[PROPOSAL #89][ACCEPTED] Cosmos Ecosystem News Videos

Hi Cosmos Community, I’m Hector, co-founder of Cosmic Validator. We would love to hear your feedback about this proposal before submitting it on-chain! Summary • Cosmic Validator is a long-term Cosmos ecosystem focused validator that started validating the Cosmos Hub in 2019 itself, during the first year of mainnet launch • We seek 300 ATOM in a monthly funding, for a period of 6 months to continue producing high quality Cosmos Hub & ecosystem news videos Cosmic Validator We have been really involved within the Cosmos ecosystem and its community for several years already before the Cosmos Hub launch or the Game of Stakes. We were amongst the first validators in the Cosmos Hub since 2019 and we have been actively participating in governance since then, currently being one of the validators with the highest governance participation in the Cosmos Hub. We are also participating in the Game of Chains to help testing the upcoming Interchain Security. We are fully committed and focused on the Cosmos ecosystem, we are validating only networks within the Cosmos ecosystem. Funding The Cosmos ecosystem news videos project, at the time of writing this proposal, has no…

Excerpt (1194 of 5118 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

As long as you plan to be as impartial and unbiased as you currently operate and as you plan on reporting the truth, as you have been, I have no resistance to the proposal. Good luck!

Thank you! Yes, we will continue operating in the same way since we launched the videos in July. We have projects contacting us but we focus on covering the most important and relevant news and we perform due diligence before sharing any news

Hi @Cosmic_Validator , thanks for sharing this. There’s a lot of willingness on your part to help the ecosystem… I have no doubt about it. But the truth is that if you’re good at what you do, simply because you care about objectively informing the community and also about future value, that’s something that’s really great!!.. and it makes a big difference from having to get paid for it. After all, I believe that through this, you have the space and time to express your opinion and talk about your work as validator… All this, of course, if you first manage to succeed in this new part that you are going to get involved… Because the truth is that currently, your Youtube channel has very few subscribers and your videos have few of views and likes - for what we are talking about here… So, what I want to say, considering the monthly amount of 300 Atoms that you are asking (which already has considerable value and will have much more in the future) is that there is a relative rush from you to ask for funds, when the required sample of your work is not yet available to the community… Also, I would like to say that in my opinion, the wording of the voting option “NO” is completely…

Excerpt (1198 of 1343 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi Andreas, Many thanks for your feedback! Let me answer here your concerns: -We launched the Youtube channel in July 2022, some of our videos got around 1k views which is ok we think if you consider the average views of all the other content creators/youtubers within the Cosmos ecosystem. We are not trying to grow fast, instead our focus is to keep delivering consistent and good quality news and educational content about the Cosmos ecosystem with an organic growth -We have already delivered 10 videos which are available in the youtube channel, in the proposal above links are included with examples of just a few videos. As mentioned in the proposal, if the ICF reopens the grants program in 2023 then we will apply for a grant instead of a renewal proposal for the Community fund. About the amount of 300 ATOMS, this was estimated with the current ATOM price. Producing each video involves a team of three, one person to research and prepare the content, another person to film each of the sections and then the video designer. We wouldn’t be asking for support for the Community fund in other circumstances, but given the current market conditions and the large costs/work involved to…

Excerpt (1199 of 1567 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’m in total support of this proposal and your great work. Will vote yes!

Full support here as a validator + would support it ourselves. Im surprised validators that have funds dont support those things. This is 101 imo. Alas, we currently dont have the funds, otherwise we would just grant you this ourselves.

I love having good validators around who create content.

My confusion with this proposal is why we would do this via a community pool spending and not using the delegation program for validators anyway? I mean, in there the option is to indicate if you are delivering content… then why not tackle it via that route?

And if the vids and the validator become more known, then people will also delegate to the validator, generating more income to be able to do more.

I personally would prefer the delegation route instead of a pool spending.

