Cosmos Hub Education Funding

Summary • Don Cryptonium is Cosmos ecosystem focused content creator and validator that started validating the Cosmos Hub in 2022 itself. • We seek 1800 ATOM as one time payment as the support for archiving podcast clips focused on cosmos ecosystem. On top I commit to creating a short video serie that educates on cosmos IBC and it’s ecosystem (5-10 videos). • Inspired by the Cosmic Validator, who are trail blazers of the space who pave the path for content creators like us, to get funding and be able to sustain providing community with high quality content. We are truly privileged to be able to create content for community that supports not only it’s developers but also those who spread to good name of cosmos. Don Cryptonium I am content creator that is focused on bringing education and podcasts focused on the cosmos ecosystem. For over 10 years I have been educator making online courses on subject of photoshop. My deep experience in that field allows me to produce high quality information and educational content for the cosmos ecosystem. I am proud of the fact that since the market sentiment shift, Don Cryptonium continues producing equal amount of educational…

Excerpt (1196 of 9155 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

You copy and pasted the voting options from another prop.

Also, do you have a large team? It seems like you will not be able to deliver these clips, as this is excruciating work for a small team.

So you will be requesting 6000 atom for 6 months? I think you need to request a one time payment and just stake the tokens for constant rewards.

I think you’ve accomplished a lot and you will have to change your style a little bit…
Your style is great but in order for this funding to be justified. We need a more positive don cryptonium.

I think we’ve seen a lot of improvements and your content is also very entertaining; you are always up to date & speak on the latest news.

Since this proposal will be on chain forever soon. Just want you to know that this is a serious proposal and if this request Passes. You have to do a really good job and make a big improvement don. You will be forever on chain, it will be historic, and you will be representing cosmos…

Good luck don cryptonium, you have my vote.

Noticed the cosmic validator at the end haha

Thank you very much Joe for feedback. It should be fixed by now.

I must say me and my team working like a dogs 16 hours a day, i know it might seem impossible to deliver such quantities of high quality content. But as i said, we are here to help community.

I understand it would be fair to request more but it is the minimum that we believe should be asking for.

Hey Nick thanks a lot! I just changed it to one time payment.

I understand concerns about style but i request funding for only non opinionated videos that are tutorials and podcasts, as well as extraction of the clips that will serve as public good for any community and project out there

Thank you!

Would you be willing to share some YouTube studio data so that the community can make an informed decision?

Also, I think it would go a long way if you promise to use at least 5% of the funding to reward viewers who are engaging with your content

Thank you for submitting this proposal to the Cosmos community for funding to create content related to the Cosmos ecosystem. I appreciate the volume and variety of content that Don Cryptonium has produced. As I consider this proposal, I have a few points from the proposal that I would like Don Cryptonium to clarify: • It is not clear that Don Cryptonium is a multi-person company. The proposal states that Don Cryptonium is a content creator company focused on the Cosmos ecosystem. Still, it does not provide any information about the size or makeup of the company. Could you provide more information about the size and capabilities of Don Cryptonium? • The proposal mentions that Don Cryptonium has produced over 120 videos and 60 podcasts since June 2022, but does not provide any information about the quality of these resources. Could you provide more information about the quality of the infrastructure used by Don Cryptonium (e.g. equipment, software, etc.)? • Could you provide a breakdown of how the requested funding of 6,000 ATOMs would be spent, including details on the expected value this investment will bring to the Cosmos ecosystem? Answering these questions would…

Excerpt (1195 of 1527 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

DonCryptonium: The funds will be used to extract clips from hundreds hours of interviews. There is huge amount of clips with ecosystem builders that could be extracted and used as open source materials for any project and any builder in cosmos in their own social media channels. -With respect to deliverables, would you be so kind as to expand on the metrics that will be used? For example, is it the number of clips extracted from prior videos? Please be more specific. -Additionally, using ‘could be extracted’ is vague. Would you please considering revising this? Governance votes The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal: YES - You agree that educating and keeping all Cosmos ecosystem stakeholders informed and updated is important and thus wish to fund Don Cryptonium’s work NO - You don’t agree that educating and keeping all Cosmos ecosystem stakeholders informed and updated is important and thus do not agree to fund Don Cryptonium’s work -would you consider changing the NO portion of the vote to say something along the lines of “You either do not agree that educating and keeping Cosmos ecosystem stakeholders informed…

Excerpt (1197 of 1626 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Absolutely, I would show all the effort that goes into preparing my studio. And yes this is very interesting idea of sharing 5% of funding with my audience by providing them with contests that engage community. Beautiful idea Joe.

