September 10, 2024 AADAO Oversight Committee Special Report: Notification Regarding Proposed Bonus Methodology, Alleged Misconduct and/or Mismanagement Involving the General Manager (GM), and Governance Concerns Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background III. Oversight Decision to Withhold Approval for Proposed Bonus Methodology IV. Withholding Reasoning V. 2024 Team Compensation: Salary Base + Retention Bonuses VI. What Did Cosmos Hub Governance Approve? VII. Alleged Misconduct and/or Mismanagement Involving the GM VIII. GM’s Interference with Oversight IV. GM’s Proposal X. Conclusion I. Executive Summary This communication serves two vital purposes: • To formally notify the Cosmos Hub community of significant concerns regarding AADAO’s proposed bonus methodology and framework. • To alert the community to recent events that have substantially compromised the Oversight Committee’s ability to: a) Perform its duties effectively within AADAO’s established governance structure b) Exercise reasonable checks and balances c) Review and investigate alleged misconduct and/or mismanagement involving the General Manager (GM), Youssef Amrani. These…

Excerpt (1198 of 30882 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Tl;dr: The Oversight Committee is withholding approval for AADAO’s proposed bonus methodology. Key concerns : • Inappropriate use of bonuses as variable compensation tool • Disproportionate favoring of senior roles, especially the GM • Lack of clear and objective KPIs • Misrepresentation of bonus ATOM as incentives to be used to reward exceptional performance • Misuse of bonus ATOM to remit tokens for performance that “meets expectation” (e.g., checks Slack, attends meetings etc) rather than “exceeds expectations”. In the course of evaluating the proposed bonus methodology and related frameworks, alleged misconduct/mismanagement by the GM (Youssef Amrani) came to light via testament from the Financial Controller: • Excessive self-compensation (86% increase in monthly compensation from 2023; assuming an ATOM price of $8.66, his possible total comp including base, performance-based bonuses, and retention bonus is $356,458; his current monthly comp including base and monthly retention bonus brings his total current comp to $239,256) • Intimidation and inappropriate behavior towards the Financial Controller • Involvement of his spouse in DAO internal matters and…

Excerpt (1196 of 1960 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I think there’s a simple solution.

The report speaks for itself. @Youssef must be removed immediately.
I generally believe in AADAO (because of people like Joni or Syed, or Grace), so either Youssef quits himself or a proposal votes him out.

He’s unsustainable.

(Ofc I am pretty curious how Youssef answers some obvious questions!)

Im happy that Grace got elected

We will never be able to say anything against her devotion and work

On the other side it feels like even in AADAO there is an alignment of a change needed

Focusing on the bonus methodology, agree it should be reworked. A bonus is specifically something given for exceeding expectations. If there is a need to re-evaluate base pay that is something that should definitely be addressed, however a bonus is BY DEFINITION something given as an extra and should not take into account the baseline of expected work. Appreciate the report and glad to see we all made the right decision with Grace.

Please don’t forget to provide comment RE these issues, @Patricia and I would be grateful for what y’all were thinking or were aware of when you voted Y/N/NWV/Abstain on Proposal 865:

1. Did you interpret a “YES” vote on Proposal 865 as constituting approval of all policies within the linked documents, e.g., the “AADAO Performance and Retention Bonus Protocol”?
2. In your opinion, does the passage of a proposal implicitly ratify all linked documents and their contents, or should such ratifications be more explicit? Furthermore, how is the sufficiency of document linkage determined, and where should such links be presented?
3. Was it explicitly clear that the 100,000 ATOM bonus allocation for “Performance and Retention” could be utilized as compensation tools supplementing monthly salaries?
4. Is it appropriate to use the bonus pool for contributor performance that “meets expectations” or must it be used for performance that “exceeds expectations” or more?

I imagine the GM considered the passing of proposal 865 as ratifying all attached documents, but that is my assumption. It seems that the employees are being underpaid, but it’s tough to justify bonus funds being used to make up a salary shortfall. They were approved by the community as a bonus, an incentive. I come from traditional finance, not tech and so I can’t really comment on how pay should be structured. In my experience, bonuses are given for going above and beyond what’s normally expected. With the exception of Christmas bonuses. We want people to want to participate in the AADAO in the future. We don’t want to make it an uncompetitive place for pay. If salaries were more equitable, bonuses make sense for those who went above and beyond their duties. Since salaries do not appear to be equitable in this instance, it’s hard to say what the right thing to do is. We feel that the AADAO is a necessary entity and would absolutely be opposed to dismantling it. One thing that seems clear though, is that Grace’s background seems to make her particularly well suited for this position and she seems to be doing a great job with the long-term interest of the community…

Excerpt (1197 of 1206 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmos_Nanny: Did you interpret a “YES” vote on Proposal 865 as constituting approval of all policies within the linked documents, e.g., the “ AADAO Performance and Retention Bonus Protocol ”? No Cosmos_Nanny: In your opinion, does the passage of a proposal implicitly ratify all linked documents and their contents, or should such ratifications be more explicit? No, it does not. I think that transparency would be a great idea here. Cosmos_Nanny: Furthermore, how is the sufficiency of document linkage determined, and where should such links be presented? Minimally it should be here on the cosmos Hub forum. That would be enough for me. I do understand that the dao cannot be going to governance for every decision. Cosmos_Nanny: • Was it explicitly clear that the 100,000 ATOM bonus allocation for “Performance and Retention” could be utilized as compensation tools supplementing monthly salaries? No that wasn’t explicitly clear. Cosmos_Nanny: Is it appropriate to use the bonus pool for contributor performance that “meets expectations” or must it be used for performance that “exceeds expectations”, only…

Excerpt (1197 of 1285 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Kinda think that the previous comments miss out on the major points that are concerning. IIV is why @Youssef must be removed. He sheds a bad light to ATOM. Cosmos_Nanny: The Controller further explained the origin of her professional disagreements with the GM, tracing them to February 2024. At that time, the GM had shared a document, expressly designated as “confidential,” exclusively with the Controller. This document revealed the effect of retention bonuses on monthly compensation rates. This is wild. Where the hell do you get a MONTHLY ‘thank you for keeping your 14500$ base salary job. Here, get a bonus for staying with us for another month” - bonus?? Cosmos_Nanny: Furthermore, the Controller alleged that subsequent to her conversation with the GM on this matter, she received a phone call from the GM’s spouse, which she described as aggressive, verbally abusive, and intimidating in nature. Wild again. Major red flag, abusive behavior. @Youssef so you’re sending your wife to intimidate @Patricia ? She was doing her JOB, while you were trying to get away with a monthly 20k?!! Again, must be REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. Patricia should get a…

Excerpt (1195 of 1615 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

StunZeed:

This is wild. Where the hell do you get a MONTHLY
‘thank you for keeping your 14500$ base salary job. Here, get a bonus for staying with us for another month” - bonus??

The retention bonuses are given to contributors who have been with AADAO for a minimum of one year.

20% of the bonus pool (20,000/100,000) ATOM is used for this. The amount of ATOM allocated per month for the retention bonus is based on what a contributor has a base salary on 2024.

AADAO Financial Controller strongly recommended that 2023 base salaries should be used for the retention formula, Youssef disagreed. Youssef’s wife also disagreed, and called the Financial Controller to exert her influence in the process.

This is inappropriate.

10000127331080×707 138 KB

10000127341080×1052 143 KB

10000127351080×1036 99.4 KB

10000127361080×1044 165 KB

Please carefully read the spreadsheet: [AADAO Historic Compensation and Bonus Distribution

Only retention bonuses have been distributed, hitherto.

Distribution of performance-based bonuses would have started vesting beginning Sep 1 if it weren’t for Oversight withholding approval.

Gotcha!
monthly pay makes it like a salary. I didn’t vote for that.

But at the same time it’s not worth discussing because of IIV.
At least not for his case.

• What was actually approved in Proposal 865: Voting YES will fund AADAO for 2024 with 975,811 ATOM. Nothing about bonuses, the community has clearly been misled and deceived. • Whether the bonus pool should be used for unexceptional performance: The community should carefully consider whether it is appropriate to use bonus pool. Oversight seem to have best view by the report how this could work in the future but it needs to approved through a proposal in the Cosmos governance like it should’ve in the first place. • The appropriateness of the GM’s proposal in proposing/engaging a provider to execute an investigation on the investigation: The GM’s proposal to hire an external investigator raises concerns due to potential conflicts of interest and seems like an attempt to circumvent established oversight mechanisms. This proposal should be thoroughly examined to ensure that DAO resources are not used for personal purposes or to further the GM’s own interests. I haven’t heard Youssef’s side of the story, but I don’t believe the Oversight Committee would fabricate such claims that would jeopardize their own existence and surely has all the evidences on records.…

Excerpt (1195 of 1352 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

StunZeed:

Major red flag, abusive behavior. @Youssef so you’re sending your wife to intimidate @Patricia ? She was doing her JOB, while you were trying to get away with a monthly 20k?!!

While there isn’t a recording of the actual calls that took place between Youssef’s wife and Patricia, there are records validating these calls happened. There are text messages before and after calls that also support Pati’s account of what was discussed. How is was discussed.

As to what Pati describes as a pattern of bullying and intimidation, there is evidence of this. He directs her to approve things and accuses her of “overreaching” often. It’s challenging to share constructive criticism with him because he becomes super defensive and hostile – I have actually experienced this myself.

He takes it to 0 to 60 quick.
“Are you accusing me of using AADAO as a slush fund?”
“Do you understand the disappointment you are causing by withholding contributor bonuses?”
“You’re overreaching”
“Stay in your lane”
“Are you accusing me of lacking integrity? You lack integrity.”

Hi all, I am writing here to share my deep concerns of the wild overreach path the Oversight Committee has been engaged in the past few weeks. I have been running AADAO since inception and I can confidently say the way Oversight behaves is political and not done in the best interest of AADAO and by extension the ATOM community itself. AADAO is the only organization that is fully aligned and owned by the Cosmos Hub and has been since day one a net positive for the Hub. Thank you @BlocksUnited for the kind words on AADAO. However, the situation has started to deteriorate over the past 2 months and the arrival of Grace on our Oversight. As a reminder, I was behind the initiative of creating the Oversight Committee during prop 95, which established AADAO. The objective back then was to show to the ATOM community that AADAO was a serious organization that wanted to provide the best transparency and ethical guarantees to the Hub. The lack of trust has always been an issue in the Cosmos Hub and the establishment of an Oversight and transparency function within AADAO was a direct response to this. Public scrutiny has never been a problem for AADAO or myself, as long as it is a…

Excerpt (1194 of 9867 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Youssef:

However, the situation has started to deteriorate over the past 2 months and the arrival of Grace on our Oversight.

Situation of what? Situation of the hub? Of AADAO?

Youssef:

AADAO is the only organization that is fully aligned and owned by the Cosmos Hub and has been since day one a net positive for the Hub. Thank you Block United for the kind words on AADAO.

Is it? This is what you say publicly. But beyond the public realms and in internal team calls, I have heard you invoke (frequently) the privileges and practices of a private and/or corporate entity. AADAO is not that. In reality, the manner in which you run the organization indicates the stakeholder with limited autonomy is the community. Not you.

