Community Oversight Member Elections: Meet the Candidates
20240422-OversightElections 1200×729 210 KB Update 09/05: Uploaded Proposal Text here. GM Cosmos Community, We are thrilled to finally be able to convey some exciting updates from our Community Elected Oversight member initiative. Since the process began in early February, we have received many applications. Unfortunately, to not burden Cosmos Hub governance with a barrage of on-chain votes, we had the unfortunate job of cutting down the list of applicants to 3 finalists who will be presented to the community. After conducting an internal election in which every AADAO contributor voted on their preferred ranking, we are happy to present the 3 candidates who are in contention to become Community Elected Oversight members. Meet the applicants • Matt Brown : Strong background in Crypto and Cosmos with a strong accounting background (CPA certified) which will aid the Financial Controller with money flow. No affiliations with anything within Cosmos so brings a neutral perspective to the Oversight. • Clyde Carver : Cosmos OG with a great understanding of the ecosystem and Community, thanks to his role as DevOps Architect at SG-1. Brings a credible yet neutral…
Excerpt (1196 of 4700 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hello Cosmos Community! My name is Matt Brown, and I’m honoured that the AADAO has chosen me to be a final candidate. I wanted to share a bit more of my background and what I spend a large portion of my day working on in the hopes that it translates to how I can be best suited for this community position. For starters, I have a bit of a different background than the 2 other very talented candidates, but I think that my unique approach to leadership and my desire to be a strategic partner in whatever role I take on in a team environment, makes me a great candidate to best represent the Cosmos’ communities needs. A significant portion of my day is spent understanding users’ needs, whether its a salesperson, a warehouse foreman, or our president, and I often spend my time providing leadership to team members, helping them understand core concepts and translating information in a concise way for them to understand what we are aiming to accomplish as a team, so that we both feel aligned to the vision. In November 2023, our CFO unexpectedly departed and the organization chose not to fill the role as they believed I was capable of providing that leadership. Since that time, I…
Excerpt (1195 of 2757 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
GM Cosmos I’m Clyde (clydedev), and I believe my technical experience in Cosmos, personal ATOM alignment, and involvement across the interchain ecosystem make me the ideal candidate for the Oversight member role at AADAO. My Journey in Cosmos • Started in 2021 : initially as an $ATOM hodl’er, when I quickly recognized the potential that the Cosmos Hub and its community has. • Transitioned to full-time : by the beginning of 2022 as a DevOps Engineer for SG-1 Validator, supporting and building out critical infra for the Cosmos Hub. • Technical Contributions: I’ve helped bring innovation to the Hub through implementing many upgrades we’ve had over the years, including testing and deploying Interchain Security from its initial stages all the way to getting ICS live on Mainnet. Experiences and Achievements • Community Involvement : I’m an active participant in Cosmos events and hackathons, including clinching 1st place at HackMos Istanbul. • Cosmos Ecosystem Collabs : I’ve worked with Akash to create AI Model deployments and tutorials, and most recently I took on a new challenge at Evmos as a DevOps Engineer. • Networking : I’ve also done my fair share of…
Excerpt (1189 of 2799 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hi, I’m Grace. Thank you to the AADAO members for advancing me to the finals! Whether happy or unhappy with AADAO, every Cosmonaut should care for oversight in how 980k $ATOM is managed/used. Particularly when AADAO is evolving to include early venture financing in their activities. The elected member shouldn’t be a Dao shill or simp. But a reasonable skeptic. Not a micromanager. Rather, a guardrail. There’s only one candidate in this race with direct experience in advocating concerns productively on behalf of the community, resulting in discontinuation of funding for a problematic grantee. And that candidate is me. In the interest of transparency and full disclosure, last December, AADAO reached out to me to gauge my interest in joining their Oversight Committee. Given my history of forthright criticism—ranging from semi-pathological skepticism to substantiated doubts re their programming and operations, their exploratory invite to chat was definitely unexpected and surprising. Despite our polite, yet awkward relationship, discussions proceeded with the involvement of @Better_Future and @Youssef . During these talks, I asked them to allow the community to express its…
Excerpt (1199 of 11611 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
As we proposed a candidate for this position, our validator will abstain from participating in this election. Good luck to the chosen ones!
I personally think you should still vote - you proposed someone cause you care + think someone is a good fit - your vote should then follow too.
Govmos is an active voice in governance - It’d be sad if you abstain from the Hub’s first on-chain election!
@Govmos, I agree with Syed.
That said, it’d be prudent to think of circumstances under which a validator should exercise recusal, and how such recusal is best expressed – for instance, not voting versus voting ‘abstain.’
P.S.: Imo, the ‘Abstain’ vote option should be renamed. Abstention technically refers to “the withholding of a vote." If one wishes to truly abstain, the correct expression of abstention is not to vote at all. In Cosmos Gov, while voting ‘Abstain’ withholds expression of Yes/No selection, an ‘Abstain’ still counts towards achieving quorum. The true application of abstention means it need not be a vote option at all. Or, if Abstain remains as a vote option, abstain votes should not count towards quorum.
You’re absolutely right, we should have been clearer in our initial post! Let us rephrase thoughts:
We (as a validator) will cast an abstain vote, but we will all vote individually of course. Our policy regarding our delegators is that anytime we abstain from a vote, either because it is politically divisive or in this case, because there might be conflict of interest, then we inform our community via our regular channels and invite them to cast independent vote themselves.
This is the commitment we have defined regarding our delegators and we will obide by that rule. To conclude, our delegators will be informed and will vote themselves as this election proposal constitute a potential conflict of interest for the validator itself. We would feel uncomfortable picking a candidate on their behalf when we were part of the competition in the first place. Sorry for the potential misunderstanding, we hope things are clearer now!
Hey Govmos!
Thanks for clarifying!
From an individual voter perspective, what are you and some of the others looking for in terms of the successful candidate?
I’d love to hear what members of the community are looking for, to have a voice that’s heard, and have a positive relationship with the AADAO.
Look forward to hearing from you all!
Matt
Matt_Brown: Hello Cosmos Community! My name is Matt Brown, and I’m honoured that the AADAO has chosen me to be a final candidate. I wanted to share a bit more of my background and what I spend a large portion of my day working on in the hopes that it translates to how I can be best suited for this community position. For starters, I have a bit of a different background than the 2 other very talented candidates, but I think that my unique approach to leadership and my desire to be a strategic partner in whatever role I take on in a team environment, makes me a great candidate to best represent the Cosmos’ communities needs. A significant portion of my day is spent understanding users’ needs, whether its a salesperson, a warehouse foreman, or our president, and I often spend my time providing leadership to team members, helping them understand core concepts and translating information in a concise way for them to understand what we are aiming to accomplish as a team, so that we both feel aligned to the vision. In November 2023, our CFO unexpectedly departed and the organization chose not to fill the role as they believed I was capable of providing that leadership. Since…
Excerpt (1198 of 2891 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hi LitBit!
In an effort of maximum transparency, here is my linkedin profile so that you can have a detailed understanding of my professional summary: linkedIn Profile - /in/matt-brown-cpa-66ba8348/ (I cant post links in this forum, so a copy+paste is necessary. I promise its worth it, its much better written!)
In short, I am currently acting VP Finance at a Manufacturing and Distribution company of approximately $100 Million (Formations), and have previously worked in the cannabis space in the public markets (Atlas Global Brands) and am responsible for Finance, IT, and Innovation functions. I have been involved with the Cosmos ecosystem since 2021 primarily through voting in governance proposals. I think I can offer an unbiased perspective in this role as I do not have any attachments to any projects or functions of the cosmos blockchain.
What is something that you think would be paramount for the successful candidate to understand in this role?
Hey @Damien just some follow up questions to clarify what is and is not in scope re elected member’s duties and responsibilities. Damien: What is NOT part of the role and therefore out of scope: • Under the defined roles within the Oversight Committee, it is understood that all areas of responsibility designated for Oversight Committee #1 (Coordinator) and Oversight Committee #2 (Internal Auditor/Controller) are expressly excluded from the scope of responsibilities for Oversight Member #3 . • Payment processing. • HR-related topics such as, but not limited to hiring and termination. Damien: Meet the applicants • Matt Brown : Strong background in Crypto and Cosmos with a strong accounting background (CPA certified) which will aid the Financial Controller with money flow. No affiliations with anything within Cosmos so brings a neutral perspective to the Oversight. Excluded Duties/Responsibilities for #3 Oversight Member Given that Matt is a CPA, in the event he is elected, makes sense for him to lean in and help Patricia. However, the first bullet point under “What is NOT part of the role and therefore out of scope” reads that “…
Excerpt (1196 of 2615 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hello AAO Candidates! (I can only tag two members as a new user ) Reading through the entries, I see that Cosmos_Nanny has listed ideas and suggestions that she is wanting to bring as an oversight member. @Matt_Brown @clydedev What are your ideas and suggestions that you would like to bring as a potential AAO oversight member? Questions for all 3 of you: It is important as a Validator to stay up to date on information that uses CP funds like grants or general requests so that funds aren’t needlessly given away. I believe many in the community think that this is the case and that CP funds are just given away to those holding the right power. How can we help inform validators with updated information that would be pertinent in knowing prior to a governance vote? How can we prevent further abuse of CP granted funds? IE: some groups in the past have been awarded a lot of value and ended up providing very little, like in their youtube content or whatever was promised. Cosmos_Nanny I think the 4 items you listed on how you’d like to alter the website and make changes are great and will be a great addition. Stats, it’s what we all want. Lastly, something for the 3 of…
Excerpt (1196 of 1729 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
@Cosmos_Nanny I couldn’t tag you, as new users are limited to tagging 2 people.
Tagging here as my remaining option. 
hi there
glad to see this happening,
i’d have loved this process -the first cut- to be more “open”, i mean with some spaces or public discussions and proposals from candidates, but anyway it’s cool we arrive to this point.
While i’m at criticisms, that’s a bit sad, even if understandable as our “space” is still niche, that we only get candidates who are former validators’ employees and/or core teams/orgs employees. I personnaly wish we had more true degens and purely nerds people and more complete disclosures and “neutrality” commitments.
As of today, i believe Grace is the most representative candidate. A cosmos lover undoubtedly, while a tought and independent thinker. And to be fair the only one who made concrete proposals. Really glad you made the cut Grace! My vote is for you. o/
Good luck everyone.
I agree with you Tom. From what I have seen in the space over the last couple of years, Grace stands out as someone I feel like I can trust to fight in the right ways when dealing with these types of things.
She’s articulate and thorough. She’s been attacked by the mighty, survived, and has shown it’s not enough to make her quit. Her existing knowledge and involvement within, makes her the top choice IMHO.