Hi Hodor,

Yes of course I can elaborate. As of now I have over 100 hours of podcast episodes with various ecosystem builders such as Zaki Manian, Sunny Aggarwal and many others. Unfortunately because those podcasts are long, a lot of great lessons from this accomblished builders are missed by audience.

I propose extracting all that (over 100 of clips), that can be used as open source by any project if they wish in their own socials. On top i will continue providing podcasts and education, so it will be continuous work.

I think this NO vote definition is just perfect and it is used from similar proposal that was on the hub.

Thank You!
Don

Hello Rarma, Thank you for taking your time and sharing your feedback. This is indeed very valuable! Regarding the work and the team, I personally work 16 hours a day researching and recording, together with my assistant. On top I also have the person that is helping me with the clips right now. I am also using the advices of freelance consultants that help me with ideas and marketing of the content. The funding could allow me to scale even better and hire another person to help with production. Regarding equipment, To record videos I am using full frame camera, lighting and microphone to ensure high quality audio. I have 10 years of experience with adobe software such as premiere pro and photoshop where I edit my videos. I use my long experience in the post production industry to ensure only the highest quality content. Please reefer to: https://www.marcinmikus.com/ I have similar experience in making high quality educational videos on the subject of photoshop. Which shows me and my team are right people to educate others on the great potential of cosmos ecosystem. Please reefer: https://www.retouchingninja.com/ https://www.udemy.com/user/marcinmikus/ Thank…

Excerpt (1198 of 1495 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

DonCryptonium: Proposal details The Cosmos ecosystem, with the launch of IBC, has grown significantly and it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep track of all the important developments and updates. While news is shared on several platforms such as Twitter, Reddit, Discord, Telegram, Blogs and others, the information is very spread and usually challenging for stakeholders to find it and avoid missing some important updates. Some projects exist trying to gather and putting together the main news, however these are mostly news headlines without in-depth assessments or educational content. Keeping Cosmos stakeholders aligned and informed about important developments in areas such as governance, new technical features, project launches and upgrades or conferences is important and helps to have more constructive discussions. Our goal with the Cosmos ecosystem news videos is to both educate and keep the broad Cosmos ecosystem community and stakeholders well informed, as well as helping to onboard new users to the ecosystem and increase the awareness about the advantages of building with Cosmos tech. This is literally 100% copy & paste from our proposal, I mean it…

Excerpt (1198 of 1663 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I think this response is very concerning. All the content I have placed there is my own content.

Also there is much more to be delivered:

• podcasts
• tutorials
• clips

As I mentioned in the proposal I am highly inspired by your bravery and paving a path for creators like myself. I am truly grateful for you being at the forefront of this resolution.

As you know I am working hard every day delivering high quality content for cosmos community and didn’t have time for fully drafting proposal this is why I appreciate you even more.

Love,
Don

DonCryptonium:

All the content I have placed there is my own content.

We were obviously referring to the proposal regarding the plagiarism, not your video content.

DonCryptonium:

I am highly inspired by your bravery and paving a path for creators like myself. I am truly grateful for you being at the forefront of this resolution.

Well thanks for this, this seems to be different though to your stance on twitter, where you use name calling such as disgusting, accusing us of governance manipulation, involving our long term partners OmniFlix falsely questioning if they are sponsoring us and so on. While probably not you, we have been receiving threats constantly since the proposal passed. But we appreciate that at least now you are inspired by us and contrary to you, we wish you the best and we hope if you can answer all the questions here that the proposal could be successful.

Thats nothing compared to the ish you pulled. You of all people should🤐

I understand the concerns. This is just a template and I will continue to editing this proposal with received feedback.

I hope you are willing to take feedback seriously from the people on this forum.

I would like to see how the community spend will bring value to the community at large.

DonCryptonium:

Deliverables

Hello i would like to know how many deliveries, are we expecting for this amount requested?

