DFINITY Foundation’s vote on Governance proposal #80970 (“Spam proposal”) and #86639 ("Temperature Check")

[CatPirate]

@diegop

Lastly, we do think we made a big mistake in our voting: unlike other votes, we did not communicate in a timely manner what the “vote meant and did not mean.” In previous votes , we communicated what we wished to convey (and not convey) via our votes. We did not do it this time and we think this was a mistake. We will certainly try to do better here.

If by communicating you mean obscuring information, then DFINITY did a great job with it.

Voting no on all proposals that don’t have a link to here

What do you expect from a DFINITY (@cryptoisgood) employee and a person who has ties with DFINITY ( @wpb ) – this post was DFINITY’s response to “Educating about tokenomics changes” – written by @wpb and published in Internet Computer Review. Important to note that WPB had also published another article that contained more information in detail about the tokenomics changes This is obscuring information. I don’t think I’m gonna bother saying anything else anymore.