Hi Leonoors, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. In the ICF delegation program there are different categories being evaluated such as engineering contributions, community contributions or public good contributions, both for the Cosmos Hub especifically and for the wider Cosmos ecosystem. With the current points system in place our project of Cosmos ecosystem news videos can only earn 1 point, independently of whether we have delivered 10 videos or more. We were told that the ICF grants may reopen in 2023, if this happens then as mentioned in the proposal above we would apply for a grant to the ICF rather than creating a renewal Community pool spend proposal. Also, of course, if with time our videos keep growing organically and delegators want to support us more, and also if the markets recover then the circumstances would be very different and we wouldn’t need to ask for support to the Community pool to ensure the continuity of the Cosmos ecosystem news videos and avoid the risk of having to stop the videos due to a lack of budget. Another point we would like to mention is that there are other great Cosmos content creators and the Community pool could be a good way to support…

Excerpt (1198 of 1548 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Point taken!

The size of the delegation for creating your vids might indeed not be enough to cover the costs.

Counting with an average of 30 days per month it would mean that the delegation should reap a rough 10 ATOM per day to cover this funding request. You need with the current numbers around 175k ATOM delegated to reach that point (counting with 10% commission). Indeed not sure that will be reachable with the ICF delegations only.

Sounds really reasonable! Cosmic Validator produce nice content! We will vote YES. P/S/ Just we want to add, that we produce video content for 2 years, and even if it’s in russian language - we have much more views than videos in english language. And we have english subtitles for all videos, and for now, it’s: • 51 video in this playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVTwIlNOBqze6d1-U52IHHoR-Gg7vY2t3 • near 100 videos on our channel: https://www.youtube.com/@CRYPTOBASED Most of this videos about projects from Cosmos Ecosystem. This is high-quality content. We never ask nothing for producing of this videos, and it gave us very good reputation! That’s why we are number 53 validator in active set of Cosmos without any delegations from foundation, and also I blocked in the main Telegram and Discord of Cosmos without any reason, but we still alive! So, if in case of Cosmic Validator we will vote YES, we will not vote YES in case of every validator. Validator need to do something without any help from the community pool, or we need to spend community pool not only to one validator, but for all validators who do something! If you do something and it…

Excerpt (1195 of 1742 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Antropocosmist:

If you do something and it don’t give you sustainable development - maybe better not to do it?

Thanks for your support and your feedback! We think that the Cosmos community realized especially after the last CoinBureau video about Cosmos that external people looking at the Cosmos ecosystem had mostly not updated or partially incorrect information. Moreover, we see that usually important tech updates news for example get a bit lost in twitter. We think that keeping track of all the important developments and explaining them to the Community consistently it is very important. Many people in the Cosmos ecosystem appreciate our videos and encourage us to continue. Just stopping our videos because of the current market situation doesn’t seem the best decision and we want to keep supporting the Cosmos ecosystem especially now.

Firstly, keep up the great work! I’m personally all for the building of a network of news channels in the Cosmos, especially to pull/attract/convert new viewers and potential 'nauts into the ecosystem. Cosmic_Validator: Another point we would like to mention is that there are other great Cosmos content creators and the Community pool could be a good way to support them as well. I echo this sentiment, especially as someone personally interested in approaching contributing to this space through video medium via SM platforms (TikTok - YT - etc.) as I am not trained as a developer (but aim to learn nonetheless). Cosmic_Validator: Moreover, we see that usually important tech updates news for example get a bit lost in twitter. Great point here. As a newer twitter user myself (+ considering other’s - like myself - learning curve / learning disabilities/ adhd), it was hard to keep track of all the golden information/updates that were being shared). Although it seems that it is a common practice on YT, thank you for placing time stamps/sections into your description box. Things like this are personally so valuable/extremely helpful. Ty again for your…

Excerpt (1199 of 1227 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Antropocosmist:

So, if in case of Cosmic Validator we will vote YES, we will not vote YES in case of every validator.

This I don’t understand; why vote YES on one validator and NO on others? Equality is very important for me, so if you don’t think a validator needs support for creating vids because it should be possible to attract enough delegations then you should vote NO on this one as well imo…
Especially taking your remark of the commission into account…

At the first: because we think that validators need to support each other in the development of the Network and Community!

At the second: Not everything is give results since the beginning!

Cosmos News looks like very interesting project, and we know that Cosmic Validator is true validator!
If they need help on this level of the development - we think is important to help!

