I am not referring to only this proposal, I am talking about the majority of proposals. There is a clear issue of delegates not researching, showing a lack of understanding or simply not asking questions before voting, leading many to vote based on an incomplete or assumed basis. As an example I will point out on this project alone some cases:
-
Quixotic reason “Proposal K: Infinity Wallet - No, we’d like to the Optimism integration happen first.” - Their decision was to vote NO because they thought this project didn’t support OP when it does. I actually downloaded the wallet to try it a few days back and it does support OP. An example of not asking questions, reviewing correctly and presuming.
-
lefterisjp - He has a direct conflict of interest with this project as his project is similar to it in terms of what it offers (Portfolio Dashboard, Transactions, NFTs, Stats and etc…). This is why his decision to put NO is biased, then to add on top they replied to him and he ignored their reply which defunct his own comment.
In this project alone if you changed Quixotic which voted based on wrong information and lefterisjp if he done the correct thing and abstained, then this project would be 9.5 million YES to 2.4 million NO. This is just based on 1 delegate presuming and another having a conflict of interest.
My point is that many delegates have based their decisions off of presuming, showing a clear lack of reviewing proposals or asking projects questions. The other issue is that there are far to many projects applying and its only going to grow, leading to even more of these issues. There needs to be a committee in place to decide on proposals that are ready and also there needs to be rules set out which can be enforced to ensure delegates are kept to standards.