Hey Tom, Thanks for replying! I can definitely understand where you are coming from on the first part of the process, and I appreciate you sharing that feedback! Would you be willing to expand on your feedback/criticisms, either on here or in private message ? I would love to better understand your perspective. I will say, as a final candidate, that I do not have any affiliation with any Cosmos teams, organizations, or validators, and as a candidate I will pledge to the community that I will never be affiliated with any organization as long as I partake in the AADAO community oversight roles. I think transparency and unbiased approaches are important, and I can promise that I do not have any conflicts of interest with this position. As for the best candidate, while I have tremendous respect for them both, I’d like to challenge you a bit. If I was the successful candidate, what is something you’d like me to prioritize? From my perspective, I intentionally didn’t propose anything, as I want to hear from stakeholders like yourself, and hear what you would like to see accomplished by the AADAO and how I could help in this role. In order for the candidate to be successful, I…
Excerpt (1196 of 1692 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Erialos, Thank you very much for your questions, and your early support. Will consider any support as merely preliminary as minds can change! But very much appreciated. erialos: Questions for all 3 of you: It is important as a Validator to stay up to date on information that uses CP funds like grants or general requests so that funds aren’t needlessly given away. I believe many in the community think that this is the case and that CP funds are just given away to those holding the right power. How can we help inform validators with updated information that would be pertinent in knowing prior to a governance vote? I agree. Again, will emphasize the need for updated, comprehensive, and user-friendly dashboards. Currently, within AADAO’s primary and secondary channels (e.g., Twitter, Forum, Cosmonaut HQ/AADAO), we frequently encounter inquiries such as: • “How much funding did X receive?” • “How much funding is X seeking?” • “When did X apply?” • “What is X’s proposed scope?” • “What are X’s deliverables? What’s the projected delivery timeline?” Often, due to the lack of synchronized updates on the dashboard page alongside AADAO announcements, AADAO…
Excerpt (1199 of 4123 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Tom, thanks so much for your support.
@Matt_Brown is neither a current validator employee or former core team/org member!
Wholeheartedly agree.
The elected #3 Oversight Member should sign a commitment to maintain neutrality. During my interview, both @Damien and Patricia inquired about any existing or potential conflicts of interest (COIs), to which I confidently responded in the negative. I believe this question was uniformly posed to all candidates.
In my experience, the concept of COIs is often misunderstood in our space.
Especially by grant making organizations themselves! Anyway, the purpose and implications of these policies are not always clear. So I think it’s essential that every grant-making organization clearly defines, and adopts a consistent and comprehensive definition of COIs applicable to them.
Personally, I have no COIs re the oversight role. To me, this means I’m devoid of any circumstances, relationships (romantic, relational, financial), or incentives that might unduly compromise my judgment or function.
erialos: I have applied for a grant in the past, but not on Atom. I personally found it hard to gauge what to ask for in a grant. Knowing what some were approved for, I felt like I was low balling myself or asking way too high. How would you help this type of scenario? Excellent question. The challenge of navigating grant applications, particularly in determining the right amount to request, is difficult and can be overwhelming—especially when historical data on funding categories and amounts are not well organized. While AADAO has published information on both funding categories and amounts, as I’ve noted before, there is room for improvement in how this information is presented. The cost principles also vary depending on whether you are applying to a government entity, a private foundation, or an NGO (with endowments or annual budgets being additional factors). I believe AADAO most closely resembles a private grant-making foundation (perhaps @Better_Future @Youssef can confirm this). From my experience serving on fellowship/grant selection committees, I can say that decisions are not made based merely on the category of your request or on historical allocations…
Excerpt (1198 of 4108 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
First off, I would like to say that AADao has done a fine job of giving a list of seemingly qualified and diverse list of candidates and I want to applaud them for that. Initial thoughts - Cosmos Nanny has already been a beast doing much of these roles in an unpaid capacity, asking challenging yet fair questions and I fully support her candidacy. As this is a Community Oversight Role, I think the objectives are quite clear. This role should bridge the trust gap between AADao and the Community. That means having professional skepticism and a trust but verify mindset, meaning to be a good teammate yet still asking the tough questions. Some of you have already answered some of these questions (and others I have direct knowledge of) but I would like to ask each candidate: • what has your involvement with AADao been to date? As part of this, please describe your current knowledge of AAdao? • Describe your involvement with the larger community to date (how do gauge sentiment/communicate within community?), • What challenges do you foresee in this role? • How would you handle a difficult situation (such as potential conflict of interest situation of an AADao spend?)…
Excerpt (1197 of 1270 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hey Matt, Thanks for your response (: I’m sorry i must have misunderstood something initially, i thought for a second you were the one candidate from the Govmos team. I’m sorry it’s difficult for me to speak english x) so i can’t really go into details. But anyway thanks again, it’s more clear in my mind now and your point of view is fair (on the fact you wait before proposing anything). To your question i would answer the top priority is as the hero (:p) of the community, you’d have first to build a solid bridge between the sceptics and AADAO. Atom Hub suffered for too long from conspiracy theories and “devs eat everything”'s kind of community’s philosophy. I guess we need to have more factual and objective conversations in between the decision making while granting teams etc. In the same spirit, AADAO’s transparency reports and more broadly its website should be way more interactive. Here are some things i can think about rn. It would be nice AADAO sets some “meetings” up prior to the vote, with some Twitter spaces or something. Because if we quite all know who is Grace and what are her strengths, we don’t really know you and the other candidate. Maybe it’s planned?…
Excerpt (1197 of 1369 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hey Tom,
I provided Notional paid consulting services from December 2023 - February 29th this year.
I’m not an “advisor” so to speak. I’m not a shareholder nor do I have a seat on their (to be formed) Board of Advisors. Full disclosure – I was offered equity and an ongoing advisory role and I refused both.
The purpose of my 3 month engagement had two parts:
- Negotiate the return of company (Notional PTE Ltd) owned working tools and property (eg validator signing keys) without involving local law enforcement; decriminalize former employee’s unauthorized possession as “inadvertent possession” to establish conditions under which a potential settlement for outstanding disputes can begin.
- Navigate various cross jurisdictional issues relating to Notional PTE (a Singapore company) operating in Vietnam.
One month prior to applying for the Oversight position, I had already communicated to Notional that my engagement could not be extended beyond end of Feb.
More context and details re my engagement can be found here: https://twitter.com/gyunit_/status/1771422353840283980?t=465ymxJUALX3iqyk6rFhjg&s=19
Thank you very much Grace. (:
See, when i tell you i massively lack vocabulary, here we are!
Hey Tom,
Happy to answer all of your questions! And don’t worry about the language barrier, my first language was french so Id like to think I understand 
Thats some great feedback - Its making me think that if I was the successful candidate, that I want to have routine “office hours” for the community where they can provide feedback, but where I can also provide updates on action items. I might even be willing to suggest having a forum where I can give updates on progress as well so that its easily shared with the community. Thoughts on this?
Matt
Your vocab is great!
I just wanted to be super clear about the nature of my engagement. Esp bc an “advisor” implies a longer, and more substantial relationship with a client.
Hey @erialos - I spent some time thinking about your questions, and here is where my head is at: I think your comments regarding validators are pertinent, and ones are hopeful to be self enforced. I would imagine if someone is choosing a validator, that they choose one that aligns with their core values and meets their needs in terms of the type of validator they want to pay fees to and ultimately support. In terms of informing validators, I think we want to ensure we get the information so that all can use it to be informed of a vote. Perhaps this is something that can be taken back to the team say, for example, in order to suggest a proposal on the blockchain, the policy dictates that it must come with this information, because collectively we have decided as a community that is what is the minimum threshold to make a decision. I’d be interested to hear more about the misuse of grant funds that has happened to date? For myself personally and in my experience, robust policy framework dictating use of funds and creating legal mechanisms of accountability, along with specific agreed upon deliverables for milestone payments has been effective the numerous times that I have had…
Excerpt (1199 of 2477 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Matt_Brown:(As a potential solution here - perhaps we(the AADAO) should share what a high quality submission, as well as a rejected one, looks like in the scoring criteria, to create a better level of transparency.)
Throughout the past year, the community has frequently asked for this information. However, it was refused due to confidentiality concerns. A simple workaround is seeking and obtaining consent from applicants to publish complete or redacted examples of P/F applications. Ideally, reference examples should exist for each grant category type.
Hello! Thanks for asking questions - Im always excited to make my case as the best candidate for the role here. To your point, I think the hardest gap to clear in anything involving multiple stakeholders, is to trust each other. As someone who has routinely worked in the finance department and has to be the leader delivering sub-optimal reports, I believe my skillset is perfectly aligned to help build the bridge, and lead everyone to having more trust in each other. In fairness, I have limited involvement with AADAO. I haven’t applied for grants, I have merely been a user of the transparency reports, and a passive curiosity in the recipients of the grants along with the products created from this grant. My understanding of the vision and mission are extremely clear, and its core values are the main reason for me getting involved in this role at this time, with the aim of being able to contribute more to the space in the future. My involvement in the larger community has been neutral, I vote on governance proposals and keep up to date on the iterations of ATOM(2.0 and 3.0) as well as a strong user and advocate of the products on the blockchain. Regarding the challenges, I…
Excerpt (1197 of 3103 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I tend to agree with you here - if you are submitting funding, I would imagine part of the application agreement would be to consent to having your project shared with the public? For what its worth, if you’re going to ask for a monetary grant, you should be okay with information being disclosed. This is how it works with most existing government grant recipients.
Matt_Brown: To help in this case, as the successful candidate, I can offer that business acumen as a skillset so that future applicants can have someone to collaborate with and make sure that they submit the best grant proposal possible. My feeling is that the awareness and education function of publishing grant guidelines, and related application literature is the primary responsibility of the Marketing and Grant Committees. Oversight plays a supporting role in ensuring that the information provided is updated, comprehensive, and equally accessible to all . While tempting, offering future applicants personal help on their grant applications is not the function of the elected Oversight member. In fact, doing so would breach what I view as the non-negotiable duty and need for oversight to operate with impartiality. I think the only time it may be permissible for any Oversight member to be involved in the pre-application period may relate to helping applicants navigate potential conflicts of interest. That said, I firmly believe that oversight members offering personalized assistance is outside the scope of our responsibility. Offering incidental and customized help…
Excerpt (1196 of 2458 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Correct. And this argument has been made. Therefore, I consider this as a key deliverable for the future elected member to implement. Glad we agree.
Hey all. I feel I have a responsibility to comment here. I am probably mostly known as the guy that spams cat gifs on like 95 different Telegram groups, and that’s pretty accurate. That being said, I do actually have a real job here and I actually probably get involved with a lot of things nobody including my colleagues have any clue about. I don’t think many people have quite the level of outlook and experience that I do with all layers of what goes on in this crazy and interesting place. For some background, for those who might not know me and have probably stopped reading past the first paragraph: I have been a pretty active member of several communities in this space, am a sitting member of multiple DAOs. I’m a validator. Sure, so are a thousand other people, but I think this is really important context for what is probably not a very pleasant bunch of points near the end, so please…bear with me. Among my myriad of roles [both official, and assumed], the most notable one is that of being among the founding members of what has been a large and massively positive contributor as well as a driving force for interchain community support, education and supporter of true…
Excerpt (1193 of 7848 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Oops I left about half of that message off, that’s embarassing.
@Matt_Brown
The job that you applied is a result of community feedback that went on for months and has been discussed by various community members.
Asking the community what they expect from you if you were elected gives me a really strange feeling:
1.) you seem like you just joined cosmos and learned about AADAO just recently. The Job you applied for was born out of community feedback. Asking the community what they expect from you if you get the job is like asking them to educate you about why we wanted this role at AADAO to even exist. Feel free to study the AADAO channel in the CosmonautHQ group on tg.
2.) ideally, the candidate that succeeds has been in touch with the community since AADAO and aware of their sentiment about AADAO, in order to improve sentiment. In other words - be part of the community.
Also, I really don’t think your job would be helping people with their application. Sorry, but reading that drives me nuts. Happy to elaborate in DMs.
Hey Cordtus, Apologies for taking so long to respond, I wanted to make sure I gave the best answer that I can. I agree, the duties and responsibilities are clearly set out. As per Damien’s post, the AADAO has set out the duties and responsibilities as follows: • To oversee the overall community sentiment, to interface, alongside the Coordinator, with the community, and to address community concerns. • My approach of listening to all community members and going in with a curious mindset has worked in the past environments, and has shifted culture into ways that I’m extremely proud of. I understand this approach may not work for all, but it has served me well in my endeavours. I don’t want to just hear what the communities problems are, I want to understand why they exist. Understanding why they are problems help lead to the best and most sustainable solutions. • Attend internal AADAO meetings (strategy committee, grant committee) and share outputs with the community on the relevant channels whenever needed. • I’ve been part of a board - I lead the treasury function so transparency is top of mind for me, and I’m familiar with meeting structures and relaying…
Excerpt (1188 of 4350 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hey @StunZeed , I just joined the tg a couple days ago, and im trying to catch up on that. If you have specific examples on, I’d definitely appreciate if you could share them with my via DM if you’d like. Im committed to learning as best I can. I understand that point of view, and it makes sense. I think someone could also learn about the sentitment and do an equally proficient job. Totally understand how if someone was already in touch and had strong suits for the other requests form the position that would be ideal, and I would vote for that person as well., I agree with you on the helping people with their application part. Definitely not part of the job. The question I answered regarding this based on my understanding was making sure that their grant application was ready for submission and to make sure they had everything ready, and that I do think that provides lots of value for the AADAO as a whole to ensure the best applicants possible. So that’s where the response came from, but I completely agree that is not part of the job nor would it be something I would do. I apologize if that’s how it sounded when I responded but I would never help someone complete their grant…
Excerpt (1199 of 1260 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
You entirely missed the point of just about everything I said, further reinfocing that very point. Congratulations.
Matt_Brown:To help in this case, as the successful candidate, I can offer that business acumen as a skillset so that future applicants can have someone to collaborate with and make sure that they submit the best grant proposal possible.
Sorry, but that does sound like you’d help with their grant = not doing what your job is.
Don’t be sorry, btw, for what you said and how it sounded. To me it’s clear how it sounded.
And yeah, we agree that someone who has to catch up on a lot of things isn’t a good choice. Sure you could learn, but one doesn’t become part of the community just by reading what they wrote in a chat. So I can’t see how you can represent the community when you’ve not been part of it.
Also, it would slow down the whole process. We really don’t need someone who seems like an extern for a job the involves the word ‚community‘.
Also agree with the previous commentators. Feel like you missed his point.
Matt_Brown: I do think that provides lots of value for the AADAO as a whole to ensure the best applicants possible. Enhancing the caliber of applicants certainly contributes value. However, in my experience, this is not a function of oversight. Rather, the responsibility for improving the applicant pool belongs to the marketing and strategy teams. And AADAO has recently hired a new marketing lead, @Syed . I believe the primary role of oversight is to ensure that the entire process, post application submission (including grant reassessment) —remains vigilantly fair. It seems to me that oversight members should not engage with applicants directly regarding their applications unless oversight is asked to help evaluate potential conflicts of interest. Keen to hear the perspectives of other AADAO members on this issue: • Do you think it is appropriate for an oversight member to be actively and or directly involved with an applicant during the application solicitation/application preparation phase? @Syed @Better_Future @Youssef @Damien @CuriousJ P.S. @Damien can you address my questions above re elected member’s duties and responsibilities Community…
Excerpt (1195 of 1771 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Cosmos_Nanny:in my experience, this is not a function of oversight.
It’s not a matter of experience or opinion, it would be an egregious conflict of interest. It was ridiculous and frankly constitutes disqualification in my eyes that such a thought even crossed his mind.
This is not the type of person I would ever want to see in this role.
Besides that, this is not the type of role you just see in a newspaper and jump into, especially without a background as a financial auditor. [a general accountant is no substitute]
To effectively fill this role requires a solid understanding of finance, and management or other business related experience is an asset, sure. Above all however it is imperative that the selected have a passion for the project, for ethics, and who can stand behind their word and stand their ground regardless of what the outcome may be.
Additionally, I think one of the three candidates has more or less already been unofficially performing this role for about a year now.. that may be something to consider.
Hey @Cosmos_Nanny , Apologies for the delay in replying. Cosmos_Nanny: s it an absolute exclusion, or more of a de-facto exclusion from which exceptions can be made, per discretion of Committee Member #1 or #2 (and relevant qualifications of Committee Member #3 )? There are cases where an exception could be made to leverage certain skills of the newly elected member, however, It is important to note that (for example) Matt’s role with respect to auditing would be limited and he would only aid the Financial Controller if / when needed. Cosmos_Nanny: If Committee Member #3 is signing payment transactions for Grantees, is this not payment processing? This was an error of explanation on my part here. The Oversight would not actually sign on the TXs but this refers to overseeing the TXs alongside the Financial Controller to make sure everything is in-line. Cosmos_Nanny: However, this does not preclude Committee Member #3 from remitting substantiated community concerns regarding AADAO’s personnel decisions. Please confirm if my reading here is correct. Thank you! This is correct. The Community Elected Oversight is there to relay…
Excerpt (1197 of 1572 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I have one question:
Will the role of the committee member include collecting feedback and ideas for governance proposals from the community and helping to shape them?
The oversight should have explicit veto powers, otherwise what is the point of even having that role?
Damien:This is correct. The Community Elected Oversight is there to relay concerns to the AADAO if the community have some concerns about personnel.
Please note that we are also currently formalising our I
Hey @serejandmyself, I would imagine the first part regarding collecting feedback and ideas for governance proposals from the community would make sense and be reasonable. As for the helping to shape them part, I’m hesitant to give a firm answer. I would think the candidate in this role would be somewhat involved in the process - but I suppose it would depend on what it is that is being proposed? Hopefully that sounds like a fair answer.
According to Transparency Report #5 , the Oversight Committee now has “direct access to be able to VETO anything that they deem worthy as they are now part of the process flow.” (You many want to reword this – a bit awkward to say that something/someone is “worthy” of a veto.) @Damien , I have a few questions for clarification: • Could you define what you mean by “process flow”? Does this refer to the initial allocation of funds to grantees and any additional disbursements to be made, contingent on milestones? • What exactly does a veto accomplish? I assume that a veto by an Oversight member would halt funds being sent to a grantee. What happens after a veto is issued—does this suspend the grant entirely, or does it lead to a reevaluation of the grant or grantee involving both the Grants and Oversight committees? • Is a single veto (one out of three) enough to stop disbursement or to initiate a reevaluation , or is a two-thirds majority (or % veto threshold) required? Additionally, I believe that when the Oversight exercises a veto, the reasoning behind the decision should be transparently communicated. What internal or external protocols are established/envisioned…
Excerpt (1196 of 1258 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
From: AADAO Oversight Committee DAO DAO page
How will this veto power be redistributed once a third member is elected, and what percentage of veto power will the new member have?
Hey @Better_Future, can you provide a quick status update re formation of Guernsey Trust?
Just a quick note to bring attention to the “(DRAFT)” on DAO DAO page for that subDAO 
This particular sub-dao is not yet operational - so the wallets could just be test ones (not checked - going by the subDAO description and the “proposals” currently in it)
Haha. Thanks very much Syed.
Thank you Max for this contribution, really summed up all of my thoughts regarding this matter.
Re: candidates
It is without a shadow of a doubt that I recommend Grace. All interactions I’ve had with her have been positive and she has always shown that she cares about the ecosystem as a whole. We need someone that is actually active in the community and understands the need to help AADAO be as transparent as possible and fulfill its role as a community funded organization, we’ve seen plenty of times what happens when DAOs move outside of their scope and responsibilities without proper oversight.
These are my personal opinions and do not represent any of the organizations I work with.
In case you missed the @ATOMAcceleratorDAO Twitter Space yesterday with the 3 candidates, you can listen to the recording below:
https://twitter.com/ATOMAccelerator/status/1785202441094603211
Hi @erialos , Thanks for your questions. I know it’s been a couple days but I wanted to take a chance to address it. Q. What are your ideas and suggestions that you would like to bring as a potential AAO oversight member? A. I’m of the opinion that AADAO does a decent job at transparency, but there are definitely things to improve, which is where my oversight will come in. If I were to be elected, I would indeed act as another layer of oversight to protect the community’s interest, while maintaining the agility necessary to run an Accelerator. My priority is preventing anything bureaucratic in the DAO’s operations and its oversight, while maximizing transparency. As an active builder in the Cosmos myself, I know how stifling trying to communicate with every possible stakeholder can be. I hope to represent the community in order to be an effective point of contact with Grant recipients, and for AADAO’s operations at large. Q. How can we help inform validators with updated information that would be pertinent in knowing prior to a governance vote? I think between the AADAO’s website, and cosmos forum, there is a lot of information on AADAO and its grants that aren’t…
Excerpt (1191 of 2767 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hi @whitemarlin , Thanks for your questions. I added some of my thoughts here: Q. What has your involvement with AADao been to date? As part of this, please describe your current knowledge of AAdao? I’ve supported AADAO since its inception. I met some of its original members while it was still in formative stages. In representing SG-1 as a large stakeholder on the Hub, we wanted to make sure that the AADAO was a truly ATOM aligned organization. In my meeting with the original members, I learned that they are truly do represent the interest of the Hub’s and have the interest of the community at heart. I understand the AADAO’s operations well. That all being said I think an additional layer of oversight to represent the community is a great idea, and I hope to play that function. Q. Describe your involvement with the larger community to date (how do gauge sentiment/communicate within community?), I am active on twitter, though I’m not the most popular. I attend Cosmos conferences regularly, I don’t think I’ve missed a Cosmoverse since I first joined the space 3 years ago. I also participate in many hackathons to stay up to date with the brightest and most active builders…
Excerpt (1197 of 2683 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hi @Cordtus,
I really liked your breakdown of the ideal candidate for this position. I think you put it in better words than I could have.
I’d like to clarify my own standing here and let you know that I consider myself a Cosmos user and community member first and foremost, and I’m able to be full-time here thanks to my work as an engineer. I’m curious to understand if you feel if any of my previous experience makes you feel like I’d be partial in oversight. My affiliations are all very ATOM aligned, and I personally have deep vested interest in the Hub’s success, and since AADAO’s mandate is to drive value for the Hub, I am of course interested in seeing them deliver on that mandate
In terms of what I’d do from an ethics standpoint, I’d like to push for AADAO to both release it’s code of conduct or any ethics related policy. I think it’s critical that these policies are public for the community to review. I also would like to push for quarterly community engagement calls to ensure higher accountability between AADAO and the community.
Curious about your questions or concerns here
Hi @tom,
Thanks for your messages.
While my affiliation with SG-1 and Evmos might lead you to believe I am not a true degen or a true nerd, I assure you it’s quite the opposite. My levels of Degen are precisely what have brought me to this position As large stakeholders of the hub, validators more frequently than not have the long-term success of the Hub in mind. And while they are larger entities, they are also key actors and members of the community. I’d be curious to ask you what your exact concerns would be given my involvement with validators and core protocols?
clydedev:
how is arbitrarily taxing delegators and pooling their funds to grant-farm contributing to the long-term sucess of the Hub?
Listened in to the telegram call today and reminded myself to check in here and leave my two pennies. Firstly, I think whoever is elected, the community will be well represented. I struggle to fault any of them from everything I’ve heard to date. Secondly, I commend AADAO for their selections. The hub has been plagued by yes men in the past, and I don’t see that here. Particularly Grace, who I imagine would be an absolute nightmare to have looking over your shoulder. In part, this is why she gets my vote. During my time in cosmos, I can’t think of too many people who have been challenged to demonstrate their integrity so publicly, and done so in such a convincing manner as Grace. Her persistence, transparency and obviously intelligence make her ideal for this position. I have no reason to doubt the other candidates, but knowing none of them personally, I can only vote based on what I see. This oversight role will be vital in giving confidence to the community as the remit of AADAO expands. I know the importance of familiarity in establishing trust in the community, and believe Grace edges it on this metric. Best of luck to all the candidates. Look forward to seeing the…
Excerpt (1197 of 1245 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
soi2tudio:I commend AADAO for their selections
Can’t comment on the rest of your message, but thank you for recognizing this!
As Oversight Coordinator, @Damien’s running of this initiative has been a shining example of neutrality—cutting out the politics and emotions, focusing on what this oversight member is supposed to do—providing oversight on AADAO’s “executive arm.”
Good luck to all three of you: @Matt_Brown, @Cosmos_Nanny, @clydedev
Hello all, In an effort for the community to review the Proposal text, we have made the decision to post it here before going on-chain. Please feel free to leave any feedback. Prop title: AADAO Oversight Election: Vote for CANDIDATE NAME This proposal is to elect CANDIDATE NAME to be the community-elected member of the Atom Accelerator DAO (AADAO)’s Oversight Committee. Three candidates were shortlisted for the role, each with a separate Cosmos Hub governance proposal, so that governance may select a candidate. Please vote YES only on one proposal—for the candidate you support. The candidate for this proposal: This proposal is for CANDIDATE. CANDIDATE BRIEF DESCRIPTION. You can learn more about CANDIDATE NAME HERE and listen to our Twitter Space with all three candidates here . What is the Oversight Committee? Reporting directly to Cosmos Hub Public Governance, the Oversight Committee provides oversight over all AADAO Committees, ensuring compliance and integrity. It has the authority to VETO new grants, discontinue existing grants, and initiate the termination of any AADAO Contributors in case of serious misconduct. The Oversight Committee is currently…
Excerpt (1199 of 4945 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Damien:You can learn more about CANDIDATE NAME HERE and listen to our Twitter Space with all three candidates here.
Can you also provide link to “Community Oversight Member Elections: Meet the Candidates” thread, here?
Damien:What is NOT part of the role and therefore out of scope:
Damien:
- Internal processes implementation given this falls under the Internal Auditor role. Suggestions on process improvements will be discussed among the 3 members, while their supervision is assigned to the Internal Auditor.
@Damien @Syed The wording of this bullet point appears to be contradictory and requires clarification (or rephrasing). It is not immediately clear how the “implementation of internal processes,” which is designated as the sole responsibility of the Internal Auditor, differs from “suggestions on process improvements,” a task shared by all three Oversight members.
My suggestion: “Exploratory discussions on process improvements are permitted among the 3 members, under the supervision and guidance of the Internal Auditor. The discretion as to which process suggestions are implemented in eventuality resides exclusively with the Internal Auditor (name/identify Internal Auditor).”
And rather than locating the above bullet point under “out of scope,” I feel it is more coherent to nest the bullet point under “duties and responsibilities,” instead.
Damien:Oversight Coordinator and the Internal Auditor and Financial Controller.
In the interest of transparency, would be good to identify names of persons currently occupying the following roles:
- Oversight Coordinator
- Internal Auditor
- Financial Controller
cc: @Syed
You can learn more about CANDIDATE NAME HERE and listen to our… The plan is to link the “learn more about the CANDIDATE NAME here” to each candidate’s self-intro post. That suffice? The links would be: Matt , Clyde , Grace Community Oversight Member Elections: Meet the Candidates AADAO @Damien @Syed Can you provide the copy that will be used for each candidate’s brief description? Thank you. And since we’re linking to each candidate’s self intro, the “CANDIDATE BRIEF DESCRIPTION” would be the 2-3 lines we used in the first post of this thread: • Matt Brown : Strong background in Crypto and Cosmos with a strong accounting background (CPA certified) which will aid the Financial Controller with money flow. No affiliations with anything within Cosmos so brings a neutral perspective to the Oversight. • Clyde Carver : Cosmos OG with a great understanding of the ecosystem and Community, thanks to his role as DevOps Architect at SG-1. Brings a credible yet neutral voice to the Oversight. • Grace (Cosmos Nanny) : Cosmos OG with a great understanding of the Community, thanks to her previous role as Head of Growth & Strategy at All in Bits. Brings a…
Excerpt (1196 of 1227 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Sorry, the wording was a bit confusing - “Internal Auditor and Finanicial Controller” is one role.
- Oversight Coordinator = Damien B.
- Internal Auditor & Financial Controller = Patricia M.
- Community-elected oversight member = soon
This suggestion makes sense to me but @Damien to confirm.
My only edit would be to not include the name of the “Internal Auditor and Finanicial Controller” - we want to refer to the “office” not the current role holder, if that makes sense.
Damien: What is NOT part of the role and therefore out of scope: • Under the defined roles within the Oversight Committee, it is understood that all areas of responsibility designated for Oversight Committee #1 (Coordinator) and Oversight Committee #2 (Internal Auditor/Controller) are expressly excluded from the scope of responsibilities for Oversight Member #3 . Cosmos_Nanny: Some clarification is needed here. Is it an absolute exclusion, or more of a de-facto exclusion from which exceptions can be made, per discretion of Committee Member #1 or #2 (and relevant qualifications of Committee Member #3 )? Damien: There are cases where an exception could be made to leverage certain skills of the newly elected member, however, It is important to note that (for example) Matt’s role with respect to auditing would be limited and he would only aid the Financial Controller if / when needed. @Damien @Syed Given that: • The primary duties and responsibilities of the third member are clearly defined; and • Internal Auditor/Controller activities are explicitly designated as “out of scope” • Ability to “leverage certain skills” e.g.,…
Excerpt (1195 of 2124 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Damien:Three candidates were shortlisted for the role, each with a separate Cosmos Hub governance proposal, so that governance may select a candidate.
Suggested change: Three candidates have been shortlisted for this role. Since multiple-choice proposals are currently not feasible, AADAO is facilitating vote options by presenting each candidate through separate governance proposals. This method allows the community to clearly express preference for their chosen candidate.
Agreed Grace, I can also provide some copy that makes those two items distinguished and make sure we don’t imply auditing tasks, because you are right, this role does not perform auditing in any form. @Syed pm me if you’d like me to help offer some notes on this relating to CPA and its education around governance.
Matt_Brown:this role does not perform auditing in any form. @Syed pm me if you’d like me to help offer some notes on this relating to CPA and its education around governance.
Thanks Matt. Reaching out on DM
Just want to highlight this tweet from AADAO.
https://twitter.com/ATOMAccelerator/status/1788631163793440850?t=_tIR7wp65LbxkiOy0QIl5g&s=19
Proud of the productive conversations we’ve been having in here.
Elections are a great way to identify and galvanize community asks. Props to AADAO again for organizing this, and being rapidly receptive to suggestions given.
Can’t say enough about this - I’m proud of the discord that @Cosmos_Nanny, @clydedev, and myself were able to have over the past couple of weeks and happy to hear that its going to have a positive effect for the AADAO and the community going forward. Regardless of the outcome, whoever is elected will do a fantastic job! Good luck to everyone and please go vote!
Matt
Hi @Damien , Even if I try to follow the topic quite closely, this is my first comment here, as I usually am more active on Telegram. Anyway, I am an advocate (in general) of not giving governance power to validators (consensus power should be what they get from our stake), except of course their self stake. I do recognize though that with the current governance model / SDK module, validators votes with full VP from delegators need to be recognized or we probably would never reach any quorum. However, in this very specific case, I understand that there is no quorum, and only Yes votes will be tallied on each vote, to find the elected oversight member. I would like to ask whether it could be considered that only individual votes (or validators self-bond) be counted for this vote? I don’t see any reason why validators should have voting power on their personal opinions from ATOM that doesn’t belong to them. Additionally, I intend to try and build a small tool to run the tally with the above formula, and would like to know if you would be interested in looking at it once it’s ready (if I can get it ready before the end of the elections). Thank you for reading me.…
Excerpt (1190 of 1208 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hey @clydedev
SG1 voted Yes to your prop, Abstain to @Matt_Brown and no to @Cosmos_Nanny
I’ll use the most authentic wording:
Wtf? Is this a joke?
Even if SG1 decided to play it ‚fair‘ before the end of the voting by abstaining on all candidates, imo you already deserve to be disqualified.
It’s community oversight. With a Yes vote from your validator and one of the biggest ones out there, how can you say you’re just a community guy willing to represent the community?
It’s ridiculous and a shame really. It’s the first election in crypto history afaik and you/your validator already making it dirty as hell.
As we previously explained earlier in this discussion, (link here), our validator has casted abstain votes today to all three candidates while we strongly invited our delegators to vote individually. We wish all the best of luck to all of pretenders and we will welcome the chosen one with great warmth!
Keep in mind this is the guy who pretty clearly opposes the very spirit of this role and from what I can tell, hardly believes it is even necessary. How can he be expected to perform the duty?
For those tracking the results as they come in, check out our Elections Dashboard
Thanks to@DefiantLabsfor building out this dashboard, powered by the Cosmos Indexer (supported by a grant from AADAO).