Amount of the funds that they want to ask - not really big compare to Community Pool. This is not irrational spendings.

By the supporting of each other - we will create more stronger connection, that is very important for the Network security and Community Development.

About Commission - this is friend advice! We think that decreasing of commission from 10% to 5% (or kind of it) will help to Cosmic Validator to attract delegations.

We think that validators need to contribute for the development of the Network and Community by the different ways. And creating of content is nice kind of contribution.

If you have any other question - I will be glad to answer!)

Thank you everyone for your support and encouragement, we really appreciate this and helps us a lot to keep motivated and working hard to continue producing Cosmos ecosystem news videos. Today we released the next episode with the review of the 2nd half of November (https://youtu.be/TxV6RL71mOk), some of the topics covered are:

-Updates about the Game of Chains
-Interchain Developer Academy
-Juno Communications SubDAO
-Namada trusted setup ceremony
-ICF’s Technical Advisory Board

I agree with this post, but doesn’t answer my question.

In your initial post you state; “So, if in case of Cosmic Validator we will vote YES, we will not vote YES in case of every validator.”

In your last post you state; “because we think that validators need to support each other in the development of the Network and Community!”

This feels a contradiction. Because first you say that you will not vote YES on every validator, but you believe you should help each other out. So if you vote NO on other case, you wouldn’t be helping out…

So I am trying to understand the line of reasoning why vote YES on one and NO on another. I do agree on helping out in general when the plans are good

With respect to this thread; @Cosmic_Validator can you expand the proposal draft with a plan how to become independent of the community pool funding? I guess people won’t mind funding for a limited amount of time, but there must be a long term plan imo

I believe that we should use the community pool more vividly, even if it might result in some trial&error process. Cosmic Validator’s proposal asks for a very small share of the pool and is limited in time, so there is no significant risk for the community here. Meanwhile, having more Cosmos-specific content is obviously beneficial for the ecosystem. P2P plans to support this proposal on-chain.

LeonoorsCryptoman: With respect to this thread; @Cosmic_Validator can you expand the proposal draft with a plan how to become independent of the community pool funding? I guess people won’t mind funding for a limited amount of time, but there must be a long term plan imo Sure, it is mentioned already in the proposal draft that once the ICF grants reopen, likely in 2023 as people from the ICF told us, then we would apply for a grant to the ICF instead of doing a renewal proposal for the Community pool. Moreover, the current market situation is very tough so the goal of this proposal is to ensure the continuity of the Cosmos ecosystem news videos. By the end of this 6-month initial funding period, it is possible that the market could show some recovery and also we might receive by then more delegations from the community. Since we launched the Cosmos ecosystem news videos in July 2022, we have already delivered 11 videos fully funded by us without any grants or sponsors so far. However, given the important risk of potentially having to stop the videos due to a lack of budget in the current circumstances, we decided to publish this draft proposal after first discussing with…

Excerpt (1199 of 1320 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I think it should be less… 250 atoms/ month… you guys do great work… but I’m worried that you will get voted down…

Based on the amount of atom’s

I’m in support because I watch these often… my main worry is the community. As we’ve seen what they would say…

Anyways good luck, keep working hard… just a suggestion… I think you should be good overall…

Keep working hard, I hope you get the funding

this shouldn’t be denominated in ATOM/month.

must vote No.

Thanks for your comment. The estimation of the 300 ATOM monthly was done with the current ATOM price which is around ~$10. By the time the proposal voting ends in around 2 weeks it is not very likely that the price could deviate a lot.

All good content created for Cosmos should be welcomed. Tho I voted No. I don’t really get how the community pool should support that kind of projects. Keep doing what you have been doing for the past months, eventually you’ll start generating some revenues out of those videos, creating a virtuous circle. It does sound weird to me to support a channel that is not doing something new in any regards, there are plenty of ‘influencers’ and hidden gems doing that kind of videos. Unless your channel goes beyond any expectations and gets a lot of traction, the content right now is pretty well hidden and won’t help the ‘normies’ in the Cosmos. I’d more be than fine supporting a specific video or a specific advertising plan that for some reasons needs funding rather than an entire business that still have a long way to go. BTW I’ve seen it the many comments here but there is no such thing as unbiased and totally partial. The simple fact that you already are a validator and ‘advertise’ it on the channel makes it already biased. But I am 100% for it. If people like what you are doing they should definitely delegate to you. I’ll keep an eye out for the channel and will…