Can we please keep a constructive tone towards each other? I don’t think that this comment brings elements to the community about the proposer work in a way that helps to take a more aware decision for the hub’s best. Compare proposals isn’t the way to go, and many times wording was copy pasted between different drafts without being seen as a bad thing. If you do something that worked people will try to naturally follow that path.

DonCryptonium:

The funds will be used to extract clips from hundreds hours of interviews. There is huge amount of clips with ecosystem builders that could be extracted and used as open source materials for any project and any builder in cosmos in their own social media channels.

While Don Cryptonium will continue producing high quality podcasts and educational videos on his channel.

It’s not clear how this will work, as I assume that some clips might be took from interviews that are now slightly out of date considering how fast the ecosystem as whole is growing. I would like to know more about this part and the criterias you will follow.

Secondarily, would love having you in a twitter space about this draft on the hub account in the new year, before it goes on chain, so that we can try to gather together more points of view before seeing the proposal finalized

So the raiding of the community treasury by content creators has begun. Thanks Prop 89, thanks cosmic validator!
56k at current prices, if ATOM goes up in price, can be much more. That’s a sallary way above 100k. For producing some videos. I’ve said it with cosmic validators, and I say it again: content creators should find ways to monetize their channel. If you’re good at what you’re doing, you don’t need funding from the treasury. There’s plenty of highly successful creators that earn find themselves…

I totally agree with you. Soon we will be asked to vote to fund tiktok videos or instagram accounts.

Sure, some of them indeed will be out of date. And many will not be. There is a lot of work to be done.

On top this will be constant work of doing podcasts, extracting clips, providing tutorials. I am happy to break it down and speak about it further.

Sorry bud. You can’t offend people left and right on Twiiter and then ask for community funds. It’s a no vote from us.

prop89 seems to be an effort to manufacture consent for validators to raid the community pool. this entire satirical exercise started by cosmic validator and stakefish does well to illustrate why validators cant be trusted to govern with delegator votes.

i guess we are just lucky that validators only have 1.3mmAtom to waste on videos that wont be watched during the bear market and pay each other with instead of 4million or 40 million Atom.

the question seems to be: do these proposals passing reflect worse on the validators abusing community spends or the validators that fail the community by passing them.

Personally I sympathize with this more than with #89. However, #89 was a mistake and this would be one, too. Committing multiple wrongs doesn’t magically create a right.

This is literally nonsense. A validator suddenly changed his vote on last minute to a prop to pass that prop doesn’t justifies this prop. Community pool exists doesn’t mean that you should/will spend community pool funds like a toilet paper. Community pool funds should be used on better places. Creating YouTube videos should be considered as hobby or your job where the YouTube the company will pay you for your contents. Making a video for a community ie. Cosmos should be free of cost. There’re thousands of content creators making videos for Ethereum and other crypto projects and they’re not funded by community pool. And also there’re hundreds of people will make similar proposals and will ask money. If we fund every YT channel because a prop passed by a validator’s politics and suspicious last min vote, then there’ll be no fund left for actual value adding props. If you think you’re making good videos then you will automatically be paid via YouTube or take sponsorship if you want, community pool for YouTube videos is not an option. After seeing these nonsense proposals, outsiders will definitely laugh on Cosmos. What a shitshow we’re seeing. Now coming personally about Don. I…

Excerpt (1196 of 2410 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

You should see the irony here. It is copied on purpose to shed light on the absurdity of prop #89. Your collusion with stakefish will come to light eventually. If cosmic validator deserves 300 atom for 6 months, then Don is worth at least 3 times this amount. Cosmic validator videos are unwatchable, boring, and only bring forward bulleted points of information with no insight.

Which is fine if you want to do it for free on your own. However your content, cosmic_validator, is below average and not worth what you have been awarded.

This is just wrong. I leanred everything i know about usung the cosmos ecosystem from Don videos. Everything you are saying about don is true about cosmic validator. Their content is pointless repeating of bulleted points. You are the corrupt one here.

Are you somehow the alt of DON? I have doubts. But what I’ve said is 100% true. I voted NWV for prop89 and will also veto DON’s. Doesn’t matter what you think or not. Community pool is not for YouTube video making.