Youssef: As a reminder, I was behind the initiative of creating the Oversight Committee during prop 95, which established AADAO. Youssef, was it a choice? From what I recall, one of the reasons your inaugural mandate received support was due to the ab initio provision of establishing an independent and functional oversight that would provide checks and balances to core DAO operations and governance. At the end of your 2023 mandate, you had no choice but to support inclusion of an elected member to your Oversight because the community had lost faith with your curation of the Oversight committee. It was perceived as anemic. The only meaningful action the Oversight committee performed first year was on account of my report to the GrantsSubDAO regarding the non viable scope proposed by Missions Publiques. A grantee which curiously received direct support from you in their reapplication efforts. Giving birth to a thing does not necessarily make you a responsible steward. This is the crux of cautionary tale that is Cosmos. Regarding Your Commitment to Oversight and Resource Allocation : • Jason Choi’s Employment : Given your stated commitment to establishing effective…

Excerpt (1199 of 2242 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Youssef:

While Oversight is supposed to represent and maximize the interests of the ATOM community, it is currently not doing so by severely disrupting the operations and morale of our team.

I’ve explained to you my position several times.

Respectfully, my job as Oversight is not an extended function of marketing or PR.
I indirectly can help accrue value to ATOM by ensuring AADAO’s resource utilization remains beyond repproach.

i was so proud Jae dropped the lawsuit, i was so proud Grace got elected

until the day i saw her never ending mission was still at play

here is another step to reach the ultimate goal

even the best intentions can be driven by a fucking wrong philosophy

even the best philosophy can be driven by some fucking bad intentions

(tried my best to talk with temperance)

Youssef:

As a reminder, I was behind the initiative of creating the Oversight Committee during prop 95, which established AADAO.

You reached out to Grace in December, asking her to join. While she refused (because you don’t get to choose who is your oversight), she proposed that the community elects a representative for the oversight role. Don’t you take credit for that.

Youssef:

Nothing forced us to do so.

I would have not voted for a second run for AADAO without an elected oversight.

Next, Grace introduced herself in the election like this:

IMG_41461290×2796 450 KB

• shouldn’t be a DAO simp, shill.
  So don’t ask her to be one. If community wanted oversight to be that, they would have voted for Clyde. (“I want to show the community that aadao is doing a good job”)

Grace at AADAO 2 months after her arrival on our Oversight. Happy burning y’all

image1474×606 81.8 KB

Is this Youssef talking or the wife?

ah and just to be clear: i’d support the way Grace works if there was 0 conflict of interest.

but sadly there is, and these true and respectable competences are wasted.

yeah, it’s sad. all this energy to just cut some heads.

I’m disappointed you feel this way.

I’ve actually really enjoyed my experience working w AADAO and getting to know the other contributors.

Our special report makes clear the concerns relating to your conduct and behaviour should not be confused with the team. And we explicitly say, in our report, that calls to dissolve the AADAO are premature and unwarranted.

Would be helpful to have your responses to the questions above.

What’s my conflict of interest?

Would be nice if this gets resolved without mud-slinging and personal attacks from everyone. Stick to facts presented and talk about how to move forward.

Agree. Than you @tknox35

It’s up to the community and AADAO contributors as to how this gets resolved (@Syed @neshtedle @CuriousJ @Carter_Lee_Woetzel @Better_Future, Jordan, Delisse, and Mark D).

As for material events and interactions relating to the alleged misconduct and mismanagement of the GM, preliminary findings from my internal review indicate that @Patricia’s account can be substantiated in meaningful part, if not in full.

This assessment is based on:

• Interviews conducted with relevant parties (names will be withheld for confidentiality concerns)
• Review of pertinent documentation
• Examination of communication records

Youssef: Conflicted Oversight Grace • Promoting a competing chain (ATONE) while holding a position in AADAO is a conflict of interest, especially knowing that the founder of ATONE is none other than JK, who decided to rage quit the ATOM community. She even dedicated to him her victory lap following her election to AADAO Oversight: Regarding the Perceived “Conflict of Interest” with AtomOne : • I nitial Directive : You initially prohibited my involvement with the AtomOne working groups. I expressed disagreement with this “directive”, as I do not perceive AtomOne as a competing project to the Hub, but rather as complementary. It’s important to note that we may have, and are allowed to have differing views on this matter. I also disagreed with what you identified as a COI. It’s not a conflict. It’s more accurate to say what you’re concerned about are optics. Again, I’m Oversight. Not your PR & Marketing. • Extent of Involvement : To provide full transparency, my involvement with AtomOne has been minimal. It consisted of having attended three working group calls in May/June 2024. Since then, the first time I participated in a GovGen Townhall was today. •…

Excerpt (1195 of 2479 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

It’s remarkable how quick you and others get distracted.

Instead of talking about how Youssef habing his wife call AADAO oversight for not allowing him a monthly retention bonus, based on his 2024 rather than 2023 salary, y’all unpack your trauma because of some Atone posts? What’s next, shall we fire Joni for shilling shitcoins from Eth and Sol?

We can post a proposal to fire Grace now ?

While doing that, let’s change AADAO to Youssef20FG

you understand nothing, dog
anyway

Screenshot_2024-09-11-22-15-15-375_com.twitter.android-edit1080×351 66.2 KB

Yea, pretty superficial tweet from goldenratio.

AADAO Oversight Special Report: GM Misconduct/Mismanagement AADAO

Regarding the Perceived “Conflict of Interest” with AtomOne: Initial Directive: You initially prohibited my involvement with the AtomOne working groups. I expressed disagreement with this “directive”, as I do not perceive AtomOne as a competing project to the Hub, but rather as complementary. It’s important to note that we may have, and are allowed to have differing views on this matter. I also disagreed with what you identified as a COI. It’s not a conflict. It’s more accurate to say what y…

AADAO has as far as I can see totally failed. It was pitched as an analogue to something like Ycombinator but has been nothing like that. I’ve spoken to guys that applied and got replies 12 weeks after. I don’t know how that is even possible with the number of full timers they apparently have. The current structure is failing and defunct. They don’t even have basic KPIs on applications. It needs reform at the very least

Grace should be allowed to do her job (if that wasn’t clear).

isnt this a picture of Youssef watching $ATOM price since he started dumping delegators liquidity onto the market?

Youssef:

image1474×606 81.8 KB

image1474×606 81.8 KB

Youssef: Anyways, this is the original situation from six months ago where Patricia holds a grudge against me, and this is the situation the Grace sniffed out thru her “investigations”, and this is now the situation that Grace has written-up in her so-called investigation without waiting to hear my side of the story to say I am unfit to serve in leadership. This is a gross mischaracterization. The basis of the internal review is the alleged misconduct/mismanagement described by @Patricia during the Aug 30th Strat Community call. Patrica was compelled to share her experience of being routinely bullied and shut down by you throughout the year because you accused her of lacking “integrity” on that call. She doesn’t lack integrity from what I’ve seen and experienced. I commend her for her resilience and commitment to doing her job despite your retaliatory behavior and threats to remove her. The issue is Youssef, you’re so maniacally defensive. You can’t hear our concerns for what they are. When we give you feedback, you take it too personally. You resort to excessive control and hostility. You say you “created” oversight, but it’s clear it can only exist under your…

Excerpt (1198 of 1557 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

AADAO hasn’t resulted in any benefits and this thread kind of highlights the needless drama it has created. Can we just entirely scrap AAdao and lower the taxes the users are paying to fund this.

AADAO hasn’t resulted in any benefits

Okay. But in case you’re actually interested in what AADAO does, the value it creates and the projects it’s funded, check out:
https://www.atomaccelerator.com/funding-dashboard/
https://www.atomaccelerator.com/funding-issued/

Can we just entirely scrap AAdao

100%. AADAO is owned by the Hub - as an ATOM staker, you are our boss. Just raise a gov prop, and the DAO contributors will abide by the outcome.

lower the taxes the users are paying to fund this

I don’t know the maths, but it’s probably something like 0.0001 cents per staked ATOM per year.
Maybe that amount is too high for bringing more utility to ATOM, accelerating its development and the growth of its ecosystem, ensuring IBC continues to function for the Cosmos Hub, and getting at least ~4.5x ROI in new airdrops for the Community Pool.

But again, as an ATOM staker, it’s definitely your perogative to dissolve AADAO, earn that extra 0.0001 cent per year, and have nothing you can do with that token bar stake and vote.

EDIT to add: this is likely my first and last public comment till the DAO collectively decides on next steps

Contributors of the Atom Accelerator DAO are currently voting on a proposal to apply an “Operational Freeze” to Youssef Amrani, Patricia Mizuki and Grace Yu - to allow the rest of the DAO to traverse the complexity of the current situation, without impacting current operations or allowing any of these 3 members to exert influence on DAO members.

Learn more here:

ATOM Accelerator (@ATOMAccelerator) on X

The messaging in the announcement is a bit misleading as it suggests the core team was caught unaware. This report is not a bombshell. Contributors were kept informed . • Report Context • It does not contain any previously undisclosed information to the core team. • Transparency in Process • Core contributors were kept fully informed throughout the report writing process. • Core team was also informed when the scope of the report changed. • We clearly communicated what information would be made public and the rationale behind it. • The report only contains verified information. • We opted to use “alleged” in our report to soften the “blow” • Publication Timeline • The publication was delayed twice at the request of the team. • These delays were granted to accommodate the team’s need for discretion. • Nature of the Report • It is inaccurate to characterize the report’s contents as “accusations.” • This is a factual report based on substantiated information. • @Patricia ’s account was not difficult to corroborate. Did not require elaborate forensics • Publication Rationale • The decision to publish was made because all information…

Excerpt (1199 of 1617 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Grace, I say this with the utmost respect for your office (and you personally), but the following is just one small extract from your report that any sane person would boil down to the word “accusation.”

Areas of Potential Misconduct and Mismanagement:

These points outline the material issues of potential violations in behavior and business practices, if the Financial Controller’s provided testimony is true.

Maybe we could have spent more time massaging the exact phrasing and wording we used. Maybe “potential” and “alleges” and “unproven statements” would have been better to use.

But seriously, I feel that you are splitting hairs now.

As the person who wrote the prop and the tweets, I apologise for offending you with the use of the word “accusation”. But I still believe the word accurately characterizes, at the very least, the quoted text above.

Edit to add:
Our statement said “…evaluate the accusations made by each party” - i.e. it ALSO refers to Youssef’s response post above.

Looking forward to when Youssef’s also sends a hate-post about that word when he sees our statement.

It’s not “splitting hairs”.
“Potential” implies possibility, not certainty.

As stated above. We still published with “potential” to buy your team more time. Whereas, I’ve been able to substantially corroborate much of @Patricia’s account.

You’re a comms guy. I know you know there’s a difference between stating “potential misconduct” and making a direct accusation – which is something we did not do.

p.s.: not a hate post. My gosh

Youssef: the investigation itself, I am more than happy to call for an independent, unbiased and qualified investigator to uncover the truth. I just don’t think the current Oversight is the right entity to do so, given the current circumstances and how conflicted it is with the only two members (Patricia and Grace), one having a grudge against me for denying her performance bonus, and two serving in the promotion of a competing project, $ATONE. • Who’s going to pay for it Youssef? I’ve been asking you this question since last Thursday. • You never denied her a performance bonus because Patricia did not ask for one. What you continue to distort is the rhetorical question she asked you to demonstrate that your KPIs are not specific or objective KPIs. A. Inadequate KPIs • The current metrics proposed by you lack the specificity and objectivity required for effective KPIs. • The criteria are too broad, potentially allowing any contributor to qualify regardless of actual performance. • This approach undermines the purpose of performance-based incentives 1000012761 1080×501 64.1 KB 1000012741 1080×386 145 KB B. Inconsistent Performance Evaluation…

Excerpt (1198 of 2071 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Why is anyone surprised at this? Several teams, including my own have been advocates against those props (at least on personal token holder level) and against keeping to spend money via multi sigs, when on chain governance exists.

If thats not enough to prove that these kinda of practices must stop asap, to add to that, i can certify, that i have had a large share of teams (including my own) being ignored, overlooked or sent away by this AADAO and its bureaucratic hassle.

