10

Proposal: Ontology Blockchain

There's something strange going on with this proposal: the numbers are all wrong. Comparing it to three other proposals with mostly outside traffic: Tezos, iota, and Stellar

  • There aren't enough followers, with only 66. When the commitment phase started, Tezos had 132, iota had 170, and Stellar had 281.
  • Question voting is quite cleanly distributed: there are only 14 "wasted" votes, compared to 48 on Tezos and similar numbers on the others.
  • Most tellingly, only four people have committed to the proposal in the first 24 hours, only one in the first hour, and none of them has an account with only 51 reputation. Compare to 41/10 commitments on Tezos, 85/26 on iota, and 75/19 on Stellar. Normally, followers rush to commit to the proposal -- here, it feels like there are maybe a half-dozen real followers.

Additionally, the usernames of many of the 51-rep followers feel odd: as if they were created by combining two random words from a list. Names like "dominantpauper", "fibberchildish", and "strictgrounded".

||||||
  • 4
    If there is some gaming of the system, for example with randomly created accounts to support the proposal, they will have a very hard time getting the needed committers. Getting 100 sock accounts over 100 on another site is a bit of a hurdle. The activity behind that is sure to raise some system wide flags. – RandomThought Mar 23 '19 at 0:24
  • 4
    Doing a check for puppets is always part of the process. No worries, if there are puppets the proposal will not launch. – James Jenkins Mar 23 '19 at 3:20
  • 3
    That said, while @RobertCartaino is missing, everyone is playing :) You are right this is very suspicious. All the users that followed the proposal should have committed in it. However, the one who created them, fortunately, didn't seem to know that there is a commitment face. – double-beep Mar 24 '19 at 18:05
  • The proposal has been closed now after 13 days in commitment. – TheSimpliFire Apr 4 '19 at 6:08
  • 1
    @TheSimpliFire it auto closed for lack of activity. 7 days without a new person committing and it got closed. – James Jenkins Apr 4 '19 at 13:00
4

The proposal was finally and fortunately closed on 2019-04-04 03:02:33Z for inactivity as no one had joined it the last 7 days. Thanks to everyone who saw this meta post and didn't join! You see, we can do things without Robert, though it is a little bit hard :)

Now it became clear that the owner of the proposal created too many accounts in order to exit the definition phase, but seems that he missed the commitment phase.

||||||
  • The first paragraph is correct, the second paragraph may or may not be true. We don't know who if anyone created accounts. While we have seen this several times. We don't know the facts in this case. – James Jenkins Apr 4 '19 at 16:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .