Thanks 
that’s precisely the reason behind the Proposal, hard to use the testers if some of them never answer your pings.
P.S. I’m not implying that all the testers never reply etc., just use it as an oversimplified example.
I agree with ak47 sentiment here.
frankly, hes being a bit more understanding than me as well. I am actually a little disgusted by the proposal after WASTING months going through this last time, WITH 0 GAINED. All that was accomplished last time was a short pump followed by a full retrace.
BURNS DO NOT WORK FOR LONG TERM VALUE ADDS.
Proposal 6: Vesting, Liquidity Mining & PowerIndex Design Numerous people, myself included, were worried about a second round of this debate.
This doesn’t set a good precedent for governance when you can have prior proposals pass and then have vesting contracts changed or halted PRE SNAPSHOT VOTE?
If this was so important to be discussed why is it being slide in the DAY OF vesting start? I am absolutely against and alteration to the contract and any further delays. This is terrible planning and if something was to be done it should have been a month ago, not 4 hours until (the second timer to drop to 24hs of vesting to start)
To consolidate:
CVP community needs to be careful with governance - Changing terms set by a snapshot vote without a new snapshot vote can ruin the legitimacy of governance. We do not want CVP governance to be a meme.
I would vote FOR part A alone, and thats with the understanding that team and push new vesting contract minus the 40 testers, QUICKLY, if not, then compensation from today - until new contract is pushed should be added.
PART B, C - Definitely voting against
100% but as mentioned months ago, somehow, we are still on this debate of testers token allocations instead of UNITING AS ONE COMMUNITY and actually trying to make cvp the best index protocol in defi.
1 Like
Nobody changed/halted anything without a vote sir.
Agree on timing, we should have started this conversation earlier, unfortunately we had no such option due to some technical reasons with tester activity assessment.
Lastly:
the idea of burn is not to pump the price, it’s just a way of decreasing allocation. Burn (infinity vesting technically) was the only way to do it.
Thanks for your responce.
-
Testers topic was one of the key points why Powerhouse started. You can check MB program in discord.
So yeah, we are still on the same page. -
Yep, timing is the worst.
But this is timing is result of tons of work.
Onchain analysis prob the most easy part.
I wrote subgraph and extract on chain data. You can check it here:
https://thegraph.com/explorer/subgraph/latenthero/cvp-vesting-statistics
But to reach out testers and describe situation for them takes time.
I believe as tester you also received message from the Team in February with explanation what’s going on.
Slashing is not the way to pump cvp. Not in direct way at least.
It’s the way to create more fair distribution for those who actively contribute in project. Testers or not.
This is concise and achieves the same objectives without adding the banana republic / draconian element. I like it.
We can’t continually go back and forth on vesting @Zero. It was promised in an earlier proposal that the final word had been said on vesting. You can’t keep making proposal after proposal to change this. It’s not only fiercely unprofessional & draconian, it’s also supremely counter-productive. The active testers are doing much more than many of you give them credit for.
1 Like
Hello, @LordOfArda
This proposal is made only with one purpose - make CVP stakes of active and really engaged testers more valuable. And also support active participation in the project as well.
So:
- We didn’t slash testers that did something valuable for the project (off-chain)
- We didn’t slash testers who are at least voting sometimes and reply team in messengers
- We didn’t slash testers who actively voted
All testers who are slashed here are not engaged in the project, didn’t offer some help, never voted, etc.
I think you understand that it is crazy to slash testers who helped at least a bit? Right? Since it is trust issue. We as the team respect all testers who helped us. Even if you just voted (I think you understand that it is very simple, didn’t cost significant time in comparison with real help and contribution).
2 Likes
But a lot of CVP holders store their CVP in CVP-ETH pair or CVP boost program. The real number of CVP holders is much more bigger
The question is that we need incentives for testers to contribute. Nobody will slash testers or prolong vesting if they vote sometimes (not 100% of votings but at least sometimes), and at least communicate with the team and ask how they can help.
