Discontinue future Funding of Cosmic Validator Content

Hi cosmonauts,

There is big group of cosmonauts believe that cosmos validator videos are negative for the space.

Cosmis Validator has youtube channel with roughtly 500 subscribers and barely any reach.

They received over 20 000 USD worth of atoms from community pools in single tranche to make the content for period of 6 months (total 12 videos).

Considering that this type of exposure is really bad for consmos - low quality video recording, bad audio, multiple language mistakes. It would be trully bad for cosmos hub to be associated with such advertisement.

This proposal is simply and ask to cosmic validator to stop producing content and do not ask for extension of funding.

Vote:

YES - if you agree with proposal and would like to ask Cosmic Validator to stop making content and don’t ask for funding in the future.
NO - You think cosmos hub receiving great value from cosmic validator and wish the to continue.
ABSTAIN - you have no opinion.
NO WITH VETO - you dissaprove this proposal and with the deposit funds for this proposal to be confiscated.

We enthusiastically support this measure. Additionally, cosmic validator did not follow the procedure described in their own proposal. You may wish to add a censure clause because of that.

Thank you for supporting transparency and accountability in cosmos.

Also thank you for defending the hubs brand. The quality of the content being produced by cosmic validator is just too low for words.

DonCryptonium: There is big group of cosmonauts believe that cosmos validator videos are negative for the space First lie. There is a big group of Cosmonauts that support us, appreciate our videos, give us constant feedback and encourage us to continue. There is a few trolls like you trying to attack us and share constant lies and misinformation. DonCryptonium: Cosmis Validator has youtube channel with roughtly 500 subscribers and barely any reach. Our youtube channel is much newer than yours yet even with still fewer subscribers than your channel we are getting similar views per video in general as you. Moreover, the growth in terms of new subscribers gained has been similar to your channel. DonCryptonium: They received over 20 000 USD worth of atoms from community pools in single tranche to make the content for period of 6 months (total 12 videos). Another lie. We received 1800 ATOM when ATOM was at 9$, not at $10 as was estimated for the proposal. If you know how to multiple that’s around $16k not $20k DonCryptonium: Considering that this type of exposure is really bad for consmos - low quality video recording, bad…

Excerpt (1196 of 2476 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

jacobgadikian:

Additionally, cosmic validator did not follow the procedure described in their own proposal. You may wish to add a censure clause because of that.

This is not true. Once the proposal passed, we are free to move the funds to stablecoin or fiat for risk management, as many other proposals have done in the past.

jacobgadikian:

Also thank you for defending the hubs brand. The quality of the content being produced by cosmic validator is just too low for words.

We firmly believe that our content and videos are better quality and are defending the hubs brand more than getting a tattoo half naked that was all over twitter or sharing frequent videos half naked on twitter.

I am sorry that you are troubled by my appearance. I am endeavoring to lose weight. I can take some solace in the fact that dozens of my friends and colleagues saw me, half naked, getting a tattoo, and we had an amazing time. Later on, the content that resulted from my tattooing at Cosmoverse was used to market cosmos, and I am very happy and proud of that. I also enjoy the tattoo quite a bit. from the proposal text: ``` Total amount requested: 300 ATOM monthly for an initial period of 6 months, with a renewal if all deliverables are completed. ``` And of course, inb4 the edit: image 770×387 44.2 KB Plus, here’s a video of me and some friends: twitter.com Citizen Cosmos @cosmos_voice @buchmanster @cosmos @sunnya97 @osmosiszone @fekunze @EvmosOrg @PersistenceOne @v_talasani @stride_zone @zmanian @sommfinance @PandeyMikhil @pStakeFinance @CrescentHub @interchainriley @cyber_devs @Cryptocito @CosmoverseHQ @jelenaaa____ BONUS! Jacob @gadikian getting his first tattoo at the #cosmoverse2022 afterparty! And if you want to know this man better, listen to his candid stories in #citizencosmos podcast episode: citizencosmos.space/notional…

Excerpt (1193 of 2332 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmic_Validator:

Another lie. We are discussing with institutionals involved in crypto in Europe and they really like our videos and want to collaborate with us to add for example crypto compliance and regulatory section done by professionals and more.