This is your chain token holders. Take it back!

Hello. It should be commended AADAO formed an oversight community, though Prop#95, to voluntarily express its goodwill, and the entire staff should undeniably be compensated for great work they commit to help steward our ATOM utilization, and particularly rewarded when “exceeding expectations.” Cosmos_Nanny: document was not incorporated as a direct link within the on-chain version of the proposal text; its accessibility was limited However, moving forward, voting Cosmonauts should not have to interpret anything when reading on-chain proposals. Excluding information such as this does not exceed expectations, but should be viewed as the bare minimum. Cosmos_Nanny: Oversight Committee’s ability to: a) Perform its duties effectively within AADAO’s established governance structure b) Exercise reasonable checks and balances c) Review and investigate alleged misconduct and/or mismanagement involving the General Manager (GM), Youssef Amrani. Fascinating that Grace and Patricia are receiving this degree of backlash for performing their duties as an Oversight committee. Despite personal quarrels between the respective parties, this should not be…

Excerpt (1197 of 1426 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

We must hold them accountable for their misbehavior. Oversight on Aadao is not only been ineffective but also fundamentally flawed. Additionally, Aadao clearly has many flaws and has been misleading the community by making vague and unjust proposals. Relying on centralized or external oversight mechanisms contradicts the very principles of decentralization. We have on-chain governance and proposals that allow the community to decide in a transparent and trustless manner. Replacing these mechanisms with trust-based oversight is regressive and undermines the entire system’s integrity. We should be enhancing on-chain governance, not replacing it with centralized structures that reintroduce the very trust issues we sought to eliminate.

What would have been ‘effective’ oversight / what makes oversight ineffective in your opinion?

Oversight already was elected BY governance / the community.

Do you think that validators/the community have the skill set that is required to do proper oversight?
Also do you realize how time consuming that would be? Aadao employs would basically need to keep every single conversation/chat public, so that governance would actually know what they have to do oversight for. It doesn’t make sense.

If you read the report, would you say you would have been able to write it yourself?

Misleading the community with vague or unjust proposals undermines trust. You’re right that not every validator or community member has the skills for proper oversight, and it is time-consuming. However, the solution isn’t to centralize trust in an opaque body like Aadao. Decentralized governance requires transparency, even if it’s challenging, to prevent power imbalances. Proper communication and transparency would allow governance to oversee effectively without needing every conversation public. A forced update mechanism could be a valuable addition to Aadao governance, ensuring transparency and keeping the community informed. Regular check-ins at key milestones, where each power structure must report on progress (ex “we’ve used X ATOMs to develop Y, and the next milestone is Z”),would help maintain accountability. This approach would provide clear insight into resource allocation and project development, allowing the community to stay engaged and provide feedback throughout the process, rather than being left in the dark. It would also reinforce trust and prevent the misuse of funds or authority. Edit (After 20% of the allocated funds are used, there should be a proposal to…

Excerpt (1196 of 1309 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I shared the following message with AADAO Contributors today – am sharing here as well, as it addresses several questions addressed here and on socials: TLDR: • Oversight Role : • Our relationship – Oversight + Core DAO is not inherently tricky; complexity stems from public perception of AADAO’s Oversight Committee and internal lack of clarity as to what the organization is. • Oversight exists to enforce ethical governance and responsible resource allocation. • I strongly disagree with characterization of me seeking conflicts; my actions have been deliberate and often de-escalating. • On this occasion, we had no choice but to escalate the issue for community review due to seriousness of violations. • Special Report Publication : • Necessitated by delays in KPI delivery, transparency concerns, and substantiated misconduct findings. • Standalone report needed due to significance of issues and to avoid burying information. • Timely disclosure deemed necessary as part of oversight’s duty to the community. • AtomOne and Perceived Conflicts : • Interest in AtomOne is purely recreational and intellectual. • No economic interest or formal relationship…

Excerpt (1197 of 9425 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I have been a substantial Atom Holder Cosmoverse visitor and closely observing community member since the beginning of 2021. It is very difficult for outsiders to make a decision for one side here. Your commitment, transparency and ability to articulate this is admirable. However, the conflict of interest cannot be dismissed out of hand. Over the years, by closely observing and reading the communication, I have developed a clearly negative impression of the current main supporters of your position, such as Jae Kwon, AiB and Jacob G., who in my opinion represent predominantly destructive positions, without being able to see any positive contributions. I also don’t understand how Atone can be both useful and complementary to the Atom community. Your decision to join forces with these people can, in view of your position, be described as very unfortunate at best.
I very much hope that an agreement can be reached, especially with regard to the disputed payments, and that the work of AADao, which I consider to be fruitful, can soon continue without negative sentiment.

She could be working full time for Polkadot and I couldn’t care less. What she brings to AADAO is VALUE because she’s doing the JOB. (Youssef instead would plant a senior oversight who he knew wouldn’t have the capacity to do the job. He’d pay him nevertheless and reduce his salary twice after it was called out that he doesn’t work at all). Further talking about what Atone is and what it’s not is just distraction from why we’re here. We’re here because Youssef gets rightfully called out, and he hates it. I am sure he wishes he could pay an oversight who would only say yes and not work at all, like he did in the past. What the community should understand is that it should be our top priority, that the elected oversight holds AADAO contributors accountable. It’s THEM who should add value to Atom. Graces job isn’t to be an Atom Moongirl just so you can like her for holding the same bags. That’s our interest in oversigh: do oversight. It would only then be an coi or a ‘Trojan horse’, if she’s purposely not doing her job and let people like Youssef get away with his shit. Btw, if you believe that participating in an Atone call to find out what they do is contributing or even…

Excerpt (1199 of 1366 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

TiredBuilder: operating in good faith. This report is about a GM who’s not acting in good faith. Read the report, deal with the facts. TiredBuilder: How is it that every single thing you are involved with ends in misery for all involved? Because cosmos is full of people who can’t deal with criticism or being called out for it. If leading cosmos people started to learn the difference between confrontation (fact based) and fighting, nothing would ‘end in misery’. TiredBuilder: facts that you have brought to light here. Since you’re calling them facts yourself, how can you talk about Youssef operating in good faith? She’s paid to present us facts. Jfc, don’t do shit and you don’t get a report. TiredBuilder: what impresses me is simple solutions to complex problems. With you, it is the opposite. Your superpower is escalating any issue, regardless of size, into nuclear situations. It is so, so distracting for those of us trying to do our jobs. Again, you talked about how she presents facts. It’s not her job to present the solution. That’s up to she DAO, or actually the community who paid for AADAO. I give you one tho:…

Excerpt (1198 of 2624 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for your opinion. I agree with you for the most part and certainly don’t have enough information to clearly take a side, so I just wanted to point out these points that I’ve noticed, which I think other community members who are having trouble deciding might find helpful. I disagree with your assertion that I would like an “Atom moongirl” for oversight and especially with your assertion that my observation of which of those I perceive to be more constructive support Graces’ approach is “off topic”. This is rather one of the most valuable information we community members have.

Thanks for joining the forum two hrs ago to share your perspective.

10000128121080×550 70.7 KB

CALCVLVS:

deciding

Deciding on what? Whether who wins? Grace vs Youssef? Or whether how to deal with Youssef?

The issue that should be discussed is what is written in the report. And I see people who are being distracted by Atone curiosity or the fact that she’s calling bs out, NOT discussing the bullshit.

We’re talking about a GM who has his wife make intimidating phone calls, why is barely anyone talking about that?!

TiredBuilder:

Your superpower is escalating any issue, regardless of size, into nuclear situations.

To be clear, are you saying that Oversight should not have published the report?
Given the seriousness of possible violations concerning resource management, we felt a duty to report.

TiredBuilder:

hard working members of the organizations you villainize

Not villainizing.

Please read X. Conclusion.
Here’s an extract.

“Therefore, we deem it necessary to caution against precipitous or premature calls for the dissolution or termination of AADAO, as such actions would be unwarranted at this juncture.”

Youssef: has been since day one a net positive for the Hub. Opinion is your own. You’re clearly out of touch with the community, they’re divided. I know Atom Bulls who fantasize to defund you. Youssef: that AADAO was a serious organization Asking Grace in December 2023 if she wants to join the oversight board was not a serious move to begin with. The election tho, that SHE proposed instead, was the right thing to do. Youssef: transparent and an open book to the community Why are your wallets not doxxed? Youssef: Nothing forced us to do so. After a terrible first year, paying a non working senior oversight and giving grants to terrible projects, you had to level up your org. Oversight election was a good factor to sell the community another round of AADAO. Youssef: While Oversight is supposed to represent and maximize the interests of the ATOM community, it is currently not doing so by severely disrupting the operations and morale of our team. The interest of a community elected and and representing OVERSIGHT, is to hold you accountable. Ofc you mark it as disruptive. Solution: don’t have your…

Excerpt (1195 of 3937 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Youssef:

If a member of Oversight commits an ethics violation by demanding bonus compensation and also manipulation of the formula of calculating retention, the community needs to see the full information about this situation, before reac

• No one demanded a bonus compensation, certainly not an Oversight member.

• The person who “manipulated” the retention formula is you. The previous Oversight Coordinator and the Financial Controller recommended it’s appropriate to use 2023 base compensation rates rather than 2024 compensation rates.

CALCVLVS:

Your decision to join forces with these people can, in view of your position, be described as very unfortunate at best.

It’s beyond an exaggeration to say I joined “forces with”. My “involvement” – hesitate to even describe it as such, is minimal at best. It’s not substantial.

Can you explain to me why AtomOne is a competitor to the hub? Is Litecoin a competitor to Bitcoin?

The more I read about this whole thing, the more I am convinced that you were absolutely right to make this report public. It is infuriating to learn about these types of behaviors, and at this stage I can’t think of any arguments or new elements that could make it look less damning. Not only is it mismanagement and misappropriation of funds, it also shines a very bad light on the whole ecosystem and we don’t need that. Nevertheless I do share some views with @CALCVLVS . You have an enormous impact and reach on the community, and this “recreational curiosity” of yours can easily pass as an endorsement. Since AtomOne is born as a direct result of JK’s disagreement with prop 848, and explicitly intends to fullfill the “original vision” of Cosmos… yes, it is objectively kind of a competitor. You see how the combination of these two items can raise concerns and subject you to an intense scrutiny given your unique position. Not that it is in any way relevant to the matter at hand or should be used to question your integrity (we all support projects that are actually competing or at least have a similar scope), but it is inevitably an argument that will be made to try and…

Excerpt (1195 of 1310 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmos_Nanny:

It’s beyond an exaggeration to say I joined “forces with”. My “involvement” – hesitate to even describe it as such, is minimal at best. It’s not substantial.

I agree that this was an inappropriate wording. I hope you can understand that I had a bad feeling when I looked at those I have highlighted, who are a key group in supporting your approach, correct me if I’m wrong there.
Of course, this is not nearly enough, but merely an indication for me to be cautious.

Cosmos_Nanny:

Can you explain to me why AtomOne is a competitor to the hub? Is Litecoin a competitor to Bitcoin?

Yes, I would say Litecoin is largely a competitor to Bitcoin. Especially as the liquidity is split between these similar assets. Also, even if the application/investment basis is not congruent, a (successful) atom fork would cause further confusion - especially for potential investors outside the ecosystem.
Therefore, I think it is quite likely that a significant competitive situation will occur with Atone. Especially as voting behaviour is going to be penalised accordingly, which I think is a very bad practice. If this becomes the norm, most will only vote in such a way that they get the most out of it, not what makes sense for the community in the long term.