Monetize your damn channel if you need funds. There are hundreds of YouTube channels doing that.

It will be better if you keep it civil.

What is civil about reporting my comment. Youre soft.

Diarrhea of the mouth is an opinion and a bad one.

Because you replied with bad words. I didn’t said you any bad things.

You accused me of being don. Because i favored him in this discussion. That pretty rude.

You clearly manipulated governance.

Well I was just asking if he’s you? Because none of my friends or persons I brought to cosmos found anything good in his content, including me and then all on a sudden you came by saying you learned everything from him. So the confusion arised. But either way. I never compared him CV. But you started with CV. Did I ever said a single word about CV youtube channel? No. And I clearly mentioned in the last part that I voted NWV on prop89 but you unnecessarily brought that up to justify DON. That’s what wrong you are.

Clearing once again, I WILL VOTE NWV ON EVERY PROPOSAL THAT ASK COMMUNITY FUND FOR CREATING YOUTUBE VIDEOS. If you need funds then monetize your damn channel. Community funds are not for such things.

Also you’re the one accused me “the corrupt one here”. Now don’t try to play innocent, lol. You literally called me corrupted person. How did you know my character? Do you even know me? The corrupt one here is you favoring a FUDing master who often attacks community peoples.

Please let’s stay constructive, the forum is Governance’s house and we have to stay respectful while making our points

Please let’s use a wording that is appropriate, we can definitely make our points without being offensive towards who thinks in a different way

Please, let’s bring back the focus on the draft proposal itself.

Actually, there are a lot of creators who work for free at the moment. Some even view the work they do as a public service and don’t charge projects or teams to be featured and give them a platform to reach the broader community.

Prop 89 did open the door for this, especially it not being led by a collective of content creators rather than a single one.

I saw this proposal as taking advantage of prop 89 and don’t have a good motive.

This proposal need to be rework to be accepted for exeple : “title is wrong format”.

Vidéo that you shown dont seem to be educational and most of them talk about others blockhain in the ecosystem.

@DonCryptonium I suspect you have done this in sarcasm yet it seems that the vast majority of comments above dont see it that way.

Sad that even blatant joke proposals are met with serious replies.

I love cosmos but this shit is broken.

Hey Don , many questions about the structure of your proposal. So whatever this proposal is ironic , allow you to reach a deeper audience on Twitter or totaly real ( I strongly doubt of this possibility) , i will try to help you define the proposal. First, my questions • how this budget will be spend ? How many people will take profit on that budget ? • can you define your structure, your company ? • your company have a legal structure? In this case are your going to pay taxes on this amount and are you ready to give us proof of that ? • those atom will be spend right away against USD or store in a specific wallet ? • Since you are involved with stargaze chain , how can we be sure of your total objectivity. • Looking at your recent tweets only , can you say that you are always objective and your goal is only about education ? If not , are you ready to assume this role and get ride of all the “fudding & aggressive” content for the sake of the community? Secondly, my point of view about education : Education is not only about content production but also about the way you actually spread the informations from my point of view , your content is not ready to do only…

Excerpt (1197 of 1719 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This is the problem with @cosmicvalidator in that they have opened pandora’s box. As a developer writing smart-contract that benefit gaia, why should I not be awarded funds from the community pool. Surely development is more beneficial than marketing, for without projects, there would be nothing to market.

The root problem is literally anyone can make a claim that their work benefits the ecosystem. The free market is there to determine what beneficial work is actually impactful, and allows the individual to monetize based on their impact.

I think that everyone should be free to answer to this proposal as they like: if they think that it can potentially bring value, they will act accordingly, no matter if the starting point was a critique to the system itself. Governance is about respecting each other point of view at the end of the day, which doesn’t mean agree all the time, but see value in others opinion. Let’s stay focused on make suggestions/constructive criticism to the draft proposal submitted rather than try to judge others on why/where they see value that we don’t.

catdotfish:

the starting point was a critique to the system itself

We agree on this

The state of governance is worrying but as someone who generally does not comment here I will now return to my corner.

If you already know how you will vote, why don’t you make some constructive criticisms here. What would Don have to do in order to get your support? How can he modify the prop?
That is the point of using governance forums. Give actionable feedback or get off the forum. I am still trying to make up my mind and this doesn’t help.