Can you please elaborate on this? Institutional adoption is more important than opinions on video / sound quality in my opinion.

many youtubers create better content on the news of the cosmos and in addition they do it for free.
I am personally very fond of informative and educational videos on youtube, and I don’t find the cosmic validator videos to be relevant. The associated funding is not necessary given the lack of professionalism.

Guinch_Roze:

many youtubers create better content on the news of the cosmos

Please can you share the links to all those many youtube channels creating better consistent news content about the Cosmos ecosystem?

There are great content creators in Cosmos who focus on interviews, airdrop tutorials and similar, our focus in on news/education of the Cosmos ecosystem together with blogpost/twitter threads versions of the news and shorter clips on twitter of the main educational content from previous videos.

Sure, we have been meeting several institutionals in EU/Switzerland to present them Cosmos and help them to integrate ATOM in their custody solution for their institutional clients, especially now that Taurus has integrated the whole Cosmos ecosystem. Moreover, leading crypto compliance/regulation companies in Switzerland are also interested to collaborate with us to launch a section in our videos to present the latest developments around crypto regulations.

We are working very hard on this, having frequent meetings and calls, and we hope to provide good news very soon.

Cosmic_Validator:

There are great content creators in Cosmos who focus on interviews, airdrop tutorials and similar, our focus in on news/education of the Cosmos ecosystem together with blogpost/twitter threads versions of the news and shorter clips on twitter of the main educational content from previous videos.

It’s different from cito for sure, but it looks like the format is a bit more formal news report style. Which is fine, everyone has a style.

My opinions on the videos themselves:

Personally I think a better quality microphone will go a long way in improving the videos. There is a constant buzzing / humming in the background and it sounds a bit muffled.

Also the inflection at the end of sentences is a bit weird, it sounds like the reporter is ending everything with a question mark?

jacobgadikian:

I am sorry that you are troubled by my appearance. I am endeavoring to lose weight.

jacobgadikian:

all humans shall be accepted as they are, regardless of use of clothing, gender or lack thereof, gayness or straightness (or anything in between), skin color, national origin, preferred human language, or in fact anything else that’s frequently used to unfairly pre-judge others.

We never said anything at all about your appearance, the only thing we mentioned is that you said that our videos ‘are bad for the hubs brand’ and we disagreed and answered that doing all those videos and photos you do half naked is not professional and worse for the ‘hubs brand’. As mentioned above, we are discussing with many institutionals and professionals in the crypto industry, if all they see about Cosmos are your half naked videos/photos this would look bad and they wouldn’t take the project seriously. In contrast, when we present institutionals our videos and potential collaboration, and we pitch them Cosmos, they take it seriously, and we are working very hard to improve the custody and adoption of ATOM especially in EU/Switzerland.

Yeah you keep saying that and yet they’re not talking to us, you are.

Of course this leads me to suspect that they do not exist.

Additionally, if my shirtless self is a problem to them they may wish to look toward another ecosystem, because if it’s not me expressing myself shirtlessly, it’s someone else expressing them themselves in their own unique and wonderful way. I’m sorry, maybe you’re just not cut out for this.

Cosmic_Validator:

several institutionals

Yes also sometimes various deities speak to me and I tell them about cosmos. By the way their names are:

• God / Allah
• Krishna
• Vishnu
• Shiva
• Juno
• Gaia

Would you mind mentioning the names of these so-called institutions? Thank you

Cosmic_Validator:

We never said anything at all about your appearance, the only thing we mentioned is that you said that our videos ‘are bad for the hubs brand’ and we disagreed and answered that doing all those videos and photos you do half naked is not professional and worse for the ‘hubs brand’.