Thank you for sharing. I’m an elected representative of Cosmos governance – and if the community overwhelmingly feels my extracurricular interest (hesitate to even describe it as involvement) in AtomOne is an issue I must respect the community. Full stop. Notwithstanding these concerns, it’s imperative to maintain focus on the substance of the Oversight report. Our reporting obligation to the community supersedes – and guided by this principle, we published our report. Any attempts to divert attention through specious arguments and conspiracy theories are unproductive. Please note the report’s publication was predicated on the existence of supporting evidence and interviews . Our utilization of qualifying language (e.g., “alleged,” “possible,” “potential”) was an "accommodation * extended to the contributor team, positioning them to buy more time for their internal assessment (although literally at Oversigh’s reputational expense). Upon reflection, this linguistic caution used, was an unnecessary and possibly, detrimental accommodation, as our findings are, in fact, conclusive rather than speculative . Furthermore, in the course of our review of all personnel-related…

Excerpt (1199 of 2265 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

UPDATE RE AADAO Oversight Coordinator Role

The Oversight Coordinator position has remained vacant since June.

On August 30th, I formally advised AADAO’s Strategy Committee to request Youssef’s immediate recusal from any processes related to the selection and hiring of a new Oversight Coordinator.

This recommendation was made in light of the ongoing internal review into allegations of misconduct against Youssef.

The intent of my recommendation was to ensure the integrity of the hiring process for this critical role.

However, I learned, that on the very same day, August 30th, Youssef reportedly extended an “offer” for this position.

It is crucial to note that, according to my understanding of AADAO’s protocols, any such offer requires formal ratification through an all-DAO vote to be considered valid and binding. The all-DAO vote has not taken place yet.

CALCVLVS:

looked at those I have highlighted, who are a key group in supporting your approach

Can you kindly rephrase? I don’t understand this statement. Thank you in advance.

Cosmos_Nanny:

Would be helpful to have your responses to the questions above.

StunZeed:

Why don’t we let the community decide if a 17k per month compensation with atom at 4$ is cool?

Looking forward to the GM’s responses and for all this to be resolved respectfully, efficiently and effectively. Still baffled Grace’s value is being questioned, however.

Sorry for that. I was trying to refer to my feelings about the group of people I mentioned in my first post, who I felt were not necessarily favourable to the (further) development of the Cosmoshub through AADao.

That’s wild. It’s kinda like if you don’t like the work that your police is doing (to you), you get a new police. I can imagine that in such a job interview, the main goal is to find out wether the new police would do their job with the same integrity as the current one, OR if he (Youssef) could away with his shit. Like, no Reports or questions asked. (I am aware that there’s differences between oversight and police. But you get the idea) Note: IMG_4250 1290×2796 436 KB Because of this a community elected position can’t be removed by the Dao itself. AADAO is not a private org. I don’t know how @Youssef thinks this would work, but Grace getting the job is a ON CHAIN decision. AADAO doesn’t govern the chain. Therefore only the CHAIN can remove her. Youssef might wanna spend more of the money the community gave to him to hire people to do the same job that Grace is currently doing. I don’t think that helps him tho. I agree wirh @highstakes observation that the shift of focus from the report to Grace is textbook cosmos tactics. It’s easier to get a mob because there’s a connection to the evil „EnEmY“ of the hub (Jae), than have the community read the report and…

Excerpt (1194 of 1217 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmos_Nanny:

Is Litecoin a competitor to Bitcoin?

Screenshot_2024-09-14-18-53-34-093_com.twitter.android-edit1080×390 126 KB

Screenshot_2024-09-14-18-53-48-255_com.twitter.android-edit1080×322 86.5 KB

Screenshot_2024-09-14-19-11-07-919_com.twitter.android-edit1055×1088 171 KB

btw, if Gnoland was supposed to compete (who received his bribe exit drop?), why not AtomOne with IBC enabled?
you must be naive or somehow dishonest to believe otherwise.

Cosmos_Nanny: Please note the report’s publication was predicated on the existence of supporting evidence and interviews . Our utilization of qualifying language (e.g., “alleged,” “possible,” “potential”) was an "accommodation * extended to the contributor team, positioning them to buy more time for their internal assessment (although literally at Oversigh’s reputational expense). Upon reflection, this linguistic caution used, was an unnecessary and possibly, detrimental accommodation, as our findings are, in fact, conclusive rather than speculative . I take it you have read my comments in the French TG group, otherwise the coincidence is uncanny. Yes to all that. I personally don’t feel like I need to view the evidence myself at this point; unless others claim that it happened differently I’ll consider your report true and factual (especially since Youssef did not dispute your account of the events themselves). But I suppose you are prepared to make it public in case it becomes necessary. Anyway. The process is ongoing and I expect that things will come to a conclusion in the coming days, hopefully without the community having to resort to governance or any…

Excerpt (1196 of 1396 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I should add at least a few thoughts on the content of the report. I apologise in advance for any further inappropriate wording - English is only one of several second languages I currently use. Briefly about my background, in terms of relevant experience, here: I have been an investor for a good 40 years, I used to attend the annual general meetings of stock corporations frequently and tried to help shape decisions before voting, unfortunately usually with little success, as most other participants were mainly interested in the free meal. In addition to software development, I also worked in bank controlling supervision for securities traders. Because of these experiences, I believe that OC governance is only suitable for assessing individual work performance to a very limited extent. We therefore absolutely need a competent and incorruptible oversight who is committed to the cause. In my opinion, we should have found this with you. On the accusations levelled at the GM: The basic problem seems to me to be that there is no transparent, sensible regulation on the distribution of bonuses. In addition, the basic salary should be paid out in a non-volatile asset if this is not…

Excerpt (1196 of 2039 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

CALCVLVS:

In my opinion, we should have found this with you

Show me how I have been corrupt, and I will resign.
If I were corrupt, we would not have published the report.

As said, many times – Oversight has a mandate. And we take our reporting obligation concerning resource utilization seriously.

CALCVLVS:

basic salary should be paid out in a non-volatile asset if this is not yet the case.

Base Salaries are disbursed monthly as USDC.
All bonuses (retention, performance) are paid out in ATOM (there are no team/individual bonuses vesting bc Oversight withheld approval; the only bonus paid out currently is the retention bonus).

Please see Historic Compensation and Bonus Distribution spreadsheet, which was linked in OP.

highstakes: I take it you have read my comments in the French TG group, otherwise the coincidence is uncanny. Yes, I did see your comment in Cosmos France. The issue with qualifying language has been discussed on CT and other TG groups as well. During my review process, I successfully secured interviews with relevant parties except for Youssef. Despite his initial verbal agreement to cooperate, he ultimately did not participate. It’s important to note that Youssef’s interview would not significantly alter the findings, as there is substantial supporting evidence corroborating Pati’s account. However, Youssef’s refusal to be interviewed and his subsequent actions indicate, and also reinforce Pati’s account of Youssef’s pattern of obstructing oversight members: • He actively avoided communication with me. • On September 5th, he unilaterally cancelled Oversight’s review. • He demanded an external investigator, implying that the considerable cost of an ombudsman’s services should be covered by DAO resources. We had also previously established team-wide protocols for discussing the issues of misconduct and mismanagement. All DAO members had agreed that…

Excerpt (1190 of 1960 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

IMG_42791290×2796 221 KB

IMG_42781290×2796 236 KB

Anyone knows who’s the admin of the forum?
This account who only joined to write one comment here deleted the comment / or the comment seemed to be removed by admin.

Usually when you delete a comment, you can still scroll to that comment and it says ‚it’s Deleted‘

But his comment nowhere.

Okay, so can admins remove entire comments?

Only way I can explain that yea. I mean admin powers must be good for something, and I can imagine removing entire comments being one of these powers.

ChatGPT says that typically admins can do that

@catdotfish @can you see which admin removed the comment of ‘tiredbuilder’
Tagging you because I don’t see that you’re in any way involved here

The system runs a “garbage” collection. Posts removed by authors are deleted by the system after 24hrs (+ a bit more time depending on when the job runs)

About 24hrs from now, @Cosmos_Nanny’s test post should disappear too.
https://forum.cosmos.network/t/aadao-oversight-special-report/14441/82

Forget GPT, here is a discussion about this: Is there an option on Discourse forums to allow users to see their own deleted posts - #4 by JammyDodger - Support - Discourse Meta

Sorry about the presumably misleading wording, again - I guess this is too near to the German semantic. Should actually mean:
I am quite confident that you meet these criteria.

Guinch_Roze:

We can post a proposal to fire Grace now ?

At no time was there anything preventing this. That’s kind of the point.

IMG_42991290×2796 234 KB

Let me get this straight: you’re not allowed to report dao matters to other family members, but Youssefs wife can just make a phone call to Pati because she’s vetoing against Youssefs giving himself a monthly bonus if 5k$ (Atom at ~8.5$)?

@Youssef @Syed @CuriousJ

Are you gonna argue that YOUR COC policy doesn’t work for your GM? Because his wife knew Pati before, that’s okay?
Do you realize how y’all jump on the COI Atone train AFTER resolving the issue internally, only so that you don’t have to deal with the shit that’s going on in your own org? That is the definition of a witch hunt.

Y’all should realize one thing: your first year was a complete mess, and if oversight did his job before your renewal proposal, I don’t see the proposal passing. So instead, you get an oversight now that’s trying to turn this mess into the right direction. From working messy to working responsibly with community funds.

My hope is going to zero. Atom still performs like shit, you trying to pay yourself for bad work, and you try to get around your own policies.

@Youssef

Neither myself nor @CuriousJ are able to comment on these issues while the DAO is looking into the issues.

For your reference, Youssef is not part of “the DAO” that I’m referring to above, as the DAO placed him on an Operational Freeze.

It’s a little tiring to point out the obvious but I’ll do it anyway. I think most people who read the report agree with its relevance and don’t try to deny or defend what it says. I care a lot about it, because Grace shows integrity by reporting to the community what she’s observed and experienced. That’s oversight and why I voted for her. And its not ACCUSATIONS, since she can back up her claims. Framing her report as accusations makes the report look as just some drama that has nothing to do with what she’s supposed to do. That way you sell the community the idea that she’s trying to nuke AADAO, ignoring the fact that reporting is her job. That raises the question, why suddenly the strategy committee is doing the oversight job in response to the operational freeze. That’s not your job. And you’re clearly in a COI since Youssef is paying you your salary and potential bonuses. Freezing Grace (and Pati) was wrong. By freezing them, you are not only showing that you don’t respect the role of oversight board, but also that you are immune to whatever they say. Simply play a uno reverse card that really is accusatory. Freezing only Youssef would have been the right thing to…

Excerpt (1196 of 1330 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Yes, ChatGPT is not god, but since it´s common practise to use chatgpt summaries on proposals, it´s fair to just feed it with the report and AADAO´s COC Policy. Strategy committee: Do with this what you want. The AADAO report outlines various alleged actions by the General Manager (GM) Youssef Amrani that potentially violate the DAO’s Code of Conduct. Here’s an analysis of the report based on specific provisions of AADAO’s Code of Conduct: 1. Conflict of Interest: Policy: • “All conflicts of interest, including potential conflicts, must be disclosed to the Oversight Committee.” • “Do not take any business-related action for your personal financial benefit.” • “No family member should report directly to another family member.” Potential Violations in the Report: • Salary and Bonus Allocation: The GM increased his base salary by 36% in 2024, which contributed to an 86% increase in his total monthly compensation compared to 2023. The report indicates that the GM took unilateral decisions to benefit his own compensation disproportionately through retention bonuses (50% of the bonus pool) and used a retention formula that favored him. This appears to directly…

