-9

Proposal: Solana

This proposal for Solana was opened almost directly after the other one (proposed by the same user) was closed for widespread voting fraud. Is there any historical precedence for this? Is it allowed, and what is to prevent the same users to promote voter fraud again and again? (Essentially making an endless cycle of more and more work for both themselves and the moderators.) I guess I'm just curious about the community's ideas on this and what should be done about it.

3
  • 5
    Since the closure of the original didn't say "Solana is no longer welcome", there's no problem with creating a new proposal. I suspect the voting fraud was third-party fraud (eg. accounts created by an overenthusiastic supporter) rather than first-party fraud (accounts created by someone associated with Solana).
    – Mark
    Feb 18 at 0:47
  • 3
    Did you read the notice on the closed proposal? What the community thinks is largely irrelevant, if the company has made a decision (which they have). They are "welcome to create a new proposal".
    – Nij
    Feb 18 at 2:11
  • 2
    I'm the original proposer and like @Mark stated the "fraud" was most likely an overenthusiastic supporter. We have plenty of natural interest in this subject and I would never condone faking anything. We talked with the moderators and they suggested I submit a new proposal. So it's definitely allowed. Feb 28 at 2:56

1 Answer 1

4

The announcement posted by JNat on the now closed article reads:

You are welcome to resubmit an application to create a Stack Exchange site, but please refrain from creating additional accounts in the future

In other words, they got a second chance.

I am not that happy either about all the blockchain proposals Area51 gets spammed with. Too many of them get supported by a suspicious amount of new users in a suspiciously short time, get launched, and then become lifeless low-activity sites because all the hype was purely artificial (just look at the site stats of eosio, tezos, iota or monero). I have the impression that almost all of them are pushed heavily by the companies behind them to give credibility to their product ("See? Even Stack Exchange takes us seriously! We are the future! Give us your investment funds now!"). Sometimes by half-legitimate methods like promoting the proposal heavily among a community which is more interested in securing their investment by giving the product the impression of legitimacy rater than to actually ask questions about the product. Sometimes through illegitimate methods like fake accounts.

If I were Stack Exchange, I would have pulled the plug on this long ago. Create a site Cryptocurrency and Blockchain and redirect all attempts to exploit Stack Exchange as a promotional tool for the newest attempt to cash in on the blockchain hype there.

7
  • 5
    For Solana, much of the support comes from the community surrounding Solana itself. You can see there's a spike in questions and usage of the solana tag on Stackoverflow Feb 22 at 17:55
  • 4
    While I understand the sentiment of a lot of brand new projects using stackexchange incorrectly, there are some chains that require very different support than other blockchains. Ethereum vs Bitcoin are two very different chains with completely different sets of questions. Same with Substrate and Solana. Grouping them together would cause more problems. Feb 22 at 17:56
  • 2
    Agree with @JacobCreech, the questions are very ecosystem-specific. If anything, Solana is already pretty broad, as questions from Anchor developers vs vanilla Solana developers will be quite different. Questions about development on Eth are pretty irrelevant to Solana devs and vice-versa. Feb 23 at 20:13
  • 3
    @JacobCreech Sorry but I just don't buy that. If that were true then Stack Overflow would have fallen apart long ago. Just because two technologies are distinctly different doesn't mean they need separate communities even though they are concerning the same topic. They can easily co-exist in our system and would co-exist in our system now if we hadn't made the mistake of allowing different cryptos to split off in the early days.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Feb 26 at 21:07
  • 1
    I agree with @JonathanGurary here. Combining such a broad topic like Solana with drastically different technologies would only cause confusion. Categories like Ethereum and Bitcoin are already separate and I think it is a wise design choice. There are lots of great developers on Solana who are in need of great tools for sharing information with each other. I can list several such communities. The OP doesn't give any evidence of this somehow being a promotion tool and their claims simply aren't based in reality. Feb 28 at 3:13
  • 1
  • @Squirrel After lots and lots of whining, Stack Exchange decided to give them an extension. Seems like someone high up in Stack Exchange drank the crypto kool-aid.
    – Philipp
    Mar 24 at 9:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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