You have the strangest flexibility with language. You see, you absolutely said things about my appearance, for example, it mattered to you whether or not I was wearing a shirt when I discuss factual and interesting information about cosmos. The beautiful thing about cosmos is that the majority of cosmonauts do not care.

Hey Don,

I think that @lexa has some boilerplated options for Abstain and NWV.

Also, I don’t really think anyone cares about the language mistakes, would you please consider striking the section about language mistakes in your proposal?

I don’t want the hub to be the kinda place where folks can get dinged cause English isn’t their first language, or where folks can get dinged cause they frequently don’t wear a shirt.

Personally I think that a proposal on this matter should stick to items of clear substance:

• Cosmic validator is producing videos that are so bad that they harm the Cosmos and Cosmos Hub brands
• Cosmic validator gave up on having skin in the game the moment they schlepped 100% of their requested funding to a CEX – simultaneously violating the terms of the proposal they wrote.

I think a proposal is wholly unnecessary for this, as is the sarcasm/rudeness.

tknox35:

I think a proposal is wholly unnecessary for this, as is the sarcasm/rudeness.

Sir, have you actually read proposal 89?

Screenshot_20230228-1022451440×1127 218 KB

• I don’t want it to “renew”
• I don’t want ICF delegating to cosmic validator.
• I don’t want ICF making grants to cosmic validator.
• Cosmic Validator did not even follow the terms of their own proposal
• I do not want cosmic validator making low quality content

…

They could always improve quality but they insist that in the present state, their work is of high quality and it’s just not.

Of course @tknox35 – you’re free and encouraged to share your opinion, if you feel that the work is of high quality, or that you feel that @Cosmic_Validator kept to the terms of proposal 89.

Likewise, I most certainly have my opinion.

I am sorry that you feel that it’s rude, but for certain that won’t stop me from speaking my mind.

@lexa @catdotfish I have flagged this since it is harassing behaviour based on lies and misinformation. This proposal going on-chain it is harassment, spam and damaging for the Cosmos Hub. We are not going to reply or engage anymore here, we will let you moderate this and take the necessary actions, thank you.

Cute cancellation attempt frens.

But it doesn’t work. It’s obvious to anybody who read anything here, you brought people’s appearances into the situation and nobody else did that. Only you. Reflect on this.

I am sorry you feel that this is any harassment.

It is not, but your proposal and your feedback stated that you have a team behind making videos. It is very hard to believe considering the quality. For example, Don Cryptonium channel is single person channel, it has higher video, quality, audio quality, and almost daily videos.

Of course not all of them are valuable to cosmos, but simply it is one of main channel that hosted so many cosmos builders. The number of interviews and podcasts far exceeds what you do.
And all that with 0 funding.

This prop is simply trying to prevent and future funding for similar ventures like yours, to get funding for low quality effort with no benefit to the hub.

Would definitely support that prop. I initially was against #89 for reasons already mentioned in the forum’s discussion. We are 2 months past the grant, way out of the benefit of the doubt zone. Yet the quality of the video did not improve at all. They show 0 motivation or real efforts to develop and advertise their channel, to listen to the feedbacks regarding the editing of the videos. Some could argue it’s hard to develop a channel and I could agree with that, but it does not take much effort to listen to feedbacks and improved videos’s quality if they are TRUELY part of your projects and objectives. If you are driven by what you stand for, what you are doing you really don’t take that much of a time just to figure out the basics of audio engineering given that you already have the funds prior to have a successful channel. tho I have to say that the language mistakes argument makes no sense. Most of Cosmonauts are not born in an English speaking country, nobody should attack someone for something they improve on day after day. I also feel like the content of this prop should be to stop the future fundings but should not say anything regarding them stopping the…

Excerpt (1194 of 1426 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Lets be grown up and practical about this: low quality content AND PERSONAL ATTACKS (I dont care who makes them) are harmfull to cosmos. Anybody can make any content they like on their channel so asking for not making videos anymore is impossible.
I suggest to keep it strickly:
yes - cosmos hub does NOT provide any further funding to Cosmic Validator to make videos on behalve of cosmos hub
no - cosmos hub continues to provide funding for the next/last bach of videos
abstain - no opinion but contributing to quorum
no with veto - you dissaprove this proposal and with the deposit funds for this proposal to be confiscated.