Excerpt (1197 of 8139 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This report is honestly embarassing and it’s unfortunate that it had to come out, but what’s even more embarassing is the fact that Youssef has still not stepped down out of sheer shame, and that the rest of the crew and more importantly the validators are not screaming for him to do so. This is fairly telling of how little the vast majority of large stakeholders and participants in this ecosystem truly give a shit about any of it, which is even more discouraging and deeply bearish than the whole grift project this “dao” has become (or maybe was planned to be from the start? It’s irrelevant anyway). This type of behavior and the overwhelming acceptance of such is the reason just about every token in this ecosystem is “down only” and will continue to be. I intentionally avoid using the term ‘Cosmos ecosystem’ because it carries extremely negative connotations, and that leads into my next point: I don’t know how many of you ever venture outside of this lovely little bubble that is the IBC ecosystem, but Cosmos as a project, and as a brand is an absolute joke that garners nothing but chuckles and snide comments if mentioned to literally anyone from any other ecosystem, and it’s…

Excerpt (1197 of 1668 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The operational freeze of the Oversight committee and myself, voted by AADAO internal governance, is now in effect. I will honor it and I admire AADAO collective wisdom and resilience in navigating such a complex time. Furthermore, I’m happy to fully collaborate with the ongoing investigation and help the team shed light on the circumstances that caused this extraordinary situation. Now that the entire situation is public (it should never have been if properly managed internally), I want to shed light on some of the events that led to it. The mistake I made a few months ago was to not ask Patricia Mizuki to resign after committing multiple ethical violations. Back then, I wanted to protect the team from internal politics. Our scope of work has significantly expanded in 2024 and I did everything I could to shield my collaborators from distractions so they could stay laser focused on their work. I realize now how big of a mistake it was. Below what I consider to be grave failures that disqualify the 2 members of the Oversight: Patricia Mizuki failures A. forcing herself into the performance bonus pool B. Trying to change the retention pool period of reference to…

Excerpt (1195 of 3938 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Youssef:

A. Intentionally rushed the publishing on an inflammatory report instead of attempting to
resolve the issue internally

False. Publishing was not rushed. At the time of release, the report was conclusive and we had substantial supporting materials and interviews of evidentiary value.

We also delayed publishing of the report, twice – per explicit requests of the team. I communicated to the team on August 29th and again on August 30th that Oversight feels an urgent reporting obligation.

As a courtesy to the team, we postponed the notification to the community to September 5th.

On August 30th you even thanked me for postponing our reporting obligations to the community.
I have all calls recorded. Should I share the audio file, Youssef?

We were asked to postpone the report again on Sept 5th bc the DAO indicated it was prepared for remove you via all DAO proposal.

That didn’t transpire. The team asked to delay publishing again on September 9th, and Oversight refused. We communicated that Oversight had already given the team two weeks-- and at that juncture the reporting obligation to the community supersedes.

Youssef:

B. Selective prosecution

False.
Patricia informed me of the issues and circumstances of your misconduct and mismanagement on August 27th. This call evolved to a 130 minute interview.
I spoke to her again with @Better_Future on August 29th for another 150 minutes. I had a follow up interview with Pati on Sept 3rd for 90 minutes.

On August 30th you verbally consented to speaking with me to provide your account. But in the subsequent days you were actively avoidant. And refused to fix a time or date to calendar.
Despite all DAO members agreeing with the procedure I proposed, you unilaterally called off my review and demanded an external investigator/ombudsman be hired on Sept 5th.

Youssef: C. Intentionally broke communication lines between GM and his team in order to isolate him. False . You are deliberately distorting the limited communication limitations as they applied to the active review/investigation… On Sept. 2nd I shared an internal memo that outlined the guidelines, procedures and safeguards for the review underway concerning your misconduct and mismanagement. For transparency, this is how the relevant guideline read: Communication Limitations (In Effect Immediately and Until Further Notice): These communication limitations are designed to preserve the integrity of the review process, prevent potential interference, and ensure a fair and unbiased investigation. A. Youssef Armani and Patricia Mizuki are strictly prohibited from communicating with each other regarding the review process and the contents of the Alleged Misconduct Incident Report (internally published August 30th). B. While Youssef Amrani and Patricia Mizuki are permitted to discuss the review process and the contents of the Alleged Misconduct Incident Report with current DAO members, the following conditions must be met: • All such discussions must be…

Excerpt (1192 of 2708 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Youssef:

D. Encouraged Patricia Mizuki to publish salaries with the entire team, breaking basic
confidentiality and social order rules

False. During the August 29th team biweekly I openly suggested the file be shared with the whole team. You did not express dissent. And you did not express disagreement with the file being shared until September 5th.
The file was shared on August 30th via AADAO Slack.

But kinda a moot point anyway. The community is entitled to know the true total possible compensation of all DAO members. Your published “compensation brackets” can be construed as misleading team compensation information.

If you concede to the public knowing, by extension, the compensation range can be made known internally. All the data is broadcasted on chain anyway, Youssef.

Youssef:

E. Clear COI with involvement in ATOM ONE, a direct fork of the Hub whose founder
rage quitted the ATOM community.

Neither True or False. It’s an exaggeration to label my support and interest for AtomOne as “involvement.” It is my opinion – I do not perceive AtomOne to be a direct competitor. If youre familiar w crypto history, you’ll understand that Litecoin was not perceived as a direct competitor to Bitcoin, rather a necessary experiment that launched as its own chain.
I don’t believe “forks” exist in Cosmos. Using your reasoning, one can argue that Osmosis, Stargaze and other sovereign chains are also “forks” of the hub. They are not forks. They are their own hub/zone. That said, I’m an elected member. Should the community feel strongly I shouldn’t be involved – I won’t be. But it shouldn’t preclude me from having an intellectual interest in the project. That’s censorship.

Wow… OK. Let’s talk about several points here: what I consider to be grave failures that disqualify the 2 members of the Oversight What is the mandate of the oversight role(s)? Where is this written? When was it written? Under what authority? Intentionally rushed the publishing on an inflammatory report instead of attempting to resolve the issue internally. Straw-man, deflection. Refer to the above. Additionally, the fact that a transparency report looks bad on any particular person does not make it inflammatory. The the entire purpose of such a report is to give insight to the public, regardless of the outcomes. The timing is irrelevant, whether this happened yesterday or a month from now really has no bearing on the “ethical correctness” nor the appropriateness of the way it was handled. Selective prosecution Whataboutism, false equivalence. This again has no bearing on the ethics of your actions. In the event that this does bear some weight and bring into question the ethics of the oversight “officer” herself, are there records of these allegations? Intentionally broke communication lines between GM and his team Playing on emotions, more…

Excerpt (1196 of 2421 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Youssef:

D. Encouraged Patricia Mizuki to publish salaries with the entire team, breaking basic
confidentiality and social order rules.

Excuse me?

b7729776204f350a37eb8588f29f10d9590×1280 138 KB

Operational committee | Salaries - August 2024

Payment file: August 2024 Salaries_ - Salaries_DAODAO_0118704dbb22cadd60eef683739066a37e063e6a0164655dfb69044a8266b7f6.csv Attention voters: please compare the contents of this proposal with the inte

This is August salaries

And you’re saying Grace pushed Pati to
publish something, that AADAO promotes on their own website for transparency sake?

Youssef:

Encouraged Patricia Mizuki to publish salaries with the entire team, breaking basic

I did not “encourage” @Patricia to “break confidentiality or social rules.” In fact, you will hear in this audio extract from the August 29th team wide Biweekly that Youssef encourages Oversight to share all relevant documents that can fully inform the team as we continue bonus methodology related discussions on the following day.

In this audio file, you hear me making the request to Patricia transparently during a team meeting. And you will also hear Youssef agreeing to the reasonableness of my request.

Youssef, for your own sake — please stop with your distortions and misrepresentations. I have every call relevant to this report on the record.

It’s all recorded.

I think Max deconstructed your logical fallacies pretty cleanly so I will avoid doing it again. My only comment would be that you should try to address the accusations themselves and show how/if they are wrong, instead of focusing on whoever is accusing you of not doing their job. This report is literally why the oversight position was needed and requested by the community, attacking who the Atom community chose as their representative on this committee does you no favors.

I agree you should’ve fixed this internally and not force Oversight to publish all of this, but by now it’s too late so the best approach is refuting any claims you deem false/wrong and be as transparent as possible about everything related to this matter.

Youssef:

I believe that effective oversight should be constructive, benevolent and hands off, only
acting as a last resort when AADAO is unable to self-regulate. After all, AADAO has limited
autonomy from the Hub, as voted in prop 865. Limited autonomy means AADAO can
privately manage its own internal affairs without the need for the Oversight to interfere or
even worse bring chaos to the public space.

You’re right. Oversight should intervene in extraordinary situations. And that’s what we did.

Issues of misconduct and management are not “internal affairs” of the DAO. You’re a community owned DAO, and if the misconduct/mismanagement directly relates to misuse or misappropriation of community resources for self dealing or personal gain, it’s absolutely a public interest matter. Your invocation of limited autonomy here is incorrect.

I’m struggling quoting Max initial post on mobile but I want to say that everyone should give it good read. It was very well said and captured my thoughts better than I ever could. Absolutely nailed it.

I did read through Youssefs response and I have to admit I chuckled quite a bit. He seems to think oversight should be optional and “hands off”. In what world is this ever the case? When I audited public companies, we always had the saying “trust but verify” and to practice “professional skepticism”. Grace has done her job professionally in every respect. It is not her fault that there were findings that needed to be reported to the public. In fact, aadao should be thanking her because she is the only thing left giving the organization any credibility. I think this needs to be investigated fully and transparently and appropriate actions to be taken if necessary.

Also I have to say some of nepotism that occurred is disgusting but I have to applaud Patricia coming forward despite the stress I’m sure that caused personally.

Youssef’s statement is nothing more than an attempt to deflect responsibility from his own misconduct while painting himself as a victim of a situation he clearly created. His refusal to acknowledge the mismanagement and misappropriation of DAO funds, combined with the bullying of oversight members like Patricia and Grace, speaks volumes about his lack of accountability. His repeated mischaracterizations are nothing more than a smokescreen for his actions.

By shifting the blame onto others, Youssef has proven he cannot be trusted with any future responsibility, let alone DAO funds. His leadership has not only jeopardized the integrity of AADAO but has fractured trust within the community. Despite the claims of “shielding collaborators,” it’s clear that Youssef’s decisions led to this operational freeze. The ongoing investigation is vital, and his mismanagement should disqualify him from any future role in this organization. Trust and transparency are crucial, and Youssef has failed to uphold both.

Lotta ChatGPT vibes here, could you folks respond more in personally? It would be more enjoyable to read instead of overly academic or legalistic text.

Is it possible also to get Patricia Mizuki’s perspective on the matter so the community can have a full view of all sides?

Operational freeze is in place, and in the end AADAO will decide the matter. The community surely hopes that everything will be thoroughly investigated, and actions or decisions will be based on facts, not bias or personal feelings toward individuals. Otherwise, both the operations and the oversight will just become a joke where everything is purely formal from hereon. Thanks

Patricia is currently unable to post on the forum. I trust that it is being investigated, so she can post asap.

@Syed @catdotfish @RobbStack @lexa
AADAO Financial Controller, @Patricia can’t post messages. Can you help please? She created an account on Sept. 10th.