Excerpt (1192 of 1294 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi many thanks for your detailed feedback and participation in the discussion, I will answer your different concerns: -Thanks for encouraging us to continue producing more Cosmos ecosystem news videos, however precisely because of the important risk currently of potentially having to stop the videos at least temporarily due to the limited budget in the current market conditions is the reason why we decided to create this proposal. This was explained also above in other replies. -You mention that these types of videos are not something new within the Cosmos ecosystem. We did extensive research before launching the project and we are not aware of other youtube channels creating these types of videos fully focused on the Cosmos ecosystem, including in-depth research about the whole ecosystem and presented with high quality video visual effects. Since launching you can see that the videos have been improving in terms of the content, the presentation and the visual effects, this has been thanks to the continuous feedback and support from the Cosmos community, and our goal is to keep improving to eventually produce videos of similar quality as CoinBureau’s Crypto News but fully…

Excerpt (1194 of 2913 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I am not sure if this is a direct and only reply to my message.

But to make thinks obvious I never mentioned nor suggested that the amount asked was to run or finance part of the validator
By entire business I meant the Youtube channel. I’d rather feel like supporting a special video like a major community event report (where you’d have extra costs for going to the event/renting perhaps need for extra production ressources etc… ) or advertising campaign.

• On the ‘bias’ note: I think it would be totally fine and you definitely should advertise in your videos that you indeed are a validator of Cosmos.
  This is more than fair for you to capitalize on people that like and want to support your efforts and works.
  Thus my opinion, to not fund the entire Youtube business but instead try to make it so that it is sustainable for you either you get or not that community pool grant.

I’d also like to mention that you are one of the few that DID before asking. And I highly appreciate that.

But what is the point of funding unsustainable business that solely rely/ can not exist without the community pool ?

Thanks for your reply, yes it was a reply to your message but when it is the following message it is shown like that in the forum. -Thanks for clarifying that by ‘entire business’ you meant the Cosmos ecosystem news videos project, it wasn’t clear in your first message -It seems that you are suggesting that for some special video you would support the proposal and we appreciate this, however we think that creating a proposal just for one video is not a good idea. These special videos that you mention could also be produced by us and the funds requested in this proposal would definitely helps us a lot for this -About the sustainability, if you have read the discussion above this has been covered already but I will explain this point again. Since we launched the Cosmos ecosystem news videos, the community realized that we are constantly listening to their feedback and improving each video, and some have started delegating to us and helping to make more Cosmonauts and people outside the ecosystem aware of these news/educational videos. However, the market this year has been very tough, this project has been fully funded by us since the beginning. For the last few months we have…

Excerpt (1199 of 2155 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Voting no because of how you phrased that option.

Hi Jacks_WithS,

Thanks for your comment, so you mean that you agree that educating and keeping all Cosmos ecosystem stakeholders informed and updated is important, which is great. But still you don’t wish to support this proposal which is fine as well and we respect your decision. However, if educating and keeping all Cosmos ecosystem stakeholders informed and updated is important for you it would be great then that your reason for not supporting our Cosmos ecosystem news videos, which are contributing to informing and educating the Cosmos community and also people outside of the ecosystem, would be other than how we phrased the voting options.

hi, subtitles in several languages ​​would be useful for better understanding.
investors with a limited technical level would appreciate understanding the entire content. Including those who don’t speak English.
300 ATOM … job has to be perfect.

I tend to delegate to validators that provide informative content and vote on proposals with reasoning that I respect. This kind of validator tends to attract more delegators, and thus more revenue. Why does the content you provide need to be subsidized by the community pool instead of being an out of pocket investment in attracting more delegators?

I’m also concerned about how you worded the “no” option by equating a lack of funding for you in particular with a devaluation of informative content in general.