Additionally, a reminder for all:
- There are currently 3 proposals onchain - one for each of the candidates shortlisted to join our Oversight Committee. Candidate with the most YES votes (by number of ATOMs) wins.
- Please vote YES only on ONE proposal - for the candidate you support
- There is no need for a NO vote on any of the proposals. NO votes are not counted, and they will not impact the election results in any way. Vote ABSTAIN instead for the other candidates.
And a small request to not NWV any of the 3 props - we’d like to get the 750 ATOMs back!
Here are some thoughts on the need for oversight in electing a third member to the AADAO Oversight Committee: • The hub’s first election is currently being conducted live on-chain — this social consensus experiment is unfolding ahead of implementing the multiple-choice option in the Cosmos SDK/gov module. Given this scenario, AADAO has provided explicit voting guidelines (defining vote options) to facilitate the process. Although the guidelines are straightforward—vote ‘Yes’ for your preferred candidate and ‘Abstain’ on others—the lack of preemptive and proactive efforts to ensure participants abide by the defined vote options is concerning. • A competitive election does not mean we have to have an ugly election. However, when a validator with 6.72% voting power (16.89m ATOM) votes ‘Yes’ for an employee/affiliate , ‘Abstain’ for one candidate, and ‘No’ for another, it introduces bias and social signaling that creates unfair advantages and disadvantages. I will also add here, that as candidates, if any of us are affiliated with active validators on the hub, the manner of the validator’s voting behavior can be perceived as a direct expression of conduct the candidate deems…
Excerpt (1197 of 2633 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hey Grace!
I appreciate your alertness, but I can confirm I abstained internally from the board voting at Citadel.one. I am only 1/5 of the founding voting team & we have a governance lead to research and evaluate proposals.
I do not believe that a big validator like Citadel.one should abstain from governance because I have affiliation with AADAO. Citadel =/= Reena Shtedle
However, if you wish to exclude ALL potential relations with validators, we should advise Cosmostation, Chorus one, Simply Staking & Imperator co against voting as well. We are willing to collaborate for the fair elections as per community guidelines.
Thank you!
Thanks for the quick response, @neshtedle
To be clear, my recommendation is for all current/ACTIVE AADAO members’ validator affiliates to abstain from voting in the Oversight election.
From what I understand, Dilan (Imperator) and Mikey (Cosmostation) are no longer active reviewers on the Grants SubDao committee. Dilan left just prior to end of Q1 2024, and Mikey stepped down before the renewal mandate went up in December 2023.
If you reason that all " ALL potential" validator relations abstain, that means requiring every hub validator to abstain from voting. One can argue that all validators have potential conflicts as infra providers are theoretically eligible/potential applicants for an AADAO grant/venture grant. I think that’s an over correction.
More simply, I’m asking AADAO to uniformly and consistently apply the de facto recusal standard that has been in effect since it’s inauguration.
I will add – at this stage, to revise the vote tallying criteria is incorrigibly messy.
If you want to redefine how or which votes are calculated, then you must redo the election. I don’t like the idea of post facto applying a counting logic that deviates from what is explicitly expressed in proposal text.
The best thing the Dao can do at this juncture is to consistently enforce the vote options as defined in the proposal; monitor and encourage correction to any substantial deviations from the articulated voting guidelines (if necessary) to avoid allegations of fostering social signaling that contradicts the spirit of democratic processes.
Bad officiating produces bad games. I’m asking for reasonable referee-ing.
In addition to the importance of enforcing “fair play” during the election, let’s rework the referee analogy to illustrate why Citadel shouldn’t be voting.
An elected Oversight member is effectively a referee to AADAO ops. Citadel or any validator associated directly or indirectly w DAO members should abstain from voting bc players/teams should not be selecting who gets to officiate the “games” they play.
Thank you for the explanation!
I understand your concern, and as a full-time contributor to AADAO I take full responsibility for the policy of the COI. However, C1 is an independent entity to AADAO and does not withhold financial relations neither with AADAO, nor with any of the candidates. We can certainly advocate for C1 to abstain, but I do not think it is fair to rob 75% of a validator team & delegators of representation. If we are that strict on a policy, we might have to keep everyone who has ever been associated with AADAO away from participation.
I have not been able to come up with a flawless solution for everyone to this moment.
neshtedle: I understand your concern, and as a full-time contributor to AADAO I take full responsibility for the policy of the COI. Respectfully, it appears your COI policy is both primitive and incomplete. neshtedle: However, C1 is an independent entity to AADAO and does not withhold financial relations neither with AADAO, nor with any of the candidates. I disagree. By virtue of your dual employment status with Citadel and AADAO, Citadel is not an “independent entity to AADAO.” Are you saying that you do not recognize the inherent conflict with Citadel expressing a preference for an elected member whose role is expressly designed to hold you accountable? To be super clear, I am urging AADAO members to adhere to an informal recusal policy established during the voting for Proposal 95 and reinforced in Proposal 865. Because the reasoning you used to have your validators previously ABSTAIN, still applies. If not, more . The reasoning: Validators connected to you, such as Citadel, previously abstained from voting on Proposals 95 and 865 because their involvement with .91% of voting power on the hub directly influences the outcomes of proposals that…
Excerpt (1198 of 2607 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Thanks Grace for raising these issues.
On another note, I would love to hear about @Matt_Brown and @clydedev personal opinions on the above.
Thank you for the response. I certainly see where you are coming from - it is something that has not been fully addressed in a policy that I know of. I want to state my point one last time. « Props 920-922, which pertains to an extraordinary addition to the DAO’s roster that is designed to keep your job with the AADAO in check — an expansion of the oversight committee. Are you saying that you do not recognize the inherent conflict with Citadel expressing a preference for an elected member whose role is expressly designed to hold you accountable? » I believe what may be happening is that you are conflating Citadel one as an entity with me as a member of AADAO. I do not recognize Citadel expressing a preference for an elected member a conflict of interest, because I am personally abstaining from the vote and I am not in power to push everyone voting to abstain. I am not the single controlling stakeholder at Citadel.one. There is no “virtue of dual-employment” as I am a full-time AADAO contributor with strictly strategy foundation role at C1. Citadel gains no benefit by voting either way - or maybe you can help me understand what benefit C1 in particular is getting by…
Excerpt (1196 of 1696 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
neshtedle: I believe what may be happening is that you are conflating Citadel one as an entity with me as a member of AADAO. Hey Reena, I understand that Citadel isn’t a single stakeholder or owner entity. Nonetheless, my concern stems from the precedent set during the votes on Props 95 and 865, where there was deliberate coordination within AADAO for validators associated with members to abstain. Although I acknowledge that you do not individually dictate the voting decisions of Citadel, there was perhaps direct guidance from you to Citadel’s governance that it’d be best for them to abstain in 95 and 865. And they obliged. This being the case, I am puzzled why there wasn’t: • Clear internal discussion or decision within AADAO to continue applying the informal recusal policy in for the current election. @Damien @Syed @Youssef • Moreover, in the absence of explicit guidance from the Oversight Coordinator on how Citadel or other member-related validators should vote, I’m left questioning the appropriateness of Citadel expressing a preference in this election especially as it pertains to a position on Oversight. Because you failed to have necessary conversations…
Excerpt (1196 of 3954 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Thank you for your respectful answer & tone! I will bring it up to the Governance Lead & the team and certainly we would like to collect more feedback on the matter from the community before passing on to the final decisions. I want to notify you that we had an abstain policy for the respective proposals indicating creation/continuation of the mandate - even though I still believe that validators as community stewards should be able to approve or veto creation of such entities whatever the affiliation - as soon as there is no direct financial incentive. This case is - to my mind - is more complicated than that. But a lot of things in governance and policies are broken to this present moment unfortunately. We have no concept of “ethical” running for governance - nothing stops a candidate or a project seeking community funds, potential consumer chain to go into DMs of their validator acquaintances & ask for support. We can only vouch for validators to act independently and in unbiased way following their “validator constitutions”. Mind you, C1 even has one - unfortunately nothing on community elections in particular but we narrowed down a lot on the community funding…
Excerpt (1189 of 1320 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
And I’m appreciative of your prompt and thorough responses.
Thank you, Reena.
neshtedle: even though I still believe that validators as community stewards should be able to approve or veto creation of such entities whatever the affiliation - as soon as there is no direct financial incentive. Understanding and identifying conflicts of interest extend beyond just monetary or financial benefits. Conflicts can also arise from situations of undue influence, where individuals or entities might gain non-financial advantages that could affect their decisions or actions inappropriately. For instance, it is considered a conflict of interest for a public interest organization to select members for its oversight committee, as this could compromise the committee’s ability to function independently and impartially. I would argue that AADAO is similar to a public, grant making organization bc it was established with an endowment derived from what can be characterized as “public resources.” This being the case, all the more important to ensure that your selection processes for oversight do not lead to biases that influence the oversight committee’s judgments and decisions, thereby undermining the governance and accountability mechanisms the committee is…
Excerpt (1195 of 1409 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I find citadel voting very odd. Shouldn’t be up to validators connected to aadao who’s becoming oversight. Also why abstain first and then vote for SG1 Clyde?
Citadel one also informed me very clearly that they always vote no on funding anything like aadao from community pool because it is not valuable and just serves to burn money… (this was in response to voting no on OSL funding multiple times)
My theory is that many validators will just say whatever the fuck they want whenever it is convenient for them. Actions speak louder than words, especially when those actions completely betray their words. In reality they likely don’t give a shit about anything aside from extracting value through the least possible contribution.
Because they hahe no spine nor the capability to form an independent thought or opinion. All they care about is extracting value, and avoiding anything that may hinder that goal.
hey
do you feel this is fair the validator you’re working with is voting for you with its massive vote power while voting no or abstain for the other candidates?
this election sucks if such conflict of interest plays out this way.
@ATOMAcceleratorDAO you should do something about this kind of behaviour.
Due to SG1’s vote power on the hub (6.71%) and their NO vote on proposal 920, Mintscan’s graphical representation of 922’s lead over 920 is exaggerated. In actuality, the difference between proposals 920 and 922 is only 109,704 ATOM (at the present time). Screenshot 2024-05-14 at 10.10.47 AM 1432×636 42.5 KB from: Mintscan , May 14th, 10:13 EST Screenshot 2024-05-14 at 10.13.47 AM 2468×362 49 KB from: https://elections.atomaccelerator.com/ , May 14th, 10:15 EST @clydedev I respectfully ask you to speak with your employer/validator SG1 about changing their NO on 920 to an ABSTAIN. As a candidate in the race, your affiliated validator should fully abide by the defined voting guidelines. While voting NO does not impact the final vote count of the race – it can affect the voter consideration period for the next 10 days. Therefore, voting NO in the context of this specific race can be perceived as an abuse of voting options or deliberately exercising an option voters were asked not to use , to manipulate voter perception by signaling an unhealthy bias. If this NO vote was an unintentional error made by your validator, please correct it immediately. The voting…
Excerpt (1194 of 1736 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
agreed with this, it’s certainly sketchy
Hi Everyone, Apologies for the delay, I wanted to take in the discourse that was had and understand it before providing some thoughtful feedback/opinion in a concise manner. To start, I’m going to clarify my understanding of the role as I think that will help set the stage for some of the commentary here. The role, based on the description above and my interpretation of it, is primarily to relay communication for the community to/from AADAO, provide feedback on internal protocols/controls and ensure compliance with said protocols, and support the oversight committee in its transparency reports (which will now be bi-monthly!). That being said, what I explicitly do not see is any ability to make financial or material non-financial decisions and influence, whether it be approving grants or approving specific policies that would benefit individuals or a group. In fact, this is specifically said to be out of scope. This context is important to highlight the multiple potential conflict of issues that have been brought up. Conflicts are always difficult to decide what to do with, but given the successful candidate of this election will have no financial authority and no material…
Excerpt (1196 of 5099 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
What about SG1 first voting No on Grace and abstain On you?