It was very easy to not be slashed now.
- At least couple of votings during 9 months (I think you understand that 9 months is an epoch in crypto). If somebody didn’t vote at least 1-2 times it means that he/she wasn’t involved at all. Zero involvement.
- At least respond in telegram/ask how to help/share the plan of your contribution/make a calls with the team
1 Like
we are not banana republic, we very carefully work with it and maintain our trust as Management Board.
As I said before, nobody will be slashed or have prolonged vesting in case he is at least voting a bit and is in contact with the team. Team will additionally verify any request for slashing/prolonging vesting and can reject it. We just aim to avoid silent testers who disappear and do nothing, even do not vote.
You should not only pay attention to these activities, but also pay attention to other aspects of the testers’ contributions
Of course, if testers contribute somehow not on-chain, the team will share this info with us. And also - team executing all slashing or prolonging vesting, so nothing can be done without their approval and multi-sig transaction!
1 Like
And as I said, slashing completely inactive voters is fine. But gaining power to treat remaining voters how the Management Board sees fit, on a discretionary & subjective basis, is not. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding with how you phrased the initial proposal. Either way, I think the changes proposed by AK47 will satisfy everyone. And that’s the route we should go down.
Nope. As proposal said - every MBs proposal will go through teams data:
Nobody will be slashed because MB wants something from them, no threats and anything like that.
Basically MBs function here - saves Teams time and gather data + propose possible solutions while them do their cool stuff (YLA, MM prop, etc).
And as proposal stated: every final decision will be backed by the Team as the most competent player for this project:
We on purpose will have literally 0 tech power to do what we want without approval. 
And yes once again.
Timing is the worst and I’ll personally as well as other MB members would be happy to discuss it longer.
But it is how it is. Sadly, we can’t revert time.
So we proposed what in our point of view is the most suitable for testers, non-testets and project overall.
To the guys who suffered from LPing.
I share your pain as I was a pretty sizeable LP and got rekted significantly in the very beginning - you can just see my posts on the forum and in the discord (as well as some other guys who were larger LPs than me)
But what have I done with it:
- I am still LPing and I can say that the rewards are a way overweighting the initial losses
- I have put and still putting a bunch of efforts to make PP a market leader and yeah to make the CVP price back to the August’s levels:)
while the second is not necessary for any of the community members, the first would allow you to have a very nice returns even at current relatively low prices.
Sorry, but I just don’t see why the early LPing should be additionally compensated now - it has already been compensated by very high rewards for 7 months
All opposition on this proposal has come from idle testers. I see no reason to not move forward to the voting stage as only one active tester, @bitcoinpalmer, has stated concerns.
The proposal is live on the snapshot
1 Like
Against this proposal.
Up front, Parts A and B & C should be voted on separately. Part A is about slashing inactive testers, while Parts B and C are about the management of tester allocations going forward. At the very least there should be more time for the community to discuss a change of this magnitude. This process doesn’t set a good precedent for a project centered around governance.
While Part A makes sense in theory, as in we shouldn’t be rewarding freeloading testers who haven’t contributed anything to this community, Parts B and C highlight the danger with this proposal. Constantly adjusting token distribution plans previously committed to increases uncertainty around the project. Setting up a management committee to adjust tester allocations at their discretion will damage the credible neutrality of the project. We should really spend more time thinking through the consequences of this proposal.
2 Likes
Thanks for your response.
As I said before - it’s impossible to execute part A without part B:
If we don’t want to slash all of the testers - we need to create new contract.
Part C is not about
It’s about gathering information and propose to team the best solution to work with testers.
If you familiar with testers case, you know why we as MB didn’t receive any Info about their personalities (Desclimer)
And that’s why we can’t put it in public votes.
But we definitely need to do something.
I agree, that it’s a little bit rough solution.
But we need to do it ASAP and that’s exactly why.