On February 1st, Youssef provided me with the 2024 compensation file, instructing me to keep it confidential and not share it with Oversight, stressing that, as HR, I was the only person authorized to access it. When this file was shared internally at the end of August, several contributors voiced serious concerns about salary discrepancies, Youssef’s substantial base salary, and its potential impact on the bonus pool. They also emphasized the importance of transparency within the DAO, particularly regarding salaries and bonus allocations, and expressed concerns about Youssef’s reluctance to make this information accessible internally, and plainly available as public information . During the Strategy Committee call on August 30th, and in a private discussion on August 29th, it became apparent that Strategy members had never seen the 2024 compensation file. As a result, Youssef’s total compensation had not been properly approved. Transparency is key in addressing potential abuse of power or personal gain. Paying oneself a high compensation is acceptable, as long as it is fully disclosed and approved by the appropriate authority, in this case, the community. Deviating from this…

Excerpt (1196 of 6105 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Response to Youssef’s Post: Supporting Materials and Clarification of Key Events

There’s more than 100 comments, and I am the only one who used chat gpt. And I didn’t do so, to express my personal opinion. Respectfully, only one single comment that I posted was not about my personal opinion but a ChatGPT analysis of the report of Youssefs actions and behavior with AADAO‘s code of conduct policy.

107 comments, I can understand if you don’t wann read through all of them, but you definitely caught a wrong vibe

Cosmos_Nanny:

• Did you interpret a “YES” vote on Proposal 865 as constituting approval of all policies within the linked documents, e.g., the “AADAO Performance and Retention Bonus Protocol”?
• In your opinion, does the passage of a proposal implicitly ratify all linked documents and their contents, or should such ratifications be more explicit? Furthermore, how is the sufficiency of document linkage determined, and where should such links be presented?
• Was it explicitly clear that the 100,000 ATOM bonus allocation for “Performance and Retention” could be utilized as compensation tools supplementing monthly salaries?
• Is it appropriate to use the bonus pool for contributor performance that “meets expectations” or must it be used for performance that “exceeds expectations” or more?

Reminder

PLEASE provide responses for the above if you haven’t done so already. It’s very important. Oversight fundamentally has disagreements with Core DAO wrt what was “approved” as per proposal 865. Thank you

There should probably be a separate ratification vote that goes to the community.

The bonus allocation shouldn’t be supplementing monthly salaries. Its a full time role, should be a full time wage. Bonus shouldn’t be something handed out by admin either. Its almost perverse in that way - if your manager can at anytime revoke said bonus, you are less likely to speak up.

The bonus should be something handed out by community or the bonus should be determined by the success of the projects (i.e token allocation).

Bonus pool should always be for exceeded expectations.

This is not a professional response, regardless of your opinions on the other person. Responding with memes and ad hominems makes it looks like you don’t have a substantive argument.

Cosmos_Nanny:

It aggrieves us to make this report - mainly because unlike the GM, Youssef Amrani, we are not naive to the undesirable and undeserved negative effects his actions can have for the AADAO collective.

Since the AADAO (previously known as the ‘Cosmos Hub grants program’ and name changed after criticism) was proposed in late 2022 we were waiting for this forum post.

Let’s all remember that when Youssed & Co were handpicking his AADAO team we were strongly against this and led the discussions that eventually led Youssef to create ‘open positions’ so that Cosmonauts could apply to be part of the AADAO rather than handpicked for all positions. This then led to Grace and others entering the AADAO. We already said before multipled times that no employee of the AADAO would report anything because they risked being fired and losing such high salaries. It seems Grace defeated this prediction and somehow decided to talk finally, well done. It was called Atom Accelerator DAO, but it seems in the wrong direction the acceleration so far

Despite apparent efforts to compromise the independence of the Oversight Committee, Pati and I are committed to upholding our mandate to serve the community. Oversight does not serve the AADAO. We exist to serve the stakeholder interests of Cosmos Hub Governance. Oversight is clear on this . Youssef is not . He claims to have “created Oversight” to imbue himself with credibility that he stewards transparency and accountability. His actions strongly suggest otherwise. The only reason he agreed to allow for an elected member to their Oversight is because his self appointed Oversight committee was toothless. And visibly anemic. If he had “created” Oversight properly, he would understand the committee function is not something that can be censored, controlled or possessed. It is unfortunate his missteps, his misconduct and his mismanagement have exposed the larger team to reputational harm. To me, it’s obvious how the team can set themselves apart from GM actions. And any difference that can be observed or measured will show up through how they respond in this crisis. The pressure to contain these issues internally was not trivial, but our obligation to report directly…

Excerpt (1197 of 2689 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmic_Validator:

Cosmos Hub grants program’

Kind of a tangent – but when I had last asked the team (July), AADAO earmarked (tentatively) $5M for venture funding and $3M for grants. I expressed concern the distribution was not representative of its identity as a grant making DAO.

While I understand that venture activities were included in the expanded scope of Proposal 865, I remain skeptical if the community supports this resource distribution.

I also feel the lack of communications as to how much the DAO plans to spend on ventures vs grants is not consistent with its stated transparency goals.

@Syed if you have any updates on this, please share. Thanks.

Cosmos_Nanny:

While I understand that venture activities were included in the expanded scope of Proposal 865, I remain skeptical if the community supports this resource distribution.

The AADAO was created to accelerate ATOM. This was the job. The last time ATOM was below $4 was after the covid crash in early 2020, over 4 years ago. When AADAO was proposed and created ATOM was $10. Clearly, AADAO failed to deliver its mission, so why it should be continued?

Alot of factors affect token price. But if you believe there’s been failure of the mandate, you know what to do upon renewal time.

The community urgently needs a prop strengthening the tools available to Oversight. These issues have built up because whatever Oversight was there before Grace was clearly feckless. No one (especially entrusted with funds of that magnitude) should be marking their own homework.

That’s not a bad idea. Specifically, what would you like to see strengthened?

I think it needs to be made clear that Oversight is not subservient to the coreDAO. It’s independent.

Due to her position, it is inherently possible that @Cosmos_Nanny could be a “double agent”, as she has been accused. But I have not see any evidence, or even intentional evidence, that this is the case.

We should not dismiss these concerns regarding AADAO because of unfounded speculations. @Cosmos_Nanny is clearly putting a lot of time and effort to turn things around (and boy do they need a sharp turn), while others sit on their hands criticizing and attacking her efforts.

The least you can do is support this effort, or better, come up with other means of turning things around. All we see is empty promised from incumbents, and no results.

Exactly. Oversight has its own mandate from the community. Community needs to make that clear.

Oversight must be empowered and treated as an independent audit function, the third line of defense in a 3LoD model. Challenging the findings in an audit report by personally attacking the auditor and not responding to the factual findings is just wild - you’d be fired so fast it would make your head spin and that goes for corporate America and startup word just as well. We need to clean house asap if we have any shot at survival as a community.

Please listen to the provided audio here, and provide responses to questions accordingly. Thank you.

G. 🎒🕶️ (@gyunit_) on X

Chill Validation does not agree to, and did not expect the bonus structure to be hidden behind an IPFS file containing a link on page 8 behind the word “here” to a Google Doc authorizing awarding 100k of Atom for “meets expectatons”. Reference burried link on Page 8 of IPFS: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmcsiSgQKmaMkVKNQSSSsY1u6VZu4Q6R8VwhDLVXKk4mGx The bonus schedule could have been put in the main proposal like all other figures and tables, or at the very least linked descriptively, but instead it was hidden. A programmer hiding a bug for their own benefit or a proposal hiding a bonus for anyone’s benefit is unacceptable. We do honor the bonus structure document. The team demonstrates the ability to communicate clearly and has chosen not to. Meets expectations is what one must do to get the agreed grants or salaries. KPIs for bonuses should be onboarding amazing TVL, delivering incredibly well adopted and useful value building features beyond initial scope or showing mass adoption significantly above normal growth curves, getting the crypto space to talk about an amazing DApp on the Cosmos launched by AADAO might be a good start. In reference to: AADAO Oversight…

Excerpt (1197 of 3748 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This reflects 100% how I feel about it, too. Consider this opinion as also mine please.

Thank you so much for the thorough response. The community may now better understand why Youssef’s actions constitute both misconduct and fiduciary mismanagement. Over seven months, Patricia endured verbal abuse and harsh treatment during one-on-one calls with Youssef, and some also with his wife (not a DAO contributor). This pattern of inappropriate behavior became shockingly evident during a team-wide call, where Youssef’s hostility actually escalated beyond what is heard in the shared audio clip. He viciously attacked Patricia while we were trying to understand his proposed bonus methodology. In response to this berating, Patricia stated that this had been her experience from the moment they began discussing bonuses and related distribution methodologies. Surprisingly, I was the only one who recognized and admonished this unacceptable conduct during the call. Subsequently, I shared an internal incident report documenting the behavior and Patricia’s account of the year-long intimidation and coercion she reportedly faced. Given these circumstances, I remain puzzled about what the AADAO contributors feel they need to “verify”. The most relevant facts are already on a…

Excerpt (1193 of 2140 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Youssef’s position is untenable. Pleased that this is finally out in the open for all to see and a big thank you to Grace for her tireless work on shedding light on this prolonged grift. Yousef’s uncouth unprofessional behavior, questionable ethics and financial self prioritization are clearly not aligned with what we as a community are trying to engender in the cosmos. We should come together as a community and condemn such behavior, has no place in cosmos. I believe it’s prop and spill time, let the people vote on new leadership because current AADAO ‘leadership’ is getting paid a lot to do very little work as we’ve seen.

ok so regarding x.com This audio transcript is yet another damning element. Sorry that Patricia had to endure this. Trying to answer the questions objectively: 1/ At the time not really, at least I don’t recall having understood it as such. And yet, it’s actually stated in the bonus document: the combination of the distribution and methodology appear to mean exactly that – at least in the absence of clear KPIs, which were shared months later. 2/ I wish the companies where I held business development positions had that kind of metrics for bonuses. I’d be a lot wealthier right now. Hard no on this. 3/ Yes. There was a lot of information, many documents to read, and overall it was complex stuff – but for a $10M project, it sounds legitimate. 4/ It does; the problem in this case was the large number of linked documents, sometimes containing themselves links to other documents. It was easy to miss something. This could maybe have been mitigated by ensuring that all relevant documents were listed and linked in the main post, instead of being scattered across multiple interventions. I do not feel like there was a conscious attempt at obfuscating elements or hiding…

Excerpt (1192 of 1431 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I think you should post only once per day because you are repeating and flooding here. I am happy with your work but a bit too aggresive. My other tought : AADAO leader is bullying patricia, she is doing her job. I want change of leadership of AADao. Who is youssef? a activer leader with a grea idea From prop 865 : * Program Manager : As the leader of the Strategy Committee, the Program Manager represents AADAO publicly, advises on budgetary matters, and collaborates in setting roadmaps and KPIs for sub-DAOs. The GM’s role extends to supervising subDAOs, coordinating recruitment efforts, and developing internal controls and policies in conjunction with the Oversight Committee. What Youssef did : Bad execution Having wrong KPI Budget : misjudgment (5M for ventures?) Feedback request responses: • Was it explicitly clear that the 100,000 $ATOM bonus allocation for “Performance and Retention Protocol” could be used to supplement monthly salaries? Bonus is Bonus. No supplement monthly salaries Retention can be a bonus • Is it appropriate to use the bonus pool for contributor performance that merely “meets expectations,” (average/unexceptional performance) or…

Excerpt (1197 of 2307 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmos Ecosystem Enjoyer since 2021.
In my view, AADAO appears to be a fragile organization, lacking originality and struggling to direct funding towards initiatives that genuinely benefit the community or add tangible value to ATOM.

Grace simply spoke the truth, and within just two months, the organization is already showing signs of instability. If the truth is enough to lead to your downfall, it suggests that the foundation was weak to begin with.

Is it appropriate to use the 100,000 ATOM bonus pool for contributor performance that merely “meets expectations” (average/unexceptional performance)? • Yes • No 0 voters According to your interpretation of the Performance & Retention Bonus Protocol document, was it made explicitly clear that the 100,000 ATOM bonus allocation can be used as a variable compensation tool (as a supplement to contributors’ monthly salaries)? • Yes • No 0 voters Do you believe and or support that a “YES” vote on Proposal 865 means approving all policies that are indirectly linked policy documents, such as the Performance & Retention Bonus Protocol document? An indirect link means a document that is not directly linked and or identified by title (and or via sufficient description) in the actual proposal text • Yes • No 0 voters In your opinion, does passing a proposal implicitly ratify all directly and or indirectly linked documents and ALL of its contents? • Yes • No 0 voters Do you believe that AADAO’s proposed use of 100,000 bonus ATOM is consistent with what you believe was “ratified” via governance,…

Excerpt (1197 of 1267 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey everyone,

We wanted to update you on what the DAO has been up to since the Operational Freeze came into effect a week ago.

AADAO contributors are currently working to form a holistic summary report, including testimonies from the three contributors on Operational Freeze and the remaining DAO members. This review will help inform potential resolutions, and will culminate in All of AADAO proposals as stated here.

We are liaising with the three contributors to define a methodology for this internal review, so that all parties are satisfied with the process.

To clarify, we do not necessarily disagree with the veracity of Oversight’s report, nor is the Oversight Committee prevented from accessing any data on our operations during this freeze. The freeze only affects any decision-making or executive roles the contributors might have otherwise played.

We will keep the community updated in the coming days as the situation progresses.

We thank you for your patience in the matter, and allowing time for the remaining DAO members to continue with our operations.

Hey everyone,

We see no future for the AADAO with the current leadership and seek a resignation by GP @Youssef . Additionally we request the current unfrozen AADAO members to propose a new temporary GP as an internal promotion while the situation evolves and hiring can start for the role.

Lastly we expect a reaction to this within the current freezing window (ending 28th of september 2024) or we will seek alternative methods to revoke power from the AADAO through the safeguards mentioned in proposal 865.

Thank you to Grace and Patricia for speeking up and all other people with we spoke in-private to make sense of the situation.

Best,
Ertemann
Lavender.Five Nodes

I’d like to address serious concerns Pati and I have with the core DAO’s investigation process and overall communication practices. These concerns are not just procedural but fundamental to the AADAO’s fragile integrity during a critical time “Interviews vs Testimonies” Your announcement today describing our interviews as “testimonies” without prior notice is troubling. You do understand the difference? The sudden change from “interviews” to “testimonies” significantly alters the perceived formality and potential administrative implications for how we participate. This reclassification moves the process closer to a deposition-like scenario, which typically requires specific protocols and safeguards. If you’re moving towards a more formal, deposition-like process, it’s crucial to have well-defined rules and procedures in place. The absence of ground rules to the process (despite having twelve days to develop them) suggests inexperience. A process isn’t merely fair by virtue of you believing your personal involvement will make it fair. Moderators Earlier this week, Pati and I were informed in Slack that our “interviews” would provide for two TBD moderators. When asked…

Excerpt (1196 of 3866 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Good Morning everyone, After reviewing the whole thread, going through the TG AADAO group messages for any further context, reviewing prop 865, and speaking with several people in DM’s, we strongly recommend that @Youssef resign immediately, without any further payment. We urge that the AADAO promote an internal existing member to serve as a temporary GM to replace Youssef while the team works to create a process to elect a new one. From our understanding a gov prop will need to be made and approved to do so. Misuse of community pool funds is essentially theft against the community, and I don’t care how “disrespectful” this comes across against Youssef. Disrespecting the community is >>>> disrespecting Youssef/any single entity. Prop 865 wasn’t meant to be drained via paying the GM more, it was meant to bring in innovation and new builders. To both Grace and Patricia, whom we spoken to in private regarding the situation, we appreciate all your efforts and dedication to trying to do the right thing. No one should ever have to put up being treated and spoken to like that. More than happy to excise my asshole Marine mentality as a moderator/supporter on your next call.…

Excerpt (1193 of 3475 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I agree with what @Ertemann said:

• Thanks to both Grace and Patricia for bringing this issue to our attention
• +1 on resignation of the current leader
• +1 on the resolution of this by the current freezing window [6 days from now]

As I see in the DAO’s statement above, they want to do their summary (review, report, investigation, [insert other synonyms here]) to “inform potential resolutions”. That’s more than reasonable. And looking at the “All of AADAO proposal” they linked, they just want to do a call with you, Patricia and Youssef, in order to do this summary.

Noting that they have just 6 days, your requests, while reasonable, seem impossible. It feels like they just want to have a call with you, and you want them to instead create methodology, frameworks, safeguards, etc.

Again, while your request for those things are reasonable, judging by the discussions in this thread, I will bet my bottom dollar that whatever methodology they define, you will find ways to poke holes in it.

Quite frankly, for the sake of everyone - just get on the call!

How do you know what the DAO wants to do?
Are you a DAO contributor?

Nowhere in this thread have we discussed AADAO review methodology prior to today. Where do you get the confidence to “just trust” they’re doing things correctly?

The core team had sufficient verified information to make a resolution two weeks ago, but they didn’t act on it.

Youssef made serious allegations that he hasn’t been able to substantiate.

If the core team had genuinely wanted to speak with me, I would have been willing to do so.

It’s crucial to understand how the team is handling anonymous “testimonies,” as these could significantly influence the conclusions in their Summary Report.

My concerns about the process are legitimate and based on concrete information, not just speculation. There are clear indications that their investigative process may be flawed.

Since the ADAN association received ATOM via a vote towards proposals 70… I’ve been fleeing this ecosystem. What was the point? Prove to me something better since then?

Interesting.
Making observations, not “accusations”

Screenshot 2024-09-22 at 2.59.24 PM936×362 24.7 KB

Screenshot 2024-09-22 at 2.58.43 PM2298×1242 376 KB

Screenshot 2024-09-22 at 3.07.36 PM2266×1324 458 KB

Screenshot 2024-09-22 at 3.07.58 PM2276×790 143 KB

Screenshot 2024-09-22 at 2.59.04 PM936×898 127 KB

Pati, on how many occasions between Jan 1 and Feb 23 – either verbally or in writing – did you ask Youssef if Oversight could receive perf comp? Why were you advocating for the retention bonus methodology to be based on 2023 vs 2024 salaries when you were the only person in the org who would benefit from this methodology? On how many occasions did you ask Youssef for this 2023 method of calculating retention between Jan 1 and Feb 23? Did you enlist the help of your Oversight peer Damien to also advocate that performance comp mechanisms be a certain way? Based on your long and deep experience as an auditor, do you believe it is generally a good practice for a neutral party designing a perf comp framework to be advocating for methodological choices that would lead to their own personal gain – yes or no? Youssef, why haven’t you learned your lessons about being a bit too aggressive with people? After you took back development of the performance comp methodology from Patricia in Feb, why did you work on it more or less privately from there? Why didn’t you bring the overall performance comp framework to StratComm for ratification when this was the protocol we had included in Internal…

Excerpt (1199 of 3601 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Better_Future: Grace, why did you decide that only Pati’s side of the story had relevance in a “he said, she said” situation with Youssef? Is it OK for a member of Oversight to take one side of a “he said, she said” as gospel truth while demonizing the other side? Do you agree that a member of Oversight needs to act in an unpredjudiced and impartial manner in order that the concept of Oversight to remain neutral and respected? Why did you tell StratComm you would keep the investigation private, and then ~1 week later publish a lengthy account on the forum? Where do you believe all of the alt accounts defending you on the forum have come from? Would it be helpful to do speech analysis of those alt accounts to learn which community member is behind them? Your questions indicate you do not read 80% of what I post in Slack. This has led to misunderstandings and misguided questions from you because you fundamentally miss or willfully ignore information I’ve already shared. Let me clarify a few key points: • Timeline and Communication: On Aug 29th, we had informed the team that we would publish our reasons for withholding approval of the bonus methodology. We also…

Excerpt (1194 of 2834 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Better_Future: Pati, on how many occasions between Jan 1 and Feb 27 – either verbally or in writing – did you ask Youssef if Oversight could receive perf comp? Why were you advocating for the retention bonus methodology to be based on 2023 vs 2024 salaries when you were the only person in the org who would benefit from this methodology? On how many occasions did you ask Youssef for this 2023 method of calculating retention between Jan 1 and Feb 27? Did you enlist the help of your Oversight peer Damien to also advocate that performance comp mechanisms be a certain way? Based on your long and deep experience as an auditor, do you believe it is generally a good practice for a neutral party designing a perf comp framework to be advocating for methodological choices that would lead to their own personal gain – yes or no? Before addressing your questions, I want to clarify that I’m not sure you’re fully grasping the seriousness of the GM’s actions. Given all that has transpired, I find it concerning that on September 19th, you suggested I restore my relationship with him so the situation could be happily resolved. This issue isn’t about personal dynamics—it’s about the misuse…

Excerpt (1198 of 1432 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Pati, why don’t you publish the full message that I shared with you on September 19, as opposed to publishing only the part of it that serves your interests in making me look bad? Here is the full message for all to see. Screen Shot 2024-09-22 at 6.22.42 PM 1670×1036 200 KB Speaking of transparency, the community should know about the trigger situation that caused this whole episode between yourself and Youssef back in Jan & Feb 2024 too, yeah? How do I know about it, because I was in a Google Meet room where both Pati and Youssef wanted me to be a neutral adjudicator to help them solve their embroiled disagreement on Feb 23rd, and I sat for approx 1 hour and listed to them both disagree and argue with one another. Here is my statement summarizing the Feb 23 meeting and the events that followed, as well as my own personal statement with my own opinions at the end: STATEMENT FROM BETTER FUTURE - Google Docs I did my very best to separate the facts and opinions in preparing the statement. +++++ Pati, I wasn’t going to publish this and I tried hard to encourage you and Youssef to resolve your differences, even trying again as recently as a few days ago – as everyone…

Excerpt (1199 of 2625 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Better_Future:

Pati, why don’t you publish the full message that I shared with you on September 19, as opposed to publishing only the part of it that serves your interests in making me look bad? Here is the full message for all to see.

And please specify what in the full message you believe is different from the part I shared? I’m open to discussing any points that were misrepresented.

does all of your protesting boil down to your assertion that Pati wanted the same or similar unfair compensation as Youssef, Youssef told her no, so Pati created this problem?

