Urgent Poll And Decision Required For The Creative DAO Election

We wanted to call on our community due to a situation with Snapshot and the Harmony Creative DAO Election for Q2 2022 Candadacies which you can find by clicking the ‘Snapshot’ below:


After conversations with a community member @ben2k_Stakeridoo and issues being brought to light, we have a few things we need to bring attention to, we would like to know if the community would like to re-run the Creative DAO election. However, to be able to move forward with this discussion, we need to make you aware of a few things.

When the Creative DAO Snapshot was created for the recent Election for Q2 2022 signotories, due to a new Snapshot website being used, which includes the use of Ethereum ENS names, a more complicated system, some extremely difficult and confusing settings and lack of experience dealing with this, there were problems with the vote.

These problems and errors meant that when voting went live, that 100 Harmony minimum, was not required for wallets to vote, this is fact meant that no Harmony whatsoever was required for a vote to take place, even including a transaction fee.

We were also made aware that the snapshot mechanism, which prevents wallets that were created after voting has started from voting, was not active on the Creative DAO election vote. Meaning, new wallets created during the election can still vote after the election was started.

Essentially, due to the turmoil that the DAO had faced since its creation, an official DAO charter hasn’t yet been created for the Creative DAO, this can be an extremely complicated process and is something the Creative DAO has yet to achieve and is expected to be wraped up in the first or second month of this next term.

The reason why the charter has been mentioned, is that although the Snapshot vote has issues, It is not our place as signatories of the Creative DAO to dispell this vote, however, we believe that we need to address this situation for the sake of transaparancy and governance for our community and let them be aware, but more importantly be in control of the decision making.

We would like the community to decide if the Creative DAO elections should be re-run, we also need you to concider the below before making your decision-

  • The voting mechanism allowed voting to take place with wallets with no Harmony within them
  • The voting mechanism would also allow wallets that have been created after the election had started, to vote
  • Without the usual 100 Harmony requirement it would make it harder to see if wallets with transaction between eachover were voting in favour of a perticular candidate, bringing to light that people have voted more than once for their desired candidate if that was the case
  • There was nothing official stipulating that you couldn’t vote more than once
  • With the transparancy of this post and bringing attention to the snapshot issue, current candidates will be aware that new wallets can be created for voting.
  • There was no official information stipulating that wallets with harmony could not vote
  • True governance would suggest that if the blockchain allows it, then it counts
  • Due to technical issues we also have a moral obligation to concider rather than just relying of the rule of blockchain

All that being said, we understand that this is a tricky situation that isn’t perticulalry straight forward as ‘‘The way blockchain should work’’. The Creative DAO is about to release information regarding a new direction for the Creative DAO, which we’re extremely excited to release, and we want to make sure that we start off on the right foot with the new chapter for the DAO, and we would like you to vote to ensure that we’re doing this correctly.

If the decision is taken to re-run the election, a new vote will take place on April 17, 2022, at 00:18 AM UTC and run until April 24th, 2022, at 00:18 AM UTC. Alternatively if the community decides against a re-run of the election, the new signotories will take their seats on Apr 17, 2022, 0:18 AM UTC.

Do you as a Harmony community member believe that the Creative DAO should re-run the election, with the usual 100 Harmony minimum required, whilst stating people can only vote once and with the voting mechanism only accepting wallets which enclose 100 Harmony from the time of the Snapshot? Or do you believe that the election should end as usual and voting should be rulled as usual with the final result? Please decide on the poll below. The decision will be taken from this poll 2 hours before the end of the Creative DAO election which will be at Apr 17, 2022, 10:18 PM UTC.

Do you believe the Creative DAO election for Q2 2022 Candidacies should be re-run, with a 100 Harmony minimum required for voting with only one vote per person allowed?

  • Yes, I call for a re-run of the election.
  • No, the end results should be final.

0 voters


Live and learn, unless there was massive voter fraud which doesn’t appear from looking at the voting we should stick with the vote. Can’t wait to see what the Creative DAO accomplishes!


I suggest the election should be paused otherwise what you call will happen, a massive voting fraud from now onto tomorrow… And the things will be messy,
The poll should have been on whether to terminate entries and consider the current results valid, or terminate vote and rerun.
Anyway it’s just a suggestion!

In fairness to all and because the number of candidates exceeds the number of available spots, I believe the election should be rerun.


As much as I dislike the idea of delaying the process, I believe it would be in the best interest of the DAO to vote again. Mistakes happen. It’s a part of the learning process, but I’d hate to discourage even 1 person from contributing to the advancement of the DAO because they may feel like they have been cheated.

We’ve been through worse, and I think we’re getting on the right track to break some ground with upcoming projects down the pipeline. I think doing the right thing, albeit rather time consuming, is the right approach.


Didn’t realize this vote hadn’t ended yet. That’s a whole thing on it’s own. Please no one cheat, I guess. I don’t mind if it is forked or kept, either way is up to the community.

As with DAO’s, I am conflicted.

Not because I’m confused about ethically what’s right and wrong.

A DAO doesn’t allow for context.

I think of a DAO like writing a native digital constitution for years to come. DAO’s are currently like planning for a rocketship to Mars, but not knowing all the physics (laws and governance) needed to operate cohesively. How can one (or many) plan for the future when the future is unknown? Some have figured this out through a rules based governance system.

Of course I don’t think any one person should be able to vote twice or misrepresent themself. That’s a stupid and obvious question/answer. But if a system allows for it, and is deemed autonomous in nature - then what can I really do about it?

I’ll tell you the answer: the answer is an ideological one. It’s whether we decide to intervene with human interaction or not. The system doesn’t call for it. But moral high ground does. So here we are as people intervening.