Before the voting started, the concern that Clyde is SG1 employee was voiced already. It has nothing to do with what the term ‘community’ in the jobs name is supposed to mean.
A candidate with 17mil atoms in his back by his validator is like the opposite of what we’re looking for.
What about those who casted their vote because sg1 was voting for Clyde?
Also, I would have expected 1) Clyde to solve it himself. And 2) Clyde to make it very clear to sg1 that this is the opposite is what they should be doing.
I feel confirmed with my issue about a sg1 employee applying for a community job role.
Ps.: you’re asking for respect, but how is it respectful to not at least abstain to Grace in the first place instead of voting no?
@clydedev what do you think?
Should Citadel1 abstain, or do you not see an issue with them voting in this election?
Hello all, I’m chiming in here to ratify and reiterate some concerns that we have seen in these discussions. To begin we would like to remind everyone what the voting options are: • YES - This person is your preferred candidate for AADAO’s Oversight Committee. • ABSTAIN - This person is not your preferred candidate (please remember to vote Yes on your preferred candidate’s proposal), or you wish to contribute to the quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal. • NO - No votes on this proposal will not have any impact on the election. • NO WITH VETO - A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of the total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned. We asked for those wishing to participate in the elections to: “Please vote YES only on one proposal—for the candidate you support.” We have noticed some concerns about the…
Excerpt (1195 of 4912 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hi all, Thanks for the questions and remarks. Firstly, I strongly encourage members of the community to always think through governance decisions for themselves and to vote from their personal perspective. Ideally, community members of the Hub would be so engaged with governance that the positions of specific validators would have less sway. This is the kind of climate in Cosmos I’d like to work toward at AADAO. That being said, I also encourage all validators to vote on all proposals. It’s very much by design that users entrust their voting power to the validators they stake with. A validator’s voting power is ultimately composed of community members that have deliberately delegated this power on the basis of their alignment. I largely agree with @Matt_Brown ’s thoughtful analysis over the nature of this prop and whatever recusal standards would be appropriate. I also share Matt’s belief that AADAO has made this election as fair as possible. That being said there are certainly multiple learning points we can take from this election to improve similar Hub Governance going forward. I don’t agree that there is any Conflict of Interest at play here. Our common interest is…
Excerpt (1197 of 2260 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Do you feel it is ethical to seek a role conceived out of widespread concern over a lack transparency of accountability, when your entire view on the matter is quite clearly that the community is wrong and there are no concerns over either of those things?
How do you feel about applying for a role that was brought to existence by community feedback (source: AADAO channel on tg) with 17mil atoms behind your back because you are employed by Sg1? You think people delegated to sg1 and therefore automatically agree with your individual thoughts about the whole election, even tho the very same sg1 screwed the rules of fair play when they voted no on 920? Was this also something all your delegators wanted?
Do you think when Jae bribed on 69 and 82, it was the just the community voting on these proposals? Do you really think that all a validator is doing is letting the community speak? Like, all the people that delegate to Game are also following governance and agree with all the game votings and therefore never vote themselves?
Would Jae’s beat friend who ran for the election be a community guy who represents the community even tho he got all the millions of atoms by AiB for the election?
@Youssef since you liked Clyde’s response I want to direct the question to you too.
Damien: We would like to remind every candidate to maintain decorum regarding their conduct. We understand the need for candidates to distinguish themselves from the others, to campaign and lobby to secure votes, but decorum must be maintained. Governance discussions for the Hub should always be respectful and in good faith. Attempting to vilify AADAO, its members or this election process - in order to score points for one’s own campaign - is not behavior we would like to see in an Oversight Committee member, or in general, on any governance discussions. Thank you for your clarifications above. Regarding your comment about “decorum,” it seems you are insinuating that I may have deviated from respectful conduct. Asking challenging questions is part of what I do. Whenever I have presented a relatively complex topic, I have expressed my ideas and opinions respectfully. I concede that my language in this post is direct. It is possible to be direct and non-violent. Healthy skepticism is categorically and experientially distinct from lacking decorum. If the manner of my direct communication made certain persons feel uncomfortable, please remember that speaking directly…
Excerpt (1197 of 2514 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Matt_Brown: I understand where the thought process is coming for regarding the different ending of the votes, however my counterpoint is that if large voters start changing votes in the final 3 minutes of Prop #920-922 for a part time community oversight position, do you think they would risk their reputation for this type of on chain activity? Voting with your dollars (Or ATOM, in this case) is the most impactful action you can take, and its important to choose validators that align with your ideas of good governance, values, and leadership. The Validators have their reputation at stake every time they vote, and I believe they put a lot of effort into making sure they make the best decisions possible, small or large, so while this could be a potential issue, I believe that they are acting in good faith. Hey Matt, obviously vals will not be revoting with their publicly doxxed validator or operator wallets. That’s not the concern. I’m not going to expound on the genre of exploits that can be had. But anyone familiar with dpos governance and network security can easily game the final five minutes of 922. And it does not always end with 922 winning. Which is why, in the…
Excerpt (1198 of 1309 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Matt_Brown:I tremendously respect @neshtedle decision to abstain from the validator vote in an abundance of caution, and these are generally good guiding principals to have with governance.
We can agree to disagree on this point.
I have provided reasons here, here and here as to why I believe Citadel’s participation in this election (with an expressed preference) demonstrates insufficient caution.
In contrast, you believe that an abundance of caution has been sufficiently demonstrated.
The failure of many DAOs often arises from neglecting to adopt a broader and necessary view of conflicts of interest, which includes considering undue influence.
Matt_Brown: That being said, what I explicitly do not see is any ability to make financial or material non-financial decisions and influence, whether it be approving grants or approving specific policies that would benefit individuals or a group. In fact, this is specifically said to be out of scope. I disagree with your comprehension of the role. As per Transparency Report #5 , the elected member to Oversight will have ability to exercise veto "anything that they deem worthy as they are now part of the process flow.” I asked for clarification on “process flow” 16 days ago in this forum thread. Have prompted several times subsequently, and specifically during “Meet the Candidates” Twitter Spaces that we need more details on how veto power will be distributed within Oversight, and specifics for what exactly a “veto” can accomplish. We have yet to receive extra color or details, and awaiting response @Syed @Damien That said, it has been communicated from AADAO that the general idea of exercising veto will at minimum, work to suspend funding for a grant recipient. Therefore, I cannot agree with your given statement above. Having and exercising veto power over grants is…
Excerpt (1199 of 2734 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Damien:Please note that we are also currently formalising our Internal Protocols which should bring further clarity over the roles and responsibilities of each committee and contributor. The protocols are around 1-2 weeks away from being finalised and ratified. We will then post them shortly thereafter.
Damien, would appreciate an update to this as it was promised over two weeks ago.
Also, friendly reminder we’d appreciate clarification on how veto will be distributed, and how it can be exercised – and under what auspices. Thanks.
It would make the most sense that any validator that has direct connections to AADAO members should be abstaining here or any vote in regards to AADAO. Just like validators who are part of AADAO now abstain on funding AADAO. I think @Youssef should step in here to state the policy of AADAO in situations like these and if he believes the current votes are in line with those policies. That will settle the voting here, and allow for conversations about change if needed going forward. Coming from other members of AADAO in all honesty will not have the same weight and anyone who disagrees will still be seeking affirmation from the leader. At this point, I can understand the arguments from all sides, so it comes down to what the policies of AADAO are now and will be going forward. Until that is clear, I don’t think SG-1/ @clydedev or C1/ @neshtedle can be accused of violating any official rules, moreso just norms or unofficial expectations. I’m sure all 3 candidates are great and could do the job, but I really appreciate seeing @Cosmos_Nanny demonstrating how she would take on the new oversight role. I have to admit I was skeptical at first, but Grace is effectively playing that…
Excerpt (1195 of 1313 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hey @Tricky ! Damien (Oversight Coordinator) is overseeing the elections. He clarified the position here: Community Oversight Member Elections: Meet the Candidates - #102 by Damien But here are the two most relevant paras for your query: On the note of validators playing a large part in the elections, this is normal from our perspective and in line with the Hub’s governance traditions Validators play a large role in governance. Delegators (community members) chose a validator that aligns with their interests and goals. A validator has to vote on governance to represent their community. Every delegator is allowed to override the vote of a validator if they disagree with the choices of that validator. It would not be the most democratic and decentralized election if we omit a large chunk of the community who rely on their validators to act on their behalf. This is the same stance we had before the election going onchain and will continue for the rest of this voting period. On the note of potential conflicts of interest from validators, we advise validator teams to use their own discretion, as is normal in governance. Unlike prop #95 and #865 , the current proposals are…
Excerpt (1199 of 1715 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Thanks @Syed ! @Damien may be in charge of elections, but in times like this people are going to look to the leaders of organizations for clarity and that is @Youssef . This is more of an org topic rather than just an election topic. Youssef did just let me know that the oversight committee decides the internal policies, not sure if others were fully aware of that. I’m glad it’s set up that way. Is there any place to read more info on the policies in general? It looks like all validators are in the right with how they are voting now, but this does seem like something that should be revisited and discussed. I totally agree on validators being the representatives of their community, but most votes don’t have the same level of COI when it comes to voting on AADAO props. I can’t recall for sure off of the top of my head, but I think Imperator & maybe others abstained on AADAO funding, I wonder why it would be different here? That’s just curiosity though, they are all following internal policies at the moment even if it goes go against the norm or what some community members expected. I don’t think the community should micromanage your internal policies, but they should be…
Excerpt (1190 of 1309 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I don’t think any validator affiliated with any contributor should be voting with an expressed preference for a candidate.
In this election, Imperator voting is arguably permissible bc Dilan is no longer a reviewer on the grants SubDao.
During prop 95, Imperator, Cosmostation, Citadel1, Binary Holdings and Chorus abstained bc of their members’ involvement with the Dao.
It was the same for prop 865, but Cosmostation voted Yes, bc Mikey had already stepped down as a reviewer of the grants SubDao prior to the proposal going on chain.