To all participants: Please stop bickering and keep the discussion professional/ constructive. We all have the shared goal/interest of making the cosmos hub thrive, grow and a healthy place to develop/contribute.

Just put up a clean proposal. The cosmos hub is capable and mature enough to decide if they deam the quality of the produced content good enough for further funding or not.

I agree that these videos are poor quality and poor value for money, and that the incentives should be taken away. However, I don’t agree that they are harmful to Cosmos, I think Don’s videos are more harmful.

Any proofs for your claims when it comes to the “big group of cosmonauts”? The quality can be improved, I agree, but claiming they (CV team) are negatively impacting Cosmos ecosystem is exxagerating. What I think IS negatively impacting Cosmos, is your childish trolling and hating. Really, look at the mirror, dude. Smh…

Spaceghost:

However, I don’t agree that they are harmful to Cosmos, I think Don’s videos are more harmful.

You’re totally entitled to that opinion. Since he isn’t receiving any funding from the hub the hub doesn’t really get a say in his work.

Personally I like his content but you’re not the first person to say that to me.

This is why it was placed on forum. Probably it will just request discintinuation of future funding for cosmic validator.

@DonCryptonium, You still working on this prop or leave it and further funding for next batch goes through without community say?

First off, thank you Cryptonium for initiating this post. With that said, this prop honestly sounds like a personal gripe w/ a hint of ego.

Neither parties, CosmicValidator + DonCryptonium, should have received funding during this chapter of Cosmos Hub $ATOM’s community pool, respectfully. I think both parties are doing a decent job with the content their pushing, but we’re treating $ATOM as MONEY here with this type of childish proposal.

All this would be solved by focusing on drafting/completing our COLLECTIVE values, via ATOM ONE constitution, to rid such nonsensical types of discussions on the already crowded Cosmos Forum.

Don’s got a pretty large ego.

Love him still.

Atom One constitution is everything but collective.

edit : if a constitution is needed, it should emerge from a collective effort/brainstorming/work. Not from a guru.

I dont care about egos etc. Everybody, Pls keep that out of this discussion.

I just wanted to know very practically if after the first batch (six months/12 videos) Cosmos Hub wants to fund the next batch of videos at the cost of an other 1800 ATOM. That is all.

At the end of the day, we are collectively here. “Family,” don’t always have to get along, but we’re all blood (digitally) here. So all respect to both parties, Cryptonium and Cosmic.

@tom, Yes! 100% agreed that it should emerge from a collective effort, however, most seem to be (understandably) more concerned about their own motives/agendas. Human nature of taking things for granted, I guess. At the very least, thankful Jae kwon initiated the working draft.

@Pookybear (lol great name btw) I would personally discontinue. AT LEAST until the Cosmos Hub $ATOM tokenomics have been fleshed out, because again, $ATOM is NOT money (queue reminder for $PHOTONS - but personally would go w/ a different ticker ID), and the current inflation rate is harmful for the “avg.” cosmonaut.

Appreciate yallz comment/engagement. Long live our ecosystem.

Following today’s new Cosmic validator video. TBH this proposal is still valid. In retrospect, I think we can see that these videos don’t do good for the cosmos hub; the number of views is stable or even declining, and it’s really not what you’d expect for $16 or $20K. The mediocrity of the production contributes to the low-cost image of our ecosystem, and that’s not a good thing.

• At the very least, we’re entitled to ask you for a few metrics to prove to us that these funds have had an impact.