1 Like

May we see something different but I see a fraud. From 220 wallets I checked only 52 been active. So I was trying to create a fresh one and go vote. This was possible and I think this was done previously by others.


Is there a way to filter out the votes and remove votes of addresses with less than the minimum required ONE

1 Like

This is very disappointing. This election should be re-run, regardless of the outcome of this poll or the current election. Every vote should meet clear criteria set out from the onset. I do not wish to part of a DAO that has not fairly been voted in.

I would have opted for a re-run, but it took almost a week to find out the issue, which was brought up a day before the end of the election.

So i suggest we should leave the election to carry on and get this over with, as well try learn from the mistakes.

I believe that with the information @ben2k_Stakeridoo has brought to light, it is clear that vote manipulation has taken place. Unfortunately, without being able to see who has voted on the poll in this post, it is possible the same has happened in this poll…. Also unfortunately without the rules clearly stated on the snapshot post, it is unclear the best path forward. No candidate or voter has technically broken any rules, even though it is clear some gaming of the system has taken place and led to an election result that does not necessarily represent the will of the community. I believe a 2nd vote with the proper mechanisms in place is necessary.


For the record, I have NEVER seen a poll get this response on this forum in such a short amount of time…. On a holiday weekend, too. Funny how there are no votes popping up within 30 minutes every time yes takes the lead :fish: :fish:


Obviously, I will not win. It does not matter however this type of voting system wastes a lot of time and energy.

Personally, I I’m full throttle to do some work for Harmony but my time, energy and expertise are wasted try convincing people. I am good at delivering specific tasks rather than having online followers and friends.

I did not particularly want to be involved with DAOs a year ago as I have plenty of experience working with publicly funded organisations and groups delivering projects for them and I know how things work out.
there are many similarities.

I believe in democracy however the tech is not there yet. Sam is proposing something interesting regarding a skills-based voting but I think we are still away from something that works.

One thing that stuck with me studying sustainable Corporate governance for my MBA was that a manager, leader or a CEO does not have to be all singing all dancing and can be low key to deliver exceptional results.

I believe we need to be a bit more creative and invent hybrid systems that will work best for each DAO depending of its type.

I am proposing 3 experimental hands on versions. Let’s see if the Core team understands this and let me experiment live.

4th one as well in the making/ thinking!!


After listening to Ben Stakeridoo for a long time, I’m fully with him with the idea all DAOs need to rapidly tokenise their governance mechanisms, providing voting tokens for governance to the people that care about the DAOs, there’s a misconception that every holder of Harmony should get a vote, over time I now have a stance that this should not be the case, it should be the people that care about the DAOs, attend the meetings, contribute if only by providing ideas or feedback, or even commenting on posts like this, people that have a genuine interest that understand the challenges and the goals fully.

However if a token is issued, it needs to be done in the right way, so signatories cannot distribute to people that will just vote for them in future elections, the distribution needs to be publicly verifiable, possibly with a public ledger with a social tag attached, obviously there’s a lot of working out, there was issues with this election, however there’s issues with the 100 Harmony minimum. This was the case from the start, we are still looking for true governance, and unfortunately sometimes, we can only aim closely for it until someone nails the whole DID situation, or we get tokenised governance correct.

Onwards and upwards.


My only concern is that not one shoe fits all.
Some decisions need to be made quickly because either it is required or there is a good opportunity or possibly 1-2 people have expert knowledge on a specific subject and by the time the knowledge is passed to the team the “moment” is gone resulting to a negative outcome.
Also, in tech DAO projects regardless to what the consensus is, a tech decision needs to be taken based on science and experiments not voting, Imo.

I have seen many similar types of scenarios in heavily public funded organisation and they either collapsed or continue draining tax money.
Whatever dissection we make about DAOs will make and could diminish or potentially break Harmony. I suggest a diverse ecosystem of DAOs operating in a verity of formats. If one fails we learn a lesson but if the one for all operations voting etc fail most DAOs fail

I am just passing my knowledge and experiences. Offering food for thought while you will be working and delivering for Harmony

The poll is now closed, the community have decided in favor of letting the Harmony Creative DAO Q2 2022 Election continue with the same Snapshot vote.

We would like to thank the community for the consideration and time spent reviewing this poll and for coming out in force to vote and help us achieve a consensus decision.

We will soon be releasing information on the new direction of the Creative DAO.

We would like to ask all community members with an interest in helping the Creative DAO to please join the Creative DAO discord server, which can be found here: Harmony $ONE Creative DAO

We would also ask that you follow the Creative DAO Twitter Account to stay up to date: https://twitter.com/ONECreativeDao

Thank you


It’s been pointed out to me by community members that previous elections (very recent) also had no requirement for 100 ONE to be in the wallet to vote. All previous elections should then also be scrutinised immediately. This election should run, regardless of the result of this poll, the results of the election should stand.

I’m finding this difficult to comprehend. I hope i am wrong, but it appears this urgent community notice is being sent as the majority of the candidates appear to have ethnic names. I really hope I am way off the mark here. I’ve checked though the majority of votes and yes there isn’t 100 Harmony ONE in some wallets. There are votes for established ONE community members who are current governors for current DAO’s who also have votes with 0 ONE in the wallets that have voted for them. They should know better and should have flagged this from the beginning if this was such an issue. The organiser of the votes should have programmed for 100 ONE to be in the wallet before a vote could be placed. This should not reflect on the candidates and the Election should continue. The Creative DAO should be given the chance to achieve what the previous governors could not. This is a sad day for ONE