Hi Guinch_Roze,

Many thanks for this feedback, yes some Cosmonauts from Japan who watch our videos also mentioned about subtitles in other languages so we will definitely work on this. We also publish twitter threads and blogpost versions of the content of the videos, and some Cosmonauts who don’t speak English mentioned that the blogposts helped them a lot to translate easily and understand the content. But we agree that video subtitles in several languages would be useful so we will be working on this

Hi redbeard, thanks for sharing your concerns, here are the answers:

-Yes some Cosmonauts who value our work and videos have been delegating to us, however this didn’t lead to more revenues as you mentioned because of the current market situation which is very tough. And yes, since we launched this project we have been funding it entirely ourselves, however given the current circumstances as mentioned above there is a risk of potentially having to stop the Cosmos ecosystem news videos at least temporarily, therefore to reduce this risk after first discussing with several Cosmos ecosystem stakeholders it was decided to create this proposal to ensure the continuity of the Cosmos ecosystem news videos.

-Regarding how we phrased the voting options, what we mean is that if the Cosmos ecosystem news videos have to be stopped, even temporarily, this would be a devaluation as you mention of informative and educational content about the Cosmos ecosystem, both for existing Cosmonauts or new people willing to learn about the Cosmos ecosystem.

Hi, thank you for the proposal.

My only feedback is probably regarding the duration of the video. I saw your youtube and most of your videos are more than 10 minutes long. I personally prefer under 10 min, 5-10 minutes would be perfect. I can watch it during my break times or during coffee time

So maybe, instead of creating 2 long videos/month, you can create a shorter video weekly.

Thanks.

Hi VK_S16, many thanks for sharing this feedback. -Actually the last few videos were over 20min long, and we will try to keep the videos around this duration but it really depends on how many important news within the ecosystem are happening for each video. Currently there is so much going on within the Cosmos ecosystem that the videos have been increasing in duration. -About your comment of shorter videos, we are actually about to launch a new project soon by selecting the main news in the videos with in-depth/educational assessments and sharing these in shorter clips on Twitter, either as a tweet or if the video is longer in several tweets. We also have summarized twitter thread and blogpost versions of the videos. Some people don’t have enough time to watch the videos or prefer reading, hence we launched a few months ago this related project to release twitter thread and blogpost versions of each video. -Regarding the bi-weekly or weekly frequency of the videos, before launching the project we did a poll for the community and the majority was fine with the bi-weekly frequency. Of course the video duration covering two weeks is longer, but as mentioned above we are about…

Excerpt (1197 of 1509 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I am a NO to this for a few reasons, here’s why: First; I think it makes more sense to apply for the ICF delegation program and use the commission from that delegation to go toward sustaining your efforts. Many other content creators do so without funding from the community pool. I am sure part of the reason you make the videos is to attract more delegations and that is the sensible approach. You should by all means be more explicit about your validator operations in your videos. Second; I really don’t like your reason given for a NO vote. Just because I may disagree with funding this initiative does not mean I don’t agree that keeping the ecosystem informed is important. I do think education, awareness and information sharing is valuable and important. Thanks for the well thought out proposal. Other than your NO definition I think this was a good proposal providing information for the community to make informed decisions. And also thank you for the very active engagement. While I am a NO it is a very respectful NO and I hope you don’t stop creating content should this proposal not be accepted, and if it is accepted then I look forward to the improvements that would come…

Excerpt (1195 of 1220 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi JD-Lorax,

Thanks for joining the discussion, of course we respect your decision and thank you for encouraging us to continue releasing Cosmos ecosystem news videos.

It seems that you haven’t read fully the previous discussion, @LeonoorsCryptoman mentioned early in the discussion about the ICF Delegation versus the Community pool and we discussed this in detail, we invite you to review that discussion and then let us know if you have further feedback. Similarly, the concerns about how the voting options are phrased have also been extensively discussed previously earlier in the discussion.

I’ve already read the discussion

This isn’t something I think the community pool should fund. This is something your commission can support.

That’s great and we respect your decision, however it has also been discussed several times the issue of the current market situation which is very tough. In the proposal it is mentioned that if the ICF grants reopen then we would apply for a grant instead of a small Community pool spend. However, in the current circumstances as mentioned above there is an important risk of having to stop at least temporarily these Cosmos ecosystem news videos due to the current market situation. Before sharing the draft proposal in the forum there were discussions with stakeholders within the Cosmos ecosystem who supported the idea of a small Community pool spend to ensure the continuity of the Cosmos ecosystem news videos.