First, thank you to everyone who has participated in this important conversation. I understand that the current AADAO position encourages validators to vote for who they believe is the best candidate for the oversight role. @Damien stated: On the note of validators playing a large part in the elections, this is normal from our perspective and in line with the Hub’s governance traditions Validators play a large role in governance. Delegators (community members) chose a validator that aligns with their interests and goals. A validator has to vote on governance to represent their community. Let’s explore this concept further: • Aligning with Tradition: It’s true that validator voting aligns with the Hub’s governance history. However, it’s important to consider if this aligns with the community’s best interests moving forward. • Beyond Consensus Voting Power: The current Cosmos SDK voting system reflects consensus power, but doesn’t necessarily reflect informed governance participation. Did you know that a jailed validator’s votes don’t count (together with all their stakers votes)? This highlights some limitations in the current model that only inherits from the…
Excerpt (1193 of 2996 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
During a discussion with @BendyOne , a critical issue emerged regarding vote instructions and their potential for unintended consequences. The current guidance encourages voters to select “Yes” for their preferred candidate and “Abstain” for the remaining options. However, a crucial detail appears to be missing – the impact of not voting on the remaining candidates. While the instructions might imply that not voting is equivalent to abstaining, there’s a significant difference when validators are involved. By not voting, we effectively cede our voting power to the validator we stake with. This ambiguity has the potential to affect the outcome of the vote. Even I, initially under the impression that not voting mirrored abstaining, failed to engage fully with the process. To ensure a fair and transparent voting process, I strongly urge you to revise the instructions and explicitly state that all voters must choose an option for every candidate, be it “Yes,” “Abstain,” (or even “No/NWV”, although I still stand that validators should refrain from voting “No/NWV”) This will empower voters to exercise their full influence and prevent unintentional consequences. I…
Excerpt (1189 of 1269 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
May I check that you’ve seen my above message.
We noticed the issue while checking the Osmosis proposals for choosing the Canonical Ethereum Bridge Provider, which had similar wording:
Only YES votes will be counted. Voting NO, NO WITH VETO, or ABSTAIN will have no effect on which bridge is adopted.
However, it also noted that voting “NO” could remove your voting weight from your validator’s potential “YES” vote on proposals you don’t support.
(However, one reason to vote NO might be to remove your voting weight from your validator’s potential YES vote on any of these proposals that you do not support.)
You can see it on Osmosis Proposal #206.
This crucial detail seems absent in the current proposals (920-922), which simply say to vote “YES” for one preferred candidate.
Please vote YES only on one proposal—for the candidate you support.
Could you please advise on how you plan to address this issue and inform the community that “NO” or “ABSTAIN” options exist to remove their voting weight from validator’s potential “YES” votes on proposals they oppose?
Thank you.
Regards,
arlai
@Damien @Syed @neshtedle
Please see proposal above.
Validators can revote their vote. I suggest Citadel1 change Yes 922 to Abstain in the interim, and once they feel their voting has cleared their internal conflicts checks, they can revote Abstain to Yes 922.
I think this is fair.
How long until Citadel collected enough feedback and where can I see the feedback to be sure it’s not made up?
Like, guys, do you and your football club vote on the referee who’s gonna lead the game and act like that’s a normal process?
AADAO’s choices shape Cosmos culture. It’s not merely a victim of the culture it bemoans. It can and should do better. The culture will not shift or evolve until incidental favoritism in the eco is minimized, if not eradicated. Quite simply, preferring friends and acquaintances is cronyism, and corruption is the enemy of development. • AADAO needs more technical reviewers. • It needs more reviewers who are independent of the engineers already benefiting the most from Cosmos’ largest sources of funding: Hub and the ICF. AADAO gains reputation and resilience through decision-making that is removed from incumbent teams and agendas. It’s critical to develop an impartial process that invites diverse and qualified contributors. To achieve this, the review process must include less politically opinionated technical “specialists,” and the application process must become more transparent. I ran for oversight because I believe the biggest opportunity for the desired cultural change lies with the 980k $ATOM in its arsenal. And how it’s used. Don’t blame the attitudes in the community when you play a role in shaping community perception and response. This is not…
Excerpt (1188 of 1602 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hi everyone,
I’d like to inform the community that I updated the tool I mentioned previously, which now allows to separate the results in different categories, for each proposal:
- The VP coming from voters,
- The VP coming from the validator’s self-stake,
- The VP coming from the validator’s delegators that did not express their vote on the proposal
I double checked and it matches the results from Elections dashboard, so I suppose it’s quite correct.
Please find below a summary of the Yes votes (showing only voting power) for all three proposals from 25 minutes ago. It’s a large picture, please click on it and zoom in for the information you want.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
arlai
Thank you very much @arlai-mk!
The sheet also shows you how validators voted btw.
As for validator voting – exclusive ‘Yes’ votes are as follows (Yes’ to only one prop):
920: 20 vals
921: 2 vals
922: 6 vals
Hey there sir,
I’d like to say that this study you’ve been doing is probably the most significant event in the history of Cosmos governance.
In fact I never expected to see a skew so large.
Kind of sad… community oversight not being elected by the community but by a few big vals…
Would be interesting to apply Quadratic Voting and the Power tax to see what it would have done.
Hi @Cosmos_Nanny,
Unfortunately, the sheet as an image may not be easy to navigate. I’m not sure if I am allowed to upload any other format than pictures, though.
Please see below the accurate number of validators exclusive “Yes” votes (as of the time of my previous post):
Also, for information, it has changed since my last post, and the results from 15 minutes ago are:
With the current total tally being:
Regards,
arlai
Is it possible to have an update on this issue by the end of business today? It’s been a week. @Syed
Question for @clydedev
If voting ended now, would you feel like the majority of the community elected you?
1000009869 1080×1052 132 KB Conflicts of interest (COIs) arise when personal interests interfere with professional responsibilities, potentially leading to biased decisions. Best practices for managing COI address both actual conflicts and the appearance of conflicts to maintain integrity and trust within and between public facing organizations. Citadel operates with an unsophisticated & limited scope of qualifying conflicts, I provided my reasoning here , here , and here . Citadel’s focus on direct and definite COIs as expressed by @JohnMontagu and @neshtedle are simply misguided. Best practices involve proactive and preemptive measures to avoid even the perception of potential conflicts. Perception Matters but Maybe it Doesn’t Matter to Citadel Public Trust : The mere appearance of a conflict can be as damaging as an actual conflict because it erodes trust and confidence. Reputation : Managing both real and perceived conflicts is crucial for maintaining reputation. But maybe the val just doesn’t care. Preventive Measures are Proactive not Reactive Proactive Policies : Implementing audits and well developed policies on COIs helps deter both actual and…
Excerpt (1191 of 3758 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Performing an internal COI check by people that have no experience with such matters and are not lawyers is comical and farcical. US regulators have published volumes on conflicts of interest. Cosmos may not have a federal functional regulator for now, but regulations will eventually come online covering this very topic and governance in PoS networks more broadly - only a matter of when not if. This our chance to do things transparently and compliantly with the established COI rules on the books, yet people choose the opposite. Unfortunate to see.
Hey @Cosmos_Nanny thanks for sharing your reply here. Here are my thoughts: Cosmos_Nanny: tl;dr: We can disagree. But Citadel is wrong. You’re absolutely right, we can disagree. And maybe you’re right, Citadel is wrong. But Citadel could just as well be right in their approach to this. At this point we do not know who’s right, simply because the Cosmos Hub community hasn’t established guidelines for what constitutes a COI in an election. What I know for sure though, is that: automatically assuming that I’m right or automatically assuming that the opposite party isn’t, is wrong. And it’s the wrong approach to governance. Maybe our assessment of the situation is wrong. Maybe your claims are unfounded. But until we have established guidelines that have been pre-approved by the majority, all we can do is nurture the debate around the topic, explain the rationale behind our opinions and keep an open mind. Perhaps it would also help to share our voting rationale. it might help advance the debate around what’s a COI in similar cases for future reference: As a validator, we have governance responsibilities to our delegators to vote for what we believe is best for…
Excerpt (1197 of 6487 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Real quick, can you define majority? ‘Guidelines that are Pre approved by majority’
Just asking, because currently the majority (counted by wallets and validators) is in favor of Grace. Just saying. So would be cool to hear your definition because otherwise we might be running in circles forever.
JohnMontagu: And maybe you’re right, Citadel is wrong. But Citadel could just as well be right in their approach to this. C1’s interpretation of conflicts of interest (COIs) is incorrect. COIs are not a matter of personal or team interpretation but are defined by objective standards that recognize both actual and perceived conflicts . The modern system of corporate governance is built on carefully developed statutes, sophisticated legal rulings, and extensive practical experience. This framework provides clear and consistent guidelines on what COIs are, how they manifest, and what they look like. If you are unfamiliar with this extensive body of literature, I strongly encourage you to become informed. Objectively, you are entangled in what can be perceived as a material conflict of interest. A material conflict refers to a conflict of interest that is significant enough to potentially influence the actions, decisions, or integrity of an individual or organization. This type of conflict is considered substantial and can have a serious impact on the fairness and objectivity of decision-making processes. Your material conflict has nothing to do with whether C1 has…
Excerpt (1197 of 2353 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
JohnMontagu:You only brought up the COI claims after C1 voted for another candidate and not during the pre-vote discussions
· You’re trying to lobby validators to change their vote by misinterpreting on-chain data
Also wrong. I’m not lobbying anyone. Not even you.
I’m merely informing you, your team, and the community a COI exists.
The correct vote for any validator directly or indirectly associated with a part time or full time contributor to AADAO is to vote abstain on all three proposals, or don’t vote at all.
JohnMontagu:The fact that:
· You only brought up the COI claims after C1 voted for another candidate and not during the pre-vote discussions
Your assertion is incorrect. I raised this issue as a potential concern before the election.
- The issue was discussed in the #AADAO topic channel of Cosmonaut HQ Telegram chat on May 1st, with participation from several current and former members of the AADAO team.
- During the “Meet the Candidates” Twitter space, I also asked the AADAO team if they would enforce the informal recusal standard that was in effect during Proposals 95 and 865. AADAO’s response was that they “trust” the validators to self-police. This response (to me) implied that best practices had already been demonstrated by affiliated validators through two proposals, making an explicit policy seemingly unnecessary.
To C1’s credit, you initially voted correctly by abstaining on all three proposals. However, on the 13th, you changed your vote. It is not too late to revert to your initial correct voting stance.
