Its not about countering RobL but rather an attempt to redo the voting with a more fair way for all the candidates. The outcome was clearly not what the community voted for which can easily be seen by a quick look at the votes on the previous poll where almost 90% of the candidates VP came from just 2 voters. Covering up for an unethical vote because its beneficial for you is another reason why I do not think Tobik is ideal for the position. He is a great member of the community but when choosing for someone that has that amount of responsibility you need someone with the according skills.
3 Likes
So then we got to do 80% of proposals over again, because it was approved in this way.
RobL s vote still counts so there is basically no reason to do thisâŚ
Tobik is defending and having deal with scammer Robl, dangerous candidate.
2 Likes
So what, does this make him guilty of anything?
You just sound tilted and paranoidâŚ
You sound like dumb⌠Dao committee is not a place for people who support scammers instead of supporting contributors who at the end didnt received anythingâŚ
1 Like
Itâs also important to remember that the outcome of a vote or decision doesnât necessarily reflect the truth or the right course of action. Sometimes, people may be influenced by factors such as personal biases, misinformation, or manipulation, which can lead to a result that is not based on sound reasoning or evidence.
Instead of assuming Tobik is guilty based on personal beliefs, itâs important to gather and analyze the available evidence and consider all perspectives before making a judgment. Itâs also important to have an open and constructive dialogue with others to ensure that decisions are made based on a sound and fair process.
1 Like
Thats true. We contacted different major contributors and they say Robl has scammed them. They also give their opinions and evidences. You can look at discord dao channel dedicated to this. https://discord.gg/5cHRhgfR
I have nothing against Tobik skills but i cant understand why he even in his article gives a premature statement that districts are not obligated to give anything in return to contributors, at least a legal conclusion is required. For me this looks like he tries to save his victory and also to have support in the face of scammer whale Robl, he even cant say that robl is scammer or acted badly towards contributors.
The contributors are left with nothing, do you think they just gave away their contributions? no, they should have received rewards as promised.
There is clear fraudulent misrepresentation!
1 Like
For my request to show the conversations with Robl, Tobik refused. A candidate who has nothing to hide would not do such a thing. This is a question to a candidate for the Dao Committee and not to private user, transparency and trust are vital. There should be no place in the Dao committee for people who deal with and protect scammers.
For my request to show the conversations with Robl, Tobik refused. A candidate who has nothing to hide would not do such a thing. This is a question to a candidate for the Dao Committee and not to private user, transparency and trust are vital. There should be no place in the Dao committee for people who deal with and protect scammers.
Instead of a simple reply he gave you a whole webpage, Lets not forget he doesnât owe you an explanation. He has the right to make his own decisions without having to justify them to anyone.
1 Like
This a question to community, does we need such candidate. I am telling my own opinion.
Yes we need such canditate & this is my opinion
massive reason on our end with our vote
Our 3.8M VP counters RobLâs 4M VP quite nicely. This allows the community more space to have an influence with their vote, once around 80% of Tobikâs confirming VP in the last round came from a whaleâs intervention (which in an ideal world, would have come in the third round of voting, not the first).
The whole community shouldnât be countering RobL with their votes, especially when weâve already done that with MetaArchâs VP. The community should be free to have their say, and a 1:1 counter-vote allows more breathing room for that to happen.
A little Seanny rant / brain dump:
Should this vote end with a âNoâ result, it is still unclear how we will proceed.
From my end, I imagined this system working similarly to the European Union, where the Council proposes candidates for the Commission to the Parliament; a direct democracy entity that votes on their suggestions. Candidates being shot down in Council/Parliament is common, and when no consensus is found, the Council and Parliament often move to the next candidate in the list, until the right person is found.
It sounds tedious, but itâs only until you become accustomed to the process of active DD and consensus building. European Institutions are admirable in their ability to actively find consensus-driven resolutions across so many member states and political parties.
Remember, that one of the aims of shifting to this system was to be able to easily mark and catch and whale votes which were influencing the result. It was hard to do this on five separate stage 3 votes, but it is far more easier to notice that influence with this system.
In our case, the current DAO Committee is like a preliminary replacement for the Council, where they conducted interviews with a number of candidates in advance, and compiled a shortlist. This shortlist was then sent to the community (Parliament), where the shortlist was voted on, and the comparatively preferred candidate was selected.
The next voting round acts as a binary Yes/No vote by the community to decide if they like that individual or not, with a simple majority vote which is focused on the candidate in question. Should the candidate pass that round, theyâre taken to the third round which acts as a âRatification Roundâ with 6M VP threshold. All issues should have been resolved by this point, and this is where whale votes are expected to come in and vote.
Again, this system would work so much better if we had a maximum % limit on VP used in a vote thatâs proportional to the threshold, instead of just openly leaving all VP used unchecked in every decision we take.
In my view (this is all just my perspective on this situation), the primary poll vote still holds political relevance with regards to its result. The aim of having the second vote was to ensure that we can all agree on a 1M VP Threshold Vote before we move on to the 6th.
Should we not agree on the primary selected candidate (and thanks to our voting system, all the political influence exerted on the first decision is open to all to see), I feel the cleanest method would be to move on to the next preferred candidate in the list; assessing if they would pass on to the third stage.
It will the communityâs responsibility to ensure that they bring up their burning questions/objections in the first and second stages of the voting period, with the third stage being ceremonial, and requiring a cross-communal consensus to be approved and ratified.
We must be careful not to nullify and ignore the results of the first vote. We must ensure that the systems and processes we have in place are respected; even if the intent and goodwill of players within the system is being brought to question.
