Airdrops and unstaking due to emotional distress against the halving ..

[MasterFrenchie]

Is there anyway to set up a system that supports creators and atom1 supporters? To reward supporters or users that have left the cosmos network by unstaking their atom’s. Give users a opportunity to earn since A lot of users seen this coming from miles away and unstaked in the beginning of these proposals.

We have contributors that really love the Vision that Jae kwon introduced but it’s been poisoned by other people’s greed.. entities that don’t steer in the same direction.

groups trying to get any kind of value they can. Extracting what they can.. and dumping any kind of money they get their hands on.

what about people who believed in cosmos network; thought it was going to change the temperature in crypto but then soon came to realize that most devs and insiders are just in it for the money.

This is an opportunity to change the direction of ATOM and create a new product called atomONE.

reinforce the vision that we all shared and to shut up the doubters. Make the losers whole again. It’s not impossible to create a winning product in this shit show we see today.

Originally, there was a snapshot for a past proposal. There’s supposedly a new snapshot for users that voted no. A lot of users seen this coming from miles away.

We’ve had many Jae supporters leave the $ATOM & cosmos network due to the changes that were happening.

there should be another method that is used to create some noise and attract some users that laugh at the old atom. Create a new community that is better and thrives harder.

will leave this short and sweet…. until next time America

yours truly. — > WeldingBTC

[jaekwon]

One is we will probably also incorporate prop 82, do you think that would help for this purpose? I think rewarding individual supporters who have already demonstrated participation in education with regards to security or voting in 82/848 might be a good proof-of-contribution. If you contributed to either provably in discussions, then you get some? But it's impossible for this work in the post-AI world because of sybil attacks. So would this still be desirable if we also require each participant to be KYC'd and be a real identified person? (I think it's a good idea to do this anyways since it is a new distribution being introduced, for regulatory purposes.)

We can try to make a table where the columns are ("name", "social-media-post-before-data-about-82/848 (up to 3)", cosmos-address, proof-of-human, proof-of-cosmos-address-and-human (on social media profile page)) then we have something we could possibly work with.

But if we are going to begin doing this thing we should also begin drafting plans for also preserving privacy. That's another conversation.

[MasterFrenchie]

One is we will probably also incorporate prop 82, do you think that would help for this purpose? I think rewarding individual supporters who have already demonstrated participation in education with regards to security or voting in 82/848 might be a good proof-of-contribution. If you contributed to either provably in discussions, then you get some? But it's impossible for this work in the post-AI world because of sybil attacks. So would this still be desirable if we also require each participant to be KYC'd and be a real identified person? (I think it's a good idea to do this anyways since it is a new distribution being introduced, for regulatory purposes.)

We can try to make a table where the columns are ("name", "social-media-post-before-data-about-82/848 (up to 3)", cosmos-address, proof-of-human, proof-of-cosmos-address-and-human (on social media profile page)) then we have something we could possibly work with.

But if we are going to begin doing this thing we should also begin drafting plans for also preserving privacy. That's another conversation.

. . .

It’s a big requirement. AI bots are here and they will try to get whatever they can.

That is a good requirement but then we also should copy the strategy that levana used. They had a snapshot for users that participated on their platform. They also submitted a Google document for people to complete, and I believe they used both methods to find out who they were going to AirDrop.

Now, that kind of defeats the situation that I’m in and a couple other users situation’s that they are in. It would be healthier to create a dual document and have users submit it along with kind of those documents and the snapshots so you can match the addresses.

That is one of the best solutions to finding out who is eligible and who is trying to game tokens where they can.

we still need a system that’s reliable.

But I hope that this is a great recommendation.

On another note, when it comes to creators and contributors, there can be another system that we can enforce to help create a mechanism that supports the creators and contributors but that is probably easier unless there is a campaign where people can claim rewards then that could be a problem due to bots and etc. but I think there could be a group that helps the process by manually rewarding etc. but that’s a whole other beast

[MasterFrenchie]

One is we will probably also incorporate prop 82, do you think that would help for this purpose? I think rewarding individual supporters who have already demonstrated participation in education with regards to security or voting in 82/848 might be a good proof-of-contribution. If you contributed to either provably in discussions, then you get some? But it's impossible for this work in the post-AI world because of sybil attacks. So would this still be desirable if we also require each participant to be KYC'd and be a real identified person? (I think it's a good idea to do this anyways since it is a new distribution being introduced, for regulatory purposes.)

We can try to make a table where the columns are ("name", "social-media-post-before-data-about-82/848 (up to 3)", cosmos-address, proof-of-human, proof-of-cosmos-address-and-human (on social media profile page)) then we have something we could possibly work with.

But if we are going to begin doing this thing we should also begin drafting plans for also preserving privacy. That's another conversation.

Also, if we are starting to do this, you’re right .. this should be done in privacy.

Any ideas for when and where?

recommend a telegram channel that’s invite only..

So we can start thrashing & throwing ideas?

[hendrisulistya]

One is we will probably also incorporate prop 82, do you think that would help for this purpose? I think rewarding individual supporters who have already demonstrated participation in education with regards to security or voting in 82/848 might be a good proof-of-contribution. If you contributed to either provably in discussions, then you get some? But it's impossible for this work in the post-AI world because of sybil attacks. So would this still be desirable if we also require each participant to be KYC'd and be a real identified person? (I think it's a good idea to do this anyways since it is a new distribution being introduced, for regulatory purposes.)

We can try to make a table where the columns are ("name", "social-media-post-before-data-about-82/848 (up to 3)", cosmos-address, proof-of-human, proof-of-cosmos-address-and-human (on social media profile page)) then we have something we could possibly work with.

But if we are going to begin doing this thing we should also begin drafting plans for also preserving privacy. That's another conversation.

big challenge here to achieve proof-of-human but in same time added privacy-preserving, after case in props 848, we really need KYC'd or something like that to ensure governance run with real intention of human being, not spam from majority with more capital.

[zdeadex]

Something that could be possible is:

• get a snapshot right after the prop 82 -> grab No voters for 1 and NVM voters for a high multiplier (let's say 2 or 1.5)
• get a snapshot right after prop 848 -> grab No voters for 1 and NVM voters for a high multiplier (let's say 2 or 1.5)

Both these addresses would be included in the fork with the reward associated to their participation since beginning I think using validators vote if delegator didn't vote is fair