JohnMontagu: I think the expression I have used is: “Having reason to be biased” (understandably). Which, in this case, refers to having an ulterior motive rather than exercising objective reasoning on who’s the best candidate for the position. Respectfully, I already shared what I believe is “objective reasoning.” Many times. Read all my responses to you and @neshtedle above. I definitely recognize my risk to partiality, but for this reason, I have tried to communicate my points in a manner that might trigger a productive conversation that helps your team revisit the wisdom of your team’s voting behavior. But our (you and me) interactions have been non productive due to what can be described as avoidance, and baseless assertions made by you. Particularly, the assertion that I’m “biased.” Stop saying I’m biased – or speaking from a place of bias . I sincerely do not believe that’s my motivation, here. When I began speaking on Twitter regarding C1’s vote, bear in mind that 920 held a ~8M $ATOM lead over 922. Screenshot 2024-05-22 at 5.41.29 PM 1920×1445 103 KB Screenshot 2024-05-22 at 5.41.45 PM 1920×1344 88.4 KB Don’t get it twisted . Even…
Excerpt (1198 of 2111 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
JohnMontagu:You’re trying to lobby validators to change their vote by misinterpreting on-chain data
This is quite the charge.
When did I misinterpret on-chain data to “lobby validators?”
Show. Rather than accuse.
That’s their style, it seems. Another accusation by Reena was that she was ‘harassed’ because she was ‘bombed on X and the C1 tg group’ by I guess you or me - for asking her questions and start a discussion about what’s happening.
She ‘corrected’ her wording into being ‘forced to change C1 vote’. Terrible behavior.
Q: C1 said they’ll review the forum. Grace says it is IN FACT a material conflict of interest. This is more important than any amount of people saying ‘please abstain because we think it’s bad’. Coi is a red flag.
think c1 should keep its word and have its decision reviewed. But it should be done properly. Utilizing a qualified independent person to analyze. Not some random person not employed by c1. And while the voting is being reviewed for conflict, c1 should just change vote to ABSTAIN 922. If an independent review says voting is ok, change it back before vote period ends.
if Grace is right (which I believe 100%) C1 shouldn’t debate wether to change the vote or not. unless C1 wants to set an example of Governance abuse in Cosmos. Additionally AADAO would look as bad for not stepping in since Reena is part of AADAO.
C1 is this a joke to you? You are talking about whether it’s a COi or not so you post a poll with 3 names and abstain?
What is the vote supposed to showcase? How many individuals vote for which option? Do you expect only your community to participate in the vote? What people think what you should vote for? What they think what you voted for?
It should be two options: is there a COi or not.
Also, in times where you can just buy bots ( there’s not a single comment except for mine ) how much does the vote actually show whatever you wanted to find out btw Your own posts are liked by only fans bots.
Get someone who checks whether there’s a COi or not.
And if you want to ask your delegators directly you should cast the vote in your group (that is dead).
With all due respect but if this post is the product of you reviewing the case and the allegation = post a meaningless poll without instruction what the vote is about - then you’re clearly even less in the position to even decide on your own wether the allegation is wrong or right.
I agree.
C1 team, you didn’t establish a clear question, and just embedded a poll with response options.
It’s very confusing.
Based on your wording and placement of the poll, it sounds like you’re asking community how they voted.
How do you know how much skin in the game the candidates have?
Also, what does ‘in the front of the line’ mean?
I believe Grace was as ‘in front of the line’ as one can be when at ‘war’ with Jae Kwon. Why? For holding AiB accountable. (Remember what oversight is about) whereas, I didn’t know who Clyde was before this post. And neither did anyone I talked to.
- would you say, the best oversight for Apple is the person with most Apple Stocks and who works for a company that’s building stuff for apple? Like let’s say camera lenses not made by apple (just an example, trying capture the validators - cosmos relationship)? Why would it matter how many apple stocks someone has?
Please explain how you know that Clyde has the most skin in the game. I’d love to know.
Hey StunZeed,
StunZeed:Also, what does ‘in the front of the line’ mean?
It means currently holding a role that contributes to the Hub.
In no way do I question Grace’s contributions to the Hub but the difference to us is ‘was’ and ‘is’.
StunZeed:Please explain how you know that Clyde has the most skin in the game. I’d love to know.
I think you’re referring to financial “skin in the game”, which is not what we’re referring to. My apologies, we should have clarified!
By ‘skin in the game’, we mean Reputational Skin in the Game. As a team member of one of the largest validators of the Hub, Clyde puts his entire reputation and that of SG1’s on the line as member of the committee. Therefore, in our opinion he is the most likely to act in the best interest of the Hub.
I hope I answered your questions!
To your second point. It’s true, Grace is currently not employed in Cosmos, but she’s practicing oversight of AADAO for more than a year. As a result she was offered the job oversight directly by AADAO. I think spending your free, unpaid time, for months, to ‘deal’ with AADAO is unbeaten when it comes to proving you really want the job done. Question: why do you delete the poll, and how do you think does this behavior enforce confidence? It already took so much time since you (C1) promised to review everything, collect feedback. If the poll showed anything, than that your position as Gov Lead isn’t well executed. Poll was terrible, but it was also PROVING that however the voters interpreted the poll, they raised their voice for abstain. More % votes for abatian / Grace than for Clyde. Holding your word would mean to finally abstain. No matter who posted the poll, it’s in your responsibility that it’s correct. Can’t blame and social media lead for this. So, for real now, are you just gonna find a way to make it sound like the people you ask, your community, actually believe that there’s no coi when you just showcased that you don’t even know how to ask the question right?…
Excerpt (1198 of 1562 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
JohnMontagu:By ‘skin in the game’, we mean Reputational Skin in the Game. As a team member of one of the largest validators of the Hub, Clyde puts his entire reputation and that of SG1’s on the line as member of the committee
To me, this is sufficient proof you do not understand material conflicts at all. Or how legit and professional concerns for one’s reputation manifest.
A person with minimum concern for “reputational skin” would have asked their employer to abstain.
Rather than passively abiding with employer’s utterly dissgracefull participation. Pun intended.
C1 revoted 9 hrs following SG1’s vote.
One can argue, neither validator operation is positioned well to sell “we care about our reputation” seriously. Y’all behaving like you’re above accountability. And I suppose that’s the point of having friends in oversight places.
It’s not very surprising that the centralized forces try as much as they can to gather more influence and power. I’m still disappointed though 
Def not surprising. But bc it’s not surprising doesn’t mean we be indifferent to it. Centralization no bueno. It invites regulatory scrutiny.
We all need to care more. Caring doesn’t mean micro managing. It means cultivating a wisdom to express share of mind on the things that really matter, objectively. When I give voice to an issue, it usually involves issues of organizational and operational integrity. Because integrity matters. All the time. Integrity is paramount. It’s the intensity that sets the foundation for everything. We are made through how we live. And what we make expresses how we be living. Thus, it’s no surprise to me that many Cosmos products bear the marks of fragmentation and insularity that bears symmetry to an overly self righteous, intersubjective, and “chosen” culture. We need to get back to integrity and strive for meritocracy. Funding teams and ideas with $ATOM that chase real-ness and real need. Fund projects with competitive liveness that challenges incumbent safety and authority biases. Cosmos tech doesn’t excite because it feels overly pedantic, sanctimonious and inaccessible. It’s a reflection of the code owners who keep it alive. I think, as a community – we can take a huge step forward if we open up to the simple fact that the source of careful and bold conversations, be…
Excerpt (1198 of 1387 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
At this point it’s save to say that C1 has been lying.
They were at no point interested in considering changing their vote.
They said they will collect feedback in order to reconsider to abstain. They did NOTHING, except for putting up an embarrassing poll on X which had an outcome that clearly says that their vote is wrong.
Here’s what their admin says:
For somebody who has the name Gov Lead @JohnMontagu it is unacceptable to just ‘screw this up’. It was supposed to be your job and you didn’t hold your word. I am pretty sure that was on purpose. Shame on you and your validator. Shame on Reena too as she as a founder and AADAO member should de better than just watch their Gov Lead ‘screw this up’ in an election for which aadao praise themselves.
This has been very interesting to follow. Congratulations to all the candidates for hard-fought campaigns.
Shout out to the other candidates in Cosmos Hub’s first election, @Matt_Brown @clydedev . It was great to meet both of you through this experience and wishing you both all the best. The “narrative” for my campaign wrote itself during the 14 day vote period. We had unprecedented turn out and engagement from voters and validators – yesterday’s outcome is a strong mandate to take conflicts of interest seriously. Beyond an election to the Oversight committee, it was a referendum vote on what needs to change with how we steward development using community pool funds. The message is clear. Keep is clean, and fair. I do not support transparency measures for transparency’s sake. Meaningful behavioral and organizational changes to the visibility of AADAO operations will translate into operational efficiency for all – AADAO spends less time answering questions (with visibility and availability of information), and the community can begin generating confidence in a team that has earned their trust. I wish to emphasize, oversight exists as a guardrail – should not be a micromanager. This role exists to vet valid concerns from the community. My ability to amplify community concerns…
Excerpt (1195 of 1616 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Congratulations to Grace, also known as @Cosmos_Nanny , on her marathon-like effort in winning the recent election. This process was not without challenges, including conflicts and political maneuvering. However, we should all be grateful for the exceptional level of transparency provided by blockchain technology during these complex votes. Cosmos is a trailblazer in this governance space.
In close-call situations, there will inevitably be individuals who are unhappy with the outcome. While this may be disappointing, it is crucial to remember that the advanced societies we live in today have progressed due to the acceptance of election results, regardless of personal alignment.
We have created an on-chain democracy, where rules are transparent, votes are cryptographically secure, and outcomes are determined through decentralized consensus.
Let’s all move forward now!
Govmos
Thank you for your words @Govmos . If you have specific insights or recommendations as to how we can have a fairer, smoother election process next go around, please consider contributing your thoughts here: AADAO Oversight Election Retro: Report & Recommendations Conversation To capture and organize the lessons learned from staging the first election using Cosmos governance, a retrospective report should be developed with detailed recommendations. This report would systematically document the entire election process, identifying both strengths and areas for improvement. Key recommendations would include e.g., enhancing voter education on governance procedures, voting options, implementing/enforcing clearer conflict of interest guidelines, and improving the transpare… From my perspective, allowing validators to self police conflicts of interest was an error. Conflicts are not a matter of interpretation. There are objective standards that help us identify when conflicts exist, and several validators voted with preference despite material conflicts existing. Abuse of vote options for bias signaling was also an issue – and we should explore ways an election…
Excerpt (1199 of 1776 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Govmos:In close-call situations
Just curious, how is the election outcome a “close call?” 920 won with a margin of 5,439,569 ATOMs.
Dear Cosmos Community Members,
I will be posting an agenda of what has been conveyed to me as priorities for the Community Member to Oversight to pursue (sometime next week upon completing “soft onboarding calls” with AADAO).
I’ll also be sharing details for my “community office hours,” and how you can best reach me with any concerns you have.
Thank you sincerely for the opportunity to represent the community voice – I will do my best. Am very much looking forward to working with the AADAO team.
I was about to say that. Wasn’t really a ‘close call’.
And yes! Self policing validators is a no no. Specially when it only takes a handful of validators that don’t self police and you can have like a completely outcome.
I think what you mean is that it was a “tight”/competitive race. Which it was.
“Close call” implies the winning margin was much smaller. Very different meaning.
Please see updates here: AADAO Oversight
