@Gill_McLaughlin says promote the apps to your communities. I promote, people vote. MaidSafe return the money to one of the projects.
My people ask me why they don’t return the money to the others. I say I don’t know. They answer me - “apparently the ones they return the money to are their friends”.
Do you see the problem here? Am I going to promote to my people again so that I too look like a fraud?
Check out the Impossible Futures!
Do Autonomi management agree with that? Responsibility is always put on the community for our responses without Autonomi owning their part of this deteriorating relationship. It’s been like this for over a year and the relationship has become steadily worse over that time because of how Autonomi continue to behave - in this case sidelining again. To seemingly hide concerns and inconvenient facts, and creating bad feeling because Discord has to present a distorted view of the project and community.
I also don’t buy that people are put off by online debates. It’s everywhere. We had a vibrant feisty community for years and it grew and sustained all that time. We have all kinds of people here for many different reasons and we’ve brought countless people on board over time. Yet we are now treated as saboteurs even as we build apps and promote the project.
It isn’t likely this will change unless Autonomi also change. I will now step back to code. 
I’m really not even sure if this is serious. But I’ll assume you’re really not aware, which is fine. A brief lookup of Bux on just Discord, and I’m sure there’s more here on the forum comes with a dozen of message over the last few weeks (time spend which could’ve been spend otherwise):
All of these are messages saying they’re trying to improve, acknowledging problems, saying it’s prototyping and a learning experience. Sometimes you have to read between the lines, other times its very obvious. And this is just Bux. I’ve seen several other team members state similar. It’s going to be very difficult finding common ground if we continue to question if messages posted by the team are sincere.
The problem is not the words, the words are ok. The problem is the actions. They say they don’t have “their people” and the next moment they return the money to only one rule breaker - the biggest one. Doesn’t that bother you?
Check out the Impossible Futures!
No, it doesn’t. Because again, everyone knew phase 1 was a casino. The entire setup for phase 1 bothered me, I personally thought it was a huge mistake. But I provided them with feedback once, and left it to the team. Anyone whining about losing money should not have participated. Anyone feeling it’s unfair that someone got their money back and not them is being childish. And anyone even remotely thinking the team is doing that because people they like voted for it has not been here long enough to know this team has more integrity in their little toe than most of the crypto projects combined in their entire body.
And let me add, we’ve also had incentive programs giving away free money. Everyone was pissed then too. Node operators earning free money with no data. The lottery is being gamed. We should reduce the emission. People are not earning enough, we should increase the emission.
How can you guys not see that we’re being a collective bunch of asses. And that’s not about 1 individual. it’s about us a collective, all having opposite opinions and expecting the team to make everyone happy. And it’s also us not being capable of just raising our concern ones, being confident that the team will take it into consideration without excessively expressing themselves over and over and over that they read, heard and acknowledge what every individual wrote here.
Take a step back, zoom out, and every single one of you has to agree that these last few months we’ve could not have been satisfied, even if they tried. And again, I cannot stress this enough, I agree that the team has also done things that didn’t make it easy for us to feel heard, understoof etc. etc.
But… We… Need… To… Drop… It… And… Move… The… #^$#*&!@#… On.
Thanks for taking the time to grab those, some of which I have not read because nobody can realistically read all the Discord. I don’t see any problems being acknowledged, just that it is a WIP. Maybe that’s enough for you but it is meagre ‘acknowledgement’ IMO.
But, that isn’t the issue really as Dimitar has already said, and it isn’t the issue I mentioned above (sidelining) and it doesn’t address the larger picture unless as Dimitar points out: things change. Many things have contributed to the steady erosion of the relationship. You say move on, and I will but the problem won’t go away because Autonomi tell us to shut up again, or in this case get you to move this off their prized chat app.
I’ll throw my 2 cents in. A big problem I see here is that we have this decentralized network being driven from a central location. That’s what we needed during development, but the network is now live. If the network is really owned by everyone and controlled by no one, we should make it so. Let’s organize as a community. Want more marketting? Great, let’s do that. Want apps? Go build them. Want more users? Tell your friends. MaidSafe and the Autonomi foundation got us here, its on us to take it the rest of the way.
Shameless plug: 1st Autonomi Developer’s Council call tonight on Jitsi Meet at 21:00 UTC where we’ll be talking about exactly this! Autonomi Developer’s Council Meeting Link
The one project that had the returns made was the project that was disqualified from the top 12. This is new for everyone and we are trying to be as fair as possible. There is absolutely nothing other than positive intent in what we do and how we do it.
Sounds fair and obvious to me.
No not at all.
Honestly not very deep into this new drama but it seems logical with what I know.
First off, I’d like to nip in the bud any suggestions that we think any of the project teams ‘cheated’ or ‘broke the rules’. I don’t think that’s a fair assessment, nor are we accusing anyone of that, nor do we have any specific nor compelling evidence of such behaviour. We would say if we did.
These are the T&Cs in question, for anyone unfamiliar:
"The Autonomi Foundation reserves the right to withhold any associated reward payments that are connected to successful votes, should those votes be by any voter that:
a) holds more than 50% of the overall vote,
b) is connected to a proposition with a disproportionately small number of unique voters c) is a builder of the project they have voted on and/or
d) is connected to disingenuous or exploitive on-chain behaviour related to the voting system."
They are, like most T&Cs open to a bit of interpretation, and contain some grey areas. And they “reserve the right” for the foundation to withhold rewards and exercise them…
…because this is a new thing.
There is a “spirit” to the program.
There are goals to what we are trying to do here — which is help people go making things on the network, and get the ecosystem up and rolling, and the economy of the network building steam.
But these terms, as you all can probably tell, were put in place with the aim of minimising gaming, and also reducing the risk of a whale swooping in and gobbling up all the fun and well-intentioned voting.
And they also set the stage for how the voting was intended to function for everybody.
And as we have said (time and time again!) this is all new, we are trying new things, and we won’t get it right first time. But we can improve from here and learn and tweak for the next season of Impossible Futures.
We made the decision to manually remove the project in question, as they were the only project in the top 12 that happened to have:
There was no real evidence that we could find, nor stood out, of any behaviour that fell into terms c and d.
So it was for this reason we informed ATR that they would be removed from the running, and thus Colony bumped up one spot. And credit where it is due the ATR team took it on the chin, and are powering on with their app nonetheless. Bravo!
Well, we didn’t need to. It’s true. But as we’ve said, this is all new. And we felt it may have been real sting that one voter, owning too large a share, meant that the other 4 voters lost out.
There was no indication of ill intent nor malice. Perhaps the voter was unaware of the share they were taking? Or fat-fingered? We don’t know. But we felt the gracious and generous thing to do in this case was refund.
No other project’s voting outcome was affected in this way — voters of other apps knew what was on the line going in — and none of them were put out of the running for rewards by one large voter.
So, I don’t think anyone is hard done by in this case, and nor do we feel there is a case for refunding any other votes.
There is a case for learning and refining the rules and UX for next time though, which we will do.
Thank you @JimCollinson for putting that case clearly and unambiguously.
Can we please move on now?
There is so much to get excited about…
And in the spirit of sorting out shit before it becomes shit, @JimCollinson
can you spell out just what criteria are to be used to decide how these valuable spot prizes will be allocated, please?
Always wanting more 
Gimme gimme gimme
Please sir can I have some more (insert GIF of Oliver twist) actually don’t bother…
I’ll jump in here
Most engaged team: colony
Best individual contribution: imim
You’re welcome 
I don’t necessarily disagree.
But others will without some predefined metrics…
Get yourselves nominated for the community judging fellas!
Tssk Tssk…
Such cynicism in one so young…
