• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

If there is no lamassu deliverable , should the masternodes who voted for it pay?

alexblack

New member
if there is no delivarable from lamassu, should the Masternodes who voted for it to pay the loss?
  1. yes
  2. no
  3. other
 
if there is no delivarable from lamassu, should the Masternodes who voted for it to pay the loss?
  1. yes
  2. no
  3. other

this was sorted way back in the day
lamas direct has nothing to do with this
 
this was sorted way back in the day
lamas direct has nothing to do with this

yes, but the question is timeless.

if there is no deliverable from a voted budget proposal, should the Masternodes who voted for it to pay the loss?
 
yes, but the question is timeless.

if there is no deliverable from a voted budget proposal, should the Masternodes who voted for it to pay the loss?

oh demo
I love your sarcasm and funny posts
keep it up ;)
 
oh demo
I love your sarcasm and funny posts
keep it up ;)

Its not funny. I am talking serious.
Voters should be accountable.
Adam voted in the knowledge tree in favor of this damned apple fruit, and have a look now at the consequences!
We are still paying for this.
 
Last edited:
Its not funny. I am talking serious.
Voters should be accountable.
Adam voted in the knowledge tree in favor of this damned apple fruit, and have a look now at the consequences!
We are still paying for this.

Look, Eve was a hot babe and those sins were damn well worth it.
 
Firstly there was never going to be a deliverable from lamassu - lamassu was not the contractor. Secondly, the deliverable was supposedly met. Gitguild developed software that could be installed on lamassu machines, and they got it rolled out to a "network" of two whole ATM machines. 2 years of support included. Should anyone ever use it.

Putting the snark aside and moving to the more general question of "should Masternodes pay for failed proposals or scam proposals that got funded?" No, I don't think so. If MNs make a poor decision it already affects them negatively the same way it affects all other dash holders negatively.
 
Putting the snark aside and moving to the more general question of "should Masternodes pay for failed proposals or scam proposals that got funded?" No, I don't think so. If MNs make a poor decision it already affects them negatively the same way it affects all other dash holders negatively.

And what if the 13% of the MNOs make a poor decision that affects the 100% of the MNOs?
Should these 13% pay the consequences for damaging the rest 87% or not?
 
And what if the 13% of the MNOs make a poor decision that affects the 100% of the MNOs?
Should these 13% pay the consequences for damaging the rest 87% or not?

The other 87% could have prevented it but didn't. You would only need 3.1% of MNs to vote no to stop it if there were 13% yes.

Before you are in with new numbers, I'm out. Good talk lol
 
The other 87% could have prevented it but didn't.
87% includes those who voted "no" and those who abstained.

Those who voted "yes" for a destrucitve proposal should pay for sure those who voted "no".
And also maybe pay those who abstained. Because abstaining is not always considered as a silent agrement.

Abstaining also means that you are not informed, or that you are not aware of whats happening. Abstaining may also means you do not agree with the voting procedure and with the budget system as a whole. The budget system was not voted, it was imposed, remember?
 
Back
Top