8 Likes
Tanks so much @Seanny Iâm 100% with you on this one. Youv made an important point about how an 3.8M VP counter can nicely balance out a 4M VP counter, allowing for more breating room for comunity members to expres their opinions through their votes.
I think we all understand the importance of comunity involvement in decision making. When a select few individuals or entities have an outsized influence on the outcome of a vote, it can undermine the legitimacy of the proces and lead to de abused among those who feel their voices are not being heard. Thatâs why it is so important to ensure that every member of the comunity has an equal oppurtunity to make their voice heard.
The 1:1 counter-vote solution is a great way to acomplish this. It allows the comunity to have their say without having to worry about a small group of individuals with unreasonble influence drowning out their voices. It also helps to ensure that the decision making proces is fair and transparent, which is crucial for maintaining trust and buy-in from everyone involved.
So, in closing, I want to echo the sentiment expresed in that statement and encourage everyone to continue avocating for comunity involvemend and fair decision-making proceses. Lets work together to ensure that everyone has a seat at the table and that every voice is heard. Thank you.
2 Likes
Voting no to counter balance a large whale vote who has serious allegations being raised against the ethical nature of their VP.
@Canessa
Votes by @Seanny & Dax
3,834,392
177,199 +
4,011,591 > 4,002,000
The community has simply already outvoted the 4M just to counter I think we should just vote based on our opinion now because we are simply Out Countering @Tobik right now which also doesnât make it fair. There is to much Countering & Abstaining going on right now!
To every on this list reconsider 
@Canessa
@DCLName
@Gecko
@szjanko
To be clear, my issue with the large whale vote is not with this proposal we are currently writing on, it is the original voting proposal for the 5 candidates, found here: Which candidate should be added to the DAO Committee?
As I stated above, had that original proposal passed without the 4mil vp, I would vote in Whomever the person with the highest votes was. Had another whale with 4mil vp come in and voted, I would have accepted that. But because the vp in question was used in Proposal #1, I cannot then vote on this Proposal #2. They are directly correlated.
Any time there are ethical questions about how vp has been acquired, it is our duty to stop, ask questions, and get informed. No emotions, just facts. This isnât about Tobik, this is about the integrity of the DAO. And to be honest, I want to be voting for someone who would stop THEIR OWN PROPOSAL because the see this happening, and they would put the greater good of our DAO above their own self-interests. I want to vote for someone who says âWhoa, why the heck did a whale with 4mil vp that is under a lot of scrutiny just vote for me? Is this good for the DAO?â
Bottom line: This is a DAO committee member we are talking about. Should a potential DAO committee member be okay with accepting a 4mil vp vote from someone who is under scrutiny for how their vp was attained?
Not changing my vote.
6 Likes
I voted No for the sole reason that this vote did not follow proper procedure. It still needs to be a ranked vote according to the proper procedure.
2 Likes
Hello, community. Here are some of my responses:
Iâm against how the DAO VP system works, I donât like it, and I think itâs unfair. What I donât understand is the hypocrisy of some people (not talking specifically about you) who are okay with whales voting only when they like the candidate/proposal but create a lot of drama when they are not happy with the vote.
The problem with VP exceeds this proposal but instead of putting the entirety of the focus on solving the problem (which Iâm aware some people are doing), they decide to go to specific cases, pointing the finger at me and asking me questions which are not crucial for my job. With that being said, I understand the symbolic aspect and that the community want to put people they trust on but I donât think this way of doing it is the appropriate one.
As if this was not enough, we also have the âunethical-brosâ who spend 24/7 at Discord saying that my votation was unfair but donât have any problem when one of their candidates goes to the same DAO that passed a $1M proposal to add $MANA incentives for USDC-ICE LP. They should drop their faces in shame.
Donât take me wrong, I donât think there is anything wrong with DG voting if the system works like this (mainly because every whale does it), but donât pretend that the grass is green on your side. No one should give morality lessons to anyone.
Why should I show you my private conversations with someone? For real? I already explained publicly what I believe about Robâs case. Anyone who wants to check it out, do it here. And Iâm still open to new information or even to a change of opinion.
Iâm not covering up anything. Iâve already explained why there is an oversimplification of Robâs case and why is Decentraland the one that screwed up. The worst part is that people do not even care about the possible solutions (that I have suggested and Iâm working on) and prefer to go to Discord to just generate toxicity.
1 Like
Oh and something I forgot to mention: if I donât win, I will still be here. I donât need a salary at the DAO Committee or a ridiculous grant to keep building in Decentraland.
For the people who want to disagree with me respectfully, you are more than welcome. For the trolls: Iâm not leaving DCL 
Regards,
Tobik.
P.S.: even if this doesnât pass, Iâm going to try to improve the district problem.
1 Like
This is a weak argument.
DG holds community votes.
District Fraud doesnât hold votes for how it uses The Red Light Districtâs VP.
4 Likes
For you to know DG voting system works based on their users voting unlike DistrictX where one Robl makes decision.
Buy DG tokens and âyou can also go to DG DAOâ
If you would know little about DG stats you wouldnt talk like that. Do you know DG DAU ?
https://messari.io/report/state-of-decentral-games-q1-2022
Why should I show you my private conversations with someone?
Lol because you are candidate to DAO committee which receives votes from scammer with 4m vp.
Community wants to know what you think about Robl. Can you answer in short.
Do you support Robl actions towards contributors?
Do you think Robl scammed contributors?
Can you stop avoid this questions.
P.S.: even if this doesnât pass, Iâm going to try to improve the district problem.
I hope to see it.