards for discussion within the proposal and the discussion forum since it is a meaningful voting path that results in a specific type of outcome. If you are going to apply this arbitrary standard, then you need to be consistent and move all posts that have any implied or explicit leanings toward any specific vote choice to the essay section. You need to support your claim with objectively defined criteria for how the post specifically violates the required standards. That way the post…
Excerpt (1199 of 1379 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
AiB: We are working to build a viable lasting alternative to the current financial system. I recognize the vision, but personally I’m not quite sure that should be the stated goal. There are several disruptive technologies that could effect the future of the financial system. I personally knew of Tendermint and different products being developed using the consensus mechanism before the Cosmos white paper was released. Votem and Eris. I reached out to BigChainDB and suggested they implement Tendermint for consensus with that product as well. Improvements to “the current system - financial or otherwise,” have been implemented since the birth of blockchain technology…TLS and HTTPS for encrypted transmission over the wire, encrypted at rest data with cloud providers, research and development ongoing with Fully Homomorphic Encryption, ect…create the desired security properties the masses expect. I’ve explored the Open Banking Initiative and things of that nature as well, and I think using those systems are valid. Some of the same exploits people complained about in traditional systems are occurring in cytpo, with what was supposedly standardized cryptography utilization.…
Excerpt (1198 of 4202 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
CML: I disagree with your mischaracterization of this thread. The composition of a proposal and the governance procedures related to how the proposal should be organized or reorganized is 100% relevant to the proposal process. Giving feedback on votes and modifying current standards is definitely relevant to the proposal process, but in the form of the OP, it is not a proposal itself. You have already outlined the objective criteria that could be used to exclude this from being tagged as a proposal: it does not propose anything. CML: The very nature of a proposal being submitted for discussion by a proposer on this forum always implies they are either seeking an affirmative (Yes) or negative (No) vote by default. It is, like @lexa said, perhaps fitting to make a vote explanations category, but then again: the thread of the proposal should be sufficient for that. CML: If you are going to apply this arbitrary standard, then you need to be consistent and move all posts that have any implied or explicit leanings toward any specific vote choice to the essay section. I also don’t think the suggestion was arbitrary. The category…
Excerpt (1189 of 1744 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Are you people realy talking about the place where this topic should have been wrote? Considering the fact that it wouldn’t had any visibillity after 142 posts on the 82’s?
I dit it myself… Sorry about that, but I didn’t found any other place.
Did you thought about creating “locations”, like a senate, an agora, a war zone, a bar or a night club?
I 'm looking myself for a bar: it has been hard days, and not only because of 82…
ala.tusz.am:You have already outlined the objective criteria that could be used to exclude this from being tagged as a proposal: it does not propose anything.
Again I repeat, this is nothing but your own subjective and biased opinion and is not supported by the visible facts and content of the post. Within the posts, they are multiple topics covered that are very relevant ideas for how to improve the proposal. Simply because you disagree with the proposed ideas or because you do not support or like the ideas is not a valid basis for overt censorship under the premise of enforcing “forum standards.” You are just plain wrong. You need to read it again with more of an open mind.
“The individual components of Atom 2.0 can be evaluated and vetted on their specific merits and voted on independently. The sum of the Atom 2.0 WP parts can be greater than the current whole and can be made even stronger by breaking it down into smaller bite-size chunks.”
Yeah you’re right. The post proposes some things, and finish by a synthesis link to “Call to arms to true Cosmonauts” which is another proposal for some purification of the hub.
There have been some proposals of that kind throughout history. Then yeah, you’re right.