These are good questions by Cryptopital. I hope Don will address them.

This conversation may lead to a community criteria for spending community funds on content creator work.

Personally, I enjoy Don’s video a lot, however, I think we should first have a consent on some template or structure about evaluating different education related funding requestment. There would be much more funding requestment similar to this in near future and without fixed evaluation form, it won’t be fair to requestees and to hub, both.
(P.S, as prop #89 passed, I think its very reasonable for every educational content creators like don to request community pool funding.)

It would feel odd to me to vote yes on this while your videos are basically the only reason why people delegate to your validator. Basically it’s like paying for what you have to do anyways to get delegations

Would make more sense if you don’t have a validator

Well brother, who you are to call me get off? I mean actually who you are? You simply can’t ask someone to get off the forum. That’s not what decentralization means, that’s not how governance works. Learn first how these things works before asking someone to get off the platform. I already addressed what wrong things DON is doin. He should work on that points. The thing he should really work on is, produce quality informative videos, don’t attack community members or persons, stop baseless FUD on projects because maybe some validator is not happy with that project. I already told that why 6000 ATOM never justifies. Actually why no such proposal should exist. But here you’re implying your agenda on me. I get it you love DON doesn’t mean everyone should love what he doing.

Agree with the comment @dimiandre made here but beyond that:

Paying a 100k/year salary for a product that can (and should) monetize itself which is not focused on the Hub but on specific chains in the ecosystem you so happen to get an interview with seems like a wrong choice for the cosmos hub community pool.

We will consider voting differently if a creator comes with a proposal dedicated to content around core ATOM development on a community governed channel. Something like splitting ATOM, news overviews, development activity tracking etc from a dedicated side-channel.

Thank you I really appreciate it

Dude you live on some different planet. I barely advertise my validator. Don’t have any support from any foundations unlike cosmic had. Something you have supported. I make no money from videos nor validating yet provide great support to the ecosystem.

I like the sarcasm for this thread where it comes from as a starting point. Which also makes me worry though… what keeps literally ALL the other content creators from doing the same?
And what comes after? All the people forking ping.pub to provide an explorer, providing RPC/LCD nodes, or running a local community Telegram chat without members?

I don’t blame @DonCryptonium for starting this chat, by having the precedent set by prop #89. But I would like to use this to call out all validators to actually start caring what they vote and what kind of precendents they set. Because right now validators only treat every proposal as a loose proposal, but simply fail to understand what kind of consequences a certain vote can have. And that is seriously unacceptable for people we are paying to secure our chains and ecosystem. And that goes beyond just creating blocks

Pretty blatantly capitalizing on the fluke of prop 89 passing (barely, and with a massive whale validator inexplicably voting Yes at the last second) mere days ago. I’d hardly call that a “precedent”. Let the free market of YouTube decide if your channel is successful and funded. It’s the middle of a really bad bear market, so I don’t believe this is a wise use of community pool funds.

Would really prefer we shift toward a DAO-like structure for this type of thing (maybe on Neutron w/ DAODAO when that is live). It could be anything, like a “Content Creation DAO”, and any Cosmos-focused content creators could join and possibly be funded for certain initiatives that are deemed worthy at the time.

There are already some prominent educational Cosmos YouTubers, such as Liam and Cryptocito, who aren’t asking for funds (yet), so even if this didn’t smell like a money grab, i’d still be questioning if it’s worth the relatively steep price tag.

Considering the backlash at the prop 89 results, I think it’s pretty clear that this type of request needs a lot of time to breathe, more ideas presented for the funding logistics (like the DAO idea above), etc.

Strong no for me, personally.

Omniflix team said in many occasions that they were looking to forming the very first contents dao in cosmos, and I think that considering their quite impressive experience would be great to listen to what they are proposing. I’m looking forward having them as guests of a community call on twitter. Much can be done for the hub creators community, but we should really start setting standards/guidelines

Omniflix is already moving quickly to organize that DAO. I am excited to see what it brings. Also excited to work with other creators.

I hope to see some sort of framework and/or DAO specific for these types of proposals. I do see the want for content creators to obviously get paid for the work they put it so I do hope that Omniflix or whoever can push this sooner than later before too many similar funding proposals get put up and cause more friction.

