It wouldn’t have taken a strong response by the accused to sway my vote on this. I’m not inherently against shared infrastructure. But the shared pricing anomalies + absolutely no response is telling of foul play.
I support this one
2 Likes
sure, just for the record, I have tried to contact best FTSO and worlds
https://twitter.com/sundaracouk1/status/1673378516660895769
tSoverign dont appear to have a twitter account…but I would think that if they share infra they would be able to contact each other.
2 Likes
seperatly: a debate would have been good to further clarify rules and regulation they just needed to response etc etc
[Eidt: Songbird Proposal IDs 10, 11 and 12]
1 Like
The evidence is also on Flare, a proposal to chill should also be submitted on that network.
1 Like
Would have been nice for Jimmy to speak up, as he provided a lot of assistance in early days and sharing node when other’s nodes were corrupt.
Sharing nodes was mentioned by Flare as okay early on, but the commonality of the submits looks too close to shared algos.
Voting to chill.
Hi
checking the data on FLARE I will put is a chill proposal on Monday 10th July 2023
1 Like
Hi
Flare proposals 8 and 9 are now live
BestFTSO here to answer questions. We just became aware of these discussions.
Hi
Here is a summary
Vote already happened and we we thought you weren’t defending 
But since I got you here… If you could be any animal, what would you choose and why?
Nothing posted here today after much enlightenment, so feel a comment must be made to the community as a follow-up.
BestFTSO has spoken up in Telegram and based on their responses, we now stand behind our vote to chill 200% on both networks. Going from shared CoinAPI account to shared database results from one feed of API to oh just found out we have a dirty developer. Feel a bit misled from their earlier statements and seems like a lot of half-truths have been presented.
That said, BestFTSO did provide early Flare support with their NFT platform, and also helped out other FTSOs when nodes were down, so kudos on early support; will be remembered. But, do hate to see the direction they took with their FTSO data provider and the damage to the FTSO community.
6 Likes
Based on what I read here and in the group. I support the chill.
Thanks for gathering all this intel.
Due to inactivity and timing the vote did not reach quorum on flare but had overwhelming support and should be put back up for on chain vote again. Everyone who is a member of this group please vote this time so we can have a consensus on this matter.
2 Likes
Hi
It appears that new proposals have been added again as the first set of proposals did not reach the required vote count. We (Sun-dara) have decided to abstain from voting on Flare Proposals 11, 12 because:
The allegations highlighted in this post have already been voted on and did not meet the required voting count to pass.
No new evidence to chill these actors were provided, meaning there was no further issues we have voted for.
If we do not like the results of an initial vote, we feel we should not keep sending the same proposal until it passes.
For the record, we voted to Chill these providers on the first set of proposals (Flare proposal IDs 8 and 9)
For flare proposal 13 - as we have not voted on Worlds FTSO - I will vote FOR chilling this provider.
Edit: Looking further I do not think this process was followed for Flare Proposals 11 and 12
FIP.02 | Flare Governance Proposals
Vote abstain/ spoiled ballot attempts (error transactions)
the contract doesnt appear to support an abstain on chain…
/**
* @notice Enum that determines vote (support) type
* @dev 0 = Against, 1 = For
*/
enum VoteType {
Against,
For
}
however for the record, it does show I participated
This is ridiculous. You cannot just take multiple shots over and over when something doesn’t pass! You need to understand how this will appear to the public especially considering 4Dads is suggesting removing TSO Group members who did not vote to support.
The allegations that we have the same algo as Sov/World can no longer be used as Sov and World are gone!
We’ve gone from decentralization to double jeopardy!
The allegations that we have the same algo as Sov/World can no longer be used as Sov and World are gone!
it can be used if there is new evidence to suggest it. I feel what cant be used, is the current evidence in a different proposal ID
Who suggested removing anyone that didn’t support it was suggested to remove those that have not voted in the past and have not been active. The whole purpose of the management group is for full participation that’s why there are quorum requirements. If somebody is completely absent from the group on all matters they are essentially ruining the process. Which is why it’s been written into the rules of the group that participation is a requirement and non-participation will result in removal. You’re in the group and you’re more than welcome to vote against the chill proposal if you believe you’ve done nothing wrong.
I agree with this 100%.