Current markets are difficult for many, not exclusive to Cosmic Validator operations. If we supported everyone because the current market conditions are tough then the pool would be empty. I don’t see the need to rush and pursue funding from the pool when you are planning to turn to ICF grants as an option as well as the option of the delegation program. If this proposal wasn’t to pass and you need to stop making videos then that is your decision based on your own needs to run your operation sustainably. Other validators are also finding ways to continue running their services in this challenging market. I certainly hope you don’t stop making videos over this prop and I am not so strongly opposed that I would complain about it passing. I personally just don’t see this as essential for the ATOM community to fund. There has been some discussion on Twitter at least about an idea of a Media DAO or Media Collective forming to pursue funding for these types of initiatives. I would support that as it would mean supporting a collective rather than creating bias and playing favourites with an individual validator. There are other valuable contributors and content creators out there…

Excerpt (1195 of 1234 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks for your reply and further feedback and we repeat that we respect your decision.

-Anyone is free to share a draft proposal in the Cosmos Hub forum and decide to put the proposal on-chain for the governance/community to decide.

-About the Interchain Media DAO that you mentioned we know well about this since it is Sistla who is leading this and we are also supporting. We mentioned ourselves earlier in the discussion that there are several great content creators within the Cosmos ecosystem and the Community pool could be a great way to support them also, especially now that the tax to the community pool is likely to be increased from 2% to 10%.

Jeez peeps. This thread sounds like the IRS trying to investigate 650 USD of each US citizen in comparison to bank loans and shi*… I mean let the guys do the videos =)

I voted no.

I don’t see why you think this is something that the community should be funding. This is something that you should be funding with the commission from your validator. I think it is pretty unreasonable to think that you deserve 300 ATOM a month for a channel that has ~400 subscribers and few views.

I also think it is problematic that a validator is producing mid content, making a proposal to have the community fund it, then vote on it using your own stake/delegation.

I would hope this doesn’t pass.

Despite our initial Yes vote, we continue to have our reservations against this proposal. We think your (Cosmic Validator) approach is interesting and certainly shows effort, however: • The amount requested does not have spending breakdowns • We would be more supportive of a $500 to $1500 “support budget” • It isn’t clear whether this level of funding matches the current market environment. • We would find your content equally as informative even if it was filmed with a mobile phone at a park bench without animations. Funding each additional video creator in a new gov prop is NOT the structure we want to encourage. We would be interested in first allocating a Cosmos Hub video creators budget, then make a mechanism to allocate the budget to creators within that budget (perhaps on a month-to-month basis for new projects, then quarterly after 6 months of funding). For example, a $2500-5000/month cosmos hub video budget, then allocate budgets from $100 up to $1000 for multiple creators. Do that for 3 months and adjust. This will also provide a starting framework from which we can accommodate all further requests from every aspiring youtube star who will want to…

Excerpt (1193 of 1420 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi 0xQuintin,

Thanks for sharing your opinion and feedback.

-We respect your decision but that is your individual opinion, currently in the proposal the majority of individual votes are supporting the proposal, so the community does indeed wants to support our proposal

-We voted ‘abstain’ in the proposal, it seems from your statement that you are suggesting that we voted yes in our own proposal which is false.

Hi Chill_Validation, many thanks for joining the discussion and your detailed feedback, here are the answers: -Regarding the amount requested, before the proposal was put on-chain for voting, in general the feedback received was that the amount was reasonable. The estimation was done as mentioned on the proposal including the research and work to prepare all the content, the filming and required equipment, and the video design and then additionally releasing as well twitter thread and blogpost versions of the videos, sharing in the different platforms and engaging with the community, listening and implementing the feedback after every video, new projects like the upcoming twitter video threads with shorter clips covering some educational/in-depth assessments in previous videos among other additional costs. -Our twitter threads and blogpost versions of the videos are equally informative also, however we want to produce the videos with high quality, we think this is important. -Each content creator or anyone can put a draft proposal in the forum and then decide to put the proposal on-chain. This doesn’t mean that governance/community will approve every proposal. -Your…

Excerpt (1192 of 1779 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmic_Validator:

However, some mentioned that while this would be ideal in the Cosmos Hub, the tooling is still not ready for this in the Hub

If we can blindly hand over chunks of tokens to your team with zero oversight, we don’t see why we can’t do the same for a DAO of 1-3 people and ask them to run an excel sheet + wordpress/wix.