Goal: remaining non-operational freeze members are pulling together a holistic review that aggregates oversights perspective + Youssef’s + key missing testimonies from DAO members not included in oversight’s account. The goal is to combine this through the existing written reports from Grace + Pati + Youssef + and cross examine all the different accounts. The reason the remaining DAO wanted to pull this wholistic report together is there are accounts from contributors that disagree with components of the oversight review or components of how it was pulled together that are key. Contributors in the current state are fearful of sparring with Youssef and/or Oversight. And seeing oversights response to Better Future’s counter testimony speaks volumes. I empathize with those afraid to vocalize right now, and I suppose here I am stepping into the arena to try to represent this view. The goal remains to wholistically pull as much information together so the DAO can vote on resolutions this upcoming Friday, and for the community to have an understanding of the DAOs collective view of the situation. In the interest of open sourcing what the conversation has looked like, here is all…

Excerpt (1199 of 36911 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Better_Future: How do I know about it, because I was in a Google Meet room where both Pati and Youssef wanted me to be a neutral adjudicator to help them solve their embroiled disagreement on Feb 23rd, and I sat for approx 1 hour and listed to them both disagree and argue with one another. Here is my statement summarizing the Feb 23 meeting and the events that followed, as well as my own personal statement with my own opinions at the end: STATEMENT FROM BETTER FUTURE - Google Docs In your Google Doc statement, you write: My memory re the call is imperfect – it was ~8 months ago and it was a lot of back and forth between the two of them on a topic that I was not fully up to speed on – but I do recall the overall gist of the core matters discussed : Your recollection of the call appears to be inconsistent with your previous account of the very same call. The level of detail and recall in your current statement significantly exceeds what you were able to provide when asked about the same conversation during my phone call with you and Pati following the Thursday Biweekly meeting on August 29th. It’s important to note that I have a recording of the call between you,…

Excerpt (1198 of 3741 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Yes, that’s a pretty fair summary. Writing in this summary style might be helpful for everyone to understand the situation concisely: So, Pati wanted something 7-8 months ago, Youssef got upset with her 7-8 months ago b/c he felt she was disrespectfully asking again and again to her own benefit and this was tainting the integrity of Oversight, so Youssef took away the job of developing the methodology from Pati and gave her a warning… then recently when Youssef asked Pati to pay out the performance comp Pati took the opportunity to flip the tables and accuse Youssef of using his own development of the methodology to benefit himself… So in summary, first Youssef accused Pati of being self-interested, and then Pati accused Youssef of the same thing 8 months later. Grace applied a certain set of filters to allow us all to see one side of the situation in sharp relief, but not the other side at all. Pati’s protest was that the creator of the performance comp has crafted it to his own benefit, and to this she probably isn’t wrong, and I empathize with this part of her perspective. But its a bit a case of the pot calling the kettle black too, as she had already been reprimanded…

Excerpt (1196 of 3862 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Better_Future:

Well, there’s two sides to a “he-said, she-said”, and Grace didn’t even try to understand the longer history or the two sides of this episode afaict – or she didn’t want to – and she blew it into a situation of Youssef being the only one who had done anything wrong in the situation.

This is key.

Better_Future:

Yes of course some of the issues flagged about Youssef are indeed real issues and they must be addressed as serious concerns within the DAO and community, but everything needs to be considered in proper context and in a holistic manner, and to be honest, the situation with Pati is no better then the situation with Youssef, it just happened 8 months earlier.

Indeed. Next steps must be taken tied to the GM position (such as removal), but it would also be critical that oversight also acknowledge there was/is significant room for improvement on their investigative process to ensure all sides were covered.

a bit wordier than i prefer, but if that is the case i fail to see any issue. granting your position that Pati wanted the same treatment with respect to retention bonus, she didnt get it, she highlighted the numbers or whatever to protest the malfeasance, then grace started overseeing and Youssef got caught for related malfeasance. no one is trying to say that any of the other members should be penalized for youssefs actions.

Youssef is the apple that spoiled the bunch, Pati was upset she wasnt allowed in the same basket.

how does that change what youssef did?

Carter_Lee_Woetzel:

Indeed. Next steps must be taken tied to the GM position (such as removal), but it would also be critical that oversight also acknowledge there was/is significant room for improvement on their investigative process to ensure all sides were covered.

I never saw where grace claimed a flawless execution. what kind of groveling are you demanding?

No groveling, but it seems pretty mission critical that the other side of the story tied to Pati’s account was not gathered in advance. The fact that Better Future’s testimony of history was not included in the final report is, significant.

what testimony? you mean his spotty recollection of 8 months ago? for which the actual transcrips of the call are in the possession of Grace?

Carter_Lee_Woetzel:

The fact that Better Future’s testimony of history was not included in the final report is, significant.

IMG_44151290×2796 536 KB

IMG_44161290×2796 702 KB

He’s saying they should have added a testimony from three days ago ti a report that was published more than a week ago.

EDIT: Carter ‘that’s the whole point. It’s critical, that should be in the report’.

Carter, BF wrote that on September 19. How do you expect oversight reporting to community when it takes you guys three weeks that you find relevant? That’s not how it works and is literally overreaching. Not your job. You’re ofc absolutely free to criticize the report as much as you want but you don’t dictate what should be in there and what not. LOL.

My point is that a key testimony / perspective was missed by oversight during the initial report. It’s important for the community to realize that fact. And it begs the question how did that happen? That’s a pretty big deal.

EDIT: To respond to the above posts edit, the point is that oversight failed to investigate a potential alternative side of the story that disagreed with Pati’s account. Which makes sense because Pati is on oversight, who watches the watcher?

I have a recording and transcript of a September 20th Strategic Committee (StratComm) call , which was inadvertently recorded by AADAO contributors using Otter.ai. Participants of the call are as follows: @Syed (Marketing Lead) Mark Denker (Grants Lead) @0xjordy (Ventures Lead) @Carter_Lee_Woetzel (StratComm Member) Delisse Gamboa (Operations Associate) The community should compare the shared protocol for review against what actually transpires during the call. The call reveals a coordinated effort to discredit or cast doubt on the actions and integrity of Oversight members, me and especially @Patricia . The video is 4 minutes. Please listen – you will hear explicit indications of: Lack of impartiality The committee is actively seeking testimonies that align with a predetermined narrative that seeks to diminish mine and Pati’s credibility, rather than gathering objective information. Coordination to doctor “testimonies” There’s evidence of collaboration in crafting and refining testimonies, such as offering feedback on @0xjordy ’s statement; Jordan also says he will alter his statement/testimony per suggestions from the team. Producing misinformation…

Excerpt (1197 of 5065 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

So you’re saying, it’s crucial info that BF is sad about the events and it took him 19 days to propose that Youssef and Pati just have a talk and resolve this?

I can see the good intention, but what has this to do with the report? And why is it crucial to see that BF seems like a nice guy in that 19day late testimony?

Also, after we all heard how Youssef talks to P., how can you propose she sits down with him?! You guys had enough time and did nothing.

Report gets posted and it gets quite some attention the more people read about it and see Youssef for what he is.
Now oversight again did their job not good enough? Give me a break.

On Friday, we were already in the process of gathering testimonies internally to be surfaced to you & Pati for rebuttal. And at this point, due to the large number of questions being surfaced it was quite clear that Oversight (after rejecting our request to hop on information gathering calls) were not cooperating with the will of the non-operational freeze DAO members.

Thus the forum post I have put out today.

Better Future has already brought his testimony out into the public eye, we might as well bring out the rest of the testimonies at this point and let the community judge for themselves the truth. We can all respond to all allegations in the public eye from here on out.

Operational freeze was put in place to continue operations without the GM + oversight impacting day to day operations. Along with operational freeze was a necessity for the remaining 9+ DAO members to coordinate on next steps, gathering all the information at large. We’re doing that, and will continue to do that.

Happy to read the testimonies that you edited all together.

(How can you call them testimonies??)

Perhaps “accounts” would be a better word than testimony.

Would be the second time you guys change how you call it.

Do you realize how that matters btw?

At first you wrote in slack they’re anonymous
Then Grace asks how you guarantee that they are anonymous.

Next they’re not anonymous anymore. And you edit them, and are happy to change them as you guys want. Quote.

And you do all this because you wanna point out how oversight was not working peachy peachy keen?

Dude?

At first we requested them to be anonymous, then Grace questioned the process of them being anonymous. We then removed the clause requiring them to be anonymous so as to proceed with things as opposed to getting hung up on defining an entire process for interacting with anonymous testimonies.

We are not happy to change them (testimonies) as we want. Jordan was looking for folks to give a review of his account, which is completely fair.

And yes, correct. We are releasing this information to the community so folks can understand that this is not a one sided story. That we expect the highest bar for oversight, just like we do for the GM.

I never rejected hopping on a call. I said a process must be clear as to how you are utilizing these interviews, and I also asked you to make your procedure public before we commence interviews.

Grace, Your highlighting of problems within the performance comp have merit, and I’m not trying to discredit your work on that. Much was lacking, and the DAO needs to correct that for sure. Where I have a problem is seeing how you pretend you didn’t know of Pati being the upstream source of this whole situation gone awry, and I really cannot comprehend why you chose to ignore this as context to why Pati might act and behave a certain way in a “he said, she said” controversy with Youssef? Blaming me for not going into detail in an early discussion with you when you never asked about this topic also seems pretty sad, TBH. Did I not tell you directly on an early call that “Pati wanted bonuses for Oversight, Youssef got mad at her over it, and that’s how this whole situation got started” – why don’t you play that clip for the community? TBH, I should be able to trust senior colleagues to take a conceptual comment and interpret it and act on it, yeah? If that is how the situation got started with Pati and Youssef being in a big fight in Feb, and it was relevant context to how Pati flips it back on Youssef in September, why didn’t you consider it in your investigation? I mean,…

Excerpt (1198 of 2254 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmos_Nanny:

I never rejected hopping on a call. I said a process must be clear as to how you are utilizing these interviews, and I also asked you to make your procedure public before we commence interviews.

image1284×928 60.5 KB

image1284×978 71.6 KB

Carter, you need to pay closer attention to the details. The key word here is “UNTIL”. The screenshots you’re referring to do not contradict the information that was provided to you earlier. Let me clarify:

1. My request was for a coherent and fair process for ALL individuals being “interviewed” - this includes Youssef.
2. The point was to ensure that no one’s reputation, including Youssef’s, would be unfairly dependent on the “better judgement” of the contributors.
3. I had suspicions about potential bias in the process.
4. Importantly, there is now evidence on record that supports my concerns about this bias.

All my communications advocated for fairness across the board, not just for specific individuals.

Screenshot 2024-09-23 at 2.03.07 AM2410×532 114 KB

No need for ad hominems Grace.

Notice of edit above:

image923×462 39.1 KB

And in response to:

Screenshot 2024-09-23 at 2.03.07 AM2410×532 114 KB

Please review where I show all messages between Grace & myself leading up to her single quoted image:

AADAO Oversight Special Report: GM Misconduct/Mismanagement AADAO

Goal: remaining non-operational freeze members are pulling together a holistic review that aggregates oversights perspective + Youssef’s + key missing testimonies from DAO members not included in oversight’s account. The goal is to combine this through the existing written reports from Grace + Pati + Youssef + and cross examine all the different accounts. The reason the remaining DAO wanted to pull this wholistic report together is there are accounts from contributors that disagree with compone…

First I would like to acknowledge the work of Oversight and then the rest of the DAO in doing this work. It isn’t comfortable reading and I suspect it is even less comfortable to do the process and do the writing.

My view based on the DAOs position as posted by Carter:

1. Youssef should resign rather than forcing the hands of good people on the DAO to remove him.
2. Grace and Pati seem to both be beyond working with the DAO and seem to either not trust it or think they are above it. This is not healthy or sustainable.
3. They either need to accept the findings in full and get back to a working position or they need to quit and bring a vote to dissolve the DAO. Returning to work is obviously preferable.
4. The general tone of the responses have made for a truely unedifying and not what the community should get from teams it funds and individuals it elects. For shame.

Hoping for the best but fearing the worst.

Bendy.

More I’m reading AADAO’s responses more I want to dissolve it… Oversight should be able to do its job without being vetoed by the other parties. You’re trying to deflect what’s important towards what’s not. As a simple holder and community member I do not care why and if all of this started when Pati asked/talked about Bonus. The screenshot shared by Grace on 2023 vs 2024 shows clearly how most of the bonus got sucked by the GM who has the bigger one and increasing it even more. I do understand now why ATOM price action was so bad it’s because the GM was too busy finding ways and schemes to boost his salary by 40% each year… I rather focus on resolution and next actions rather that speculate on why Pati ask for bonus 8 months ago. Could be for her self own interest, or to engage the GM about it or simply towards fairness for herself and other members, it’s just doesn’t matter compared to GM being able to fix his own bonus, disregard other members’ concerns and disregard oversight report… etc Oversight should have its own sub-dao ; AADAO should vote fast on reforms : • New leadership • HOLD bonuses until new fair kