HARD FORK GOLOS BLOCKCHAIN. 2-ND MEETING

So, a week went quickly after the first meeting , and on Tuesday evening  the second meeting of investors of the Golos blockchain and golos.io (golos.blog), witnesses and ordinary users  took place. Overview of the first on-line session you can find here.

After the first meeting, it was agreed to meet again in a week, but the exact time was not indicated, which was a mistake. People in the chat began to gather from 5 pm. I  came after seven, and realized that  the representatives of Cyberfund

and the Golos Fund were here before me , but later they left. Within four hours investors, including @fyrstikken,  representing the interests of @coinbank, @arcange and many delegates  communicated with each other and exchanged essentially the opinions that emerged after the first communication (see the first part above). Everyone was expecting the appearance of representatives of the Golos Fund and the developers of Golos core in the chat room.

They came about 21, it was Marina Gurieva, CEO Cyber

Fund,  aka @marina and representative of the Golos core team @nemo1369.

By this time, @arcange stated his position most clearly, here it is

Arcange [witness] - 20:49

If you guys want my position, here it is:
- I'm pissed waiting for months for the most expected (and simple)  features like power delegation, removal of comment limits, raising of  number of post limits and 7 days unique payout windows.
- I do not care at all (at the moment) of UIA features
- I do not care about the "so pretended" better code they made
- I do not agree with adding "changing keys" into the code
- I have several times asked why they keep mining active, and never got a valuable answer. This is a useless waste of resource.
- I'm pissed never getting an answer about plannings
- @insider promised a planning for golos.io month ago. I do not see it.
- @serejandmyself said he is not the boss of golos.core, but asked developpers to build analytics tool.
- I'm pissed of promises they do not respect  I will NOT vote for the Cyberfund HF for all theses reasons!

Fyrstikken stay on his position strongly and he sad:

- if HF will not done correctly (in his opinion), we do not even imagine  what we will face across, and he repeated things that he was said at the first meeting, only more categorically.

Marina entered into a conversation, outlining the position of CyberFund. I will dwell on this in more detail.

The opinion of one group of people:
Marina`s voice sounded the position in an imperious manner, with a gradual raising of  her voice almost to scream, her speech sounded totalitarian, which made it seem that CyberFund had already decided everything, and as it decided, so it will be. She did not answer the direct questions ( why Cyberfon and she personally voted for the delegates and others), showed  disrespect to the Russian-speaking chat participants, she said that if the questions were formulated in Russian, she  wouldn`t answer.

The opinion of the second group of people:
Marina  began to talk normally, but the chat participants asked a lot of questions that lead her away from the main conversation. This caused irritation and even a negative reaction. Marina spoke about her position and tried to explain it, but she was not accepted. She tried to answer the questions, but she was not given such an  opportunity, was interrupting, so she had to stop the interlocutors often  and did it as she could.
***
These are two opinions at the moment. What I heard objectively - yes, the tone was really elevated. Unfortunately,  the connection was very bad, constantly connected and disconnected, but  those moments I heard call, indeed, to say that the conversation  was not conducted in a normal tone and not calmly. Possible reasons for this are set out above.

So, the main points of the "battle" concentrated around several points:

1. Quadratic or linear? - CyberFund insists that this system of distribution of payments remains. Some delegates and investors (Fyrstikken among them) insist on using a linear scheme. Delegates  who would like to leave this system noted that Quadratic is good as a  "wall" for prevents of bots, and this is the only way to protect the site from a massive attack. However,  the opponents recalled that a year ago, at the time of the launch of  the blockchain and the site, the representatives of CyberFund themselves  said that quadratic system is bad. They planned to change this system. However,  after using the site for an year, they realized that  this is an advantageous way to earn money for uber-whales, and that's why they want to save it. Consensus was not found.

2.  Delegation - CyberFund plans to introduce delegation of voice, despite  the fact that combining the possibility of delegation with the existence  of a quadratic system of payments can give rise (in the opinion of many  delegates) to the collapse of the economic system. Consensus was not found.

3. Using the code. Again they said that the Golos Core team had very much reworked the old code of the Steemit, and made it much cleaner and better. The adoption of the code of the modern release of Steemit is a step  back, taking the technical duty of Steemit and its bugs. Consensus was not found.

4. The question of the interaction of the Golos Core team, delegates and ordinary users. Numerous requests from delegates from different weight categories and  users, with their questions about streamlining communications between  the two parties, also found no solution.

5. The question of delegates and their positions. The  Cyber

Found was asked about - why some of the delegates were cast before the proposed HF Fund, so that others moved to the bottom and did  not hit the top? Does this mean that the delegates "with big weight" are selected for voting, fully and completely share the position of Cyber Fund? I did not hear a clear answer to the question. (Maybe the connection, or maybe just did not understand English for sure.)

In  the course of the conversation, other questions were also understood,  reproaches were heard in both directions, all of which were raised in  somewhat elevated tones. Somewhat calmed down to the end.

***
My overall impression - honestly, it's worse than it was after the first meeting. Despite  the angry tirades of Fyrstikken, at the first meeting, at least it was a  constructive conversation, people did not interrupt each  other, did not put any conditions to each other. This gave hope that a solution would be found that would suit everyone.

The second conversation continued for a very long time after  the representatives of Cyber Fund left, first in Russian, then Arcange  came and it continued in English, then again in Russian, during three  hours at least. After  the second meeting, I got the impression that whatever actions the  delegates took, everything has been decided and will be the way one of  the big investors decided. Despite the fact that there are other investors who do not agree with this decision. I can be mistaken, this is only my personal opinion. The hope for constructivity has fallen to the bottom, and who knows if it will ever come up.

During the conversation, it was decided to publish materials about it using the tags #hardfork and #hardford, and post your articles in  the comments if you wrote on these topics. So that people could read  everything together and make a general impression of the processes that  are taking place.
I ask the authors to add the comments even those articles on the named topics that you wrote earlier. I will also add my notes to the comments to your posts.

During the meeting, the following links were posted in the chat - I repeat it here.

https://golos.io/golofund/@golosfund/belaya-bumaga-golos-fonda-golos-fund-white-paper-in-russian
https://golos.blog/ru--golos/@vox-popilili/vopros-k-yadernoi-komande-golosa-zachem-vtikhuyu-menyaetete-privatnye-klyuchi-yuzeram
https://golos.blog/eee/@eee/thegameofblogs
https://golos.blog/eee/@eee/nogolosio
https://golos.blog/ru--golos/@antonkostroma/ni-komanda-ni-kiberfond-ne-udostoili-yuzerov-delegatov-i-investorov-vnimaniem

And, finally, the recording of the conversation itself, produced by  our clever  @vik - I recommend listening.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jtigdkvG58EXv0p809NtF9xAfkUER6Ze/view?usp=sharing  IPFS:

**CEO Cyber Fund - Marina Gurjeva speech**

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jtigdkvG58EXv0p809NtF9xAfkUER6Ze/view?usp=sharing

Witnesses discussion from @vik

If I made a mistake in any terms or translations, please correct me.

With you @ladyzarulem