For on-chain, there’s an entire EVM chain, multiple CosmWasm chains. It should be technically possible to use DaoDao on Juno or deploy any one of many DAO Voting Clones on Evmos. We can even fork DaoDao and apply different branding and deploy on Chihuahua. Wonder what Sistla is being held up by.

Hi Chill_Validation,

Thanks for the reply, the funds will be to cover the costs to produce 12 Cosmos ecosystem news videos during a period of 6 months as mentioned in the proposal. Therefore, there will be oversight since you will see each new video being released as well as the continuous improvements which we have been doing since the first video by listening to all the community feedback that we receive after each video.

Hello everyone. I am a fellow content creator and I understand how difficult it is to make quality videos. I have made over 100 videos, repurpose the content, and interact with the community based around said content. While the monetary cost is low, the time cost for producing, improving, delivering, and getting eyes on these videos is likely close to 1,000 hours of work. I am qualified to weigh in on this prop with experience and new information. Votes up to this point have been done so prematurely. Right now my vote is “abstain” for several reasons: • the community is already getting Cosmos-themed content for free • the community is not asking for more content • lack of oversight and accountability in the proposal • lack of community involvement in the process • it is unclear how being a validator is related to content creation • validators appear to be rubber stamping props to pay each other with community funds • the “no” choice is worded deceptively (possibly not intentional) • Most important: Lack of Channel Data Let’s focus on the missing data, which is easily obtained by Cosmic Validator but not shared publicly. For example, YouTube supplies analytics to…

Excerpt (1198 of 2186 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi CosmosJoe, Many thanks for joining the discussion and sharing your feedback, this is much more constructive that your recent frequent “trolling” and attacking on Twitter. Here are the answers to your concerns: -Can you please let us know other youtube channels producing Cosmos ecosystem news videos consistently, with that type of specific format for the content/video design? We mean organised by sections, focused sections of some projects, in-depth educational assessments, with blogpost/twitter threads versions of the videos, etc. We would love if there are others and we would be watching their episodes. -In June this year, before launching the project, we did polls on Twitter and Telegram for the community and there was a high demand, as evidenced in the polls results, for consistent and high quality Cosmos ecosystem news videos. Therefore, your claim that the community is not asking for more content is not accurate based on the results of these polls. -There is oversight, because the deliverables are 12 Cosmos ecosystem news videos over a period of 6 months, so you will be able to see each new video being released, as well as the blogpost and twitter threads versions.…

Excerpt (1199 of 4350 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I have not trolled or attacked you at all. I never said validators can’t make content and I never said content creators should not get paid from community funds. If you don’t want to respond on Twitter, that is your choice. This seems to be the official forum so I’m happy to address the prop here.

To clarify: I am looking for very simple metrics that YouTube provides. This would make the case for the abstain voters to decide one way or another.

I do not believe the data is an indicator of how successful YT is at onboarding newcomers, but it is certainly a good indication of how people are interacting with your specific content content. This data should probably have been volunteered early in the process when you put a specific price tag on your work.

Also, there is no consensus within the community. Only about 25% have voted (half of those voted to abstain) according to mint scan.

Hi CosmosJoe, Thanks for your reply, here are our answers: -We have to disagree but there has been constant trolling and attacking on Twitter for the last few days and you have been part of this also, we are glad that we finally can have constructive discussions here in the forum. -You said ‘it is unclear how being a validator is related to content creation’ so this sounds like you mean validating and creating content shouldn’t be related, hence that validators shouldn’t be content creators also. -Twitter is not good for governance discussions, there is a character limit and tweets get lost quickly, that’s what the Forum is for and of course this is the official forum for Cosmos Hub governance. All on-chain proposals are first discussed here as draft proposals to receive feedback before deciding to put proposals on-chain for voting. -You claim ‘This would make the case for the abstain voters to decide one way or another.’, well you are speaking here as if all the abstain voters have the same opinion as you while actually this is just your own individual opinion. If someone wants to vote abstain, yes or no that’s the decision of each, why are you trying to influence the…