There should be a standard framework and evaluating criteria for funding and not throwing around figures about view count and the sort.

Well, instead of addressing the questions, @DonCryptonium is again attacking us on Twitter. We had a call with P2P in November to discuss some collaborations, and also about Neutron/ICS, and we invited them to review our draft proposal in the forum and provide feedback. Now, @DonCryptonium is sharing his conversation with P2P on Twitter without their knowledge and again attacking us because we had a call with P2P in November. But it is worse than this, @DonCryptonium didn’t tag us or P2P so he can attack us and share misinformation without us being aware and able to answer and clarify his attacks

I don’t think these are attacks. I think these are reasonable conversations to bring to light. You should have engaged the community on Twitter since you are asking for community funds.

I appreciate that Don opens himself up to scrutiny and is willing to take feedback in forming this proposal. I hope he will keep modifying the prop until the community is getting a clear value in return for the funds he is requesting. Thanks to prop #89, there is precedent for this type of ask. And Don’s prop should pass, although I am not sure how I will vote personally.

CosmosJoe:

I don’t think these are attacks

Really? He is now continuing his attacks on Twitter claiming that one of our delegators in Juno is apparently according to him “affiliated with stakefish”. Firstly, he provided no evidence of this and secondly even if true we weren’t aware and anyone is free to delegate as they wish and also this delegator is as well delegating with six other validators.

Please let’s all stick to the draft submitted to the community attention without dragging in past proposals/convs that are happening elsewhere. Let’s try to stay focused on constructive feedbacks and possible directions that we can take as whole, there is no win on fighting against each other. If the system seems not on point, let’s work together on reforming it step by step.
From now on, will start removing any non constructive comments/complain about prop 89/Cosmoc Validator from this thread

Somebody that shows a lack of respect with a very repressive message towards female persons should never be in a position to educate a community like cosmos, I have nothing personal against this individual who call him/her/it self cryptonium but I do hardly believe that our community must be based on respect, and someone who behaves like him/she/it should never represent our values and what we are looking for, in another hand I see an epidemic of opportunist “content creators” coming to ask for money as it already happens in last proposal. This is a huge risk for cosmos ecosystem if we don’t stop it now. If anyone want me to post one of those aggressive tweets of Cryptonium pls let me know.

Why don’t we critique the prop to stay on topic and if you have an issue with Twitter, then reply over there to Don.

As I wrote “nothing personal” I should exercise my right to express my self regarding to this “education funding” topic as a holder, staker, active user, voter so on and so for, It’s relevant to process some truths about individuals who aim to be an educational source. But beyond the engineer youtuber influencer so on and so for we must also be aware of the person behind the avatar. It’s what makes Cosmos-ecosystem different from others. (the people) Is not a critique but an observation of behavior should not be normalized or minimized to just address in Tweeter.

Don Cryptonium: Your Twitter posts are incredibly unprofessional, you attack people outright verbally. Not once have I seen the level of aggression out of Cosmic Validator. As much as I’d like to see a community member non-validator receive funding, you are not the product fit for funding. You are too volatile and harsh with your Twitter posts. I will be advocating every chance I get to encourage a No vote.

No: the prop is DON! It is his behavior that is absolutely unacceptable. Why should we as a community support our community bank on someone who attacks and uses vulgar language to other cosmonauts? Is that really the voice we want to fund? Don’s harsh and insensitive and even attacking tweets are absolutely the reason I’m here voicing my concern about using community funds to pay him. I don’t think he deserves community funding based solely on his incredibly abusive and insensitive tweets. He is absolutely a non-professional in a field that deserves a paid professional.

No with veto is the appropriate vote.

If we refer to normal youtube ads fees, it’s around 1$ for 1000 views. The videos you propose are doing around 500/1000 views so a fair salary for 10 videos should be around 10$, and even 10x would then be 100$

And in general I agree it doesn’t have its place here, it’s just normal Youtube work and it’s rewarded with the Youtube growth/visibility etc

I fully support for your opinion about this Proposals since is important for all our social media channel.

Can someone ELI5 on whats going on here? Started to read. Seemed all good. Then started to fight. What on space is happening here?

For what I have read the standard “I don’t care about the essence of the proposal, but will attack the proposer instead”-story