Excerpt (1197 of 1903 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I think if you wont address my initial ask, then further discussion is not needed. Also it seems my original post got deleted while I was trying to delete a draft, which makes the whole thing moot. Good luck. I guess I’ll go back to YouTube where I belong. Original post here FYI Hello everyone. I am a fellow content creator and I understand how difficult it is to make quality videos. I have made over 100 videos, repurpose the content, and interact with the community based around said content. While the monetary cost is low, the time cost for producing, improving, delivering, and getting eyes on these videos is likely close to 1,000 hours of work. I am qualified to weigh in on this prop with experience and new information. Votes up to this point have been done so prematurely. Right now my vote is “abstain” for several reasons: • the community is already getting Cosmos-themed content for free • the community is not asking for more content • lack of oversight and accountability in the proposal • lack of community involvement in the process • it is unclear how being a validator is related to content creation • validators appear to be rubber stamping props to pay each…

Excerpt (1199 of 2479 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Would you be willing to work with me on a true community spend prop that addresses content?
I have been testing ideas to involve community in the content and I have actual data that it is effective.

The current prop, as written, does not involve the community to the extent that I would like to see as a small stake holder deeply connected to the “regular” community members.

Hi @CosmosJoe - I can see that your post is marked ‘deleted by author’. You should be able to revert that edit yourself by viewing the edit log but if you can’t access it, I can restore it for you as a moderator.

Let me know.

please do that. sorry for the mistake

Hi CosmosJoe, The average views per video in our youtube channel is ~704 views at the time of writing. On Twitter some mentioned this and asked Cryptocito for his opinion. He said that considering how new our youtube channel is and the number of subscribers, this number of average views is actually great. Cryptocito has been recommended and featured in some CoinBureau videos, who is the largest youtuber in crypto. Moreover, Cryptocito also said on Twitter that there are many ways to seek compensation and choosing to go on-chain is a great step and said he would vote YES. CosmosJoe: The current prop, as written, does not involve the community to the extent that I would like to see as a small stake holder deeply connected to the “regular” community members. The community was involved before the project was launched since we did several polls to hear what the demand of the community was. Then, after each video was released we listened to all the feedback from the community and we have been improving the videos and implementing all this feedback constantly. If you check the recent videos and the first few videos you will notice important improvements in terms of…

Excerpt (1197 of 1997 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

When I made my initial post, I was considering changing my vote from abstain to YES.

You trolled me on this forum, even making sure to point out my typos. Your own Twitter doesn’t mention the prop, which shows a lack of effort to engage the community which is largely on Twitter.

Without sharing your YouTube data, the community has no idea what they are paying for.

I have changed my vote to NO and made it known publicly.

There is no need to reply here, as I won’t check again.

But as I have invited you in the past, you are free to join my Twitter spaces and talk with actual community members who are going to be paying for these videos.

CosmosJoe:

You trolled me on this forum

In our previous messages we just answered politely in detail all your concerns.

CosmosJoe:

Your own Twitter doesn’t mention the prop

This is not true. We previously shared the link to the draft proposal on Twitter and asked the community to provide feedback. Moreover, in our previous video as well as the blogpost and twitter thread versions we mentioned about the draft proposal also and asked the community to provide feedback. In addition, in our upcoming video with the review of the 1st half of December being released today or tomorrow, we mention as well that the proposal is on-chain for voting.

CosmosJoe:

you are free to join my Twitter spaces and talk with actual community members

We think the forum is best for constructive governance discussions. Also, here in the Cosmos Hub forum there are actual Cosmos ecosystem community members.

Cosmos ecosystem news is live!

-Osmosis Stableswap pools
-Migration from Junoswap to WYND DEX
-Juno constitution
-ibc-go v7.0.0: IBC to non-tendermint chains
-Upcoming Gno.land ‘Game of Realms’
& MORE!

Enjoy Cosmonauts!https://youtu.be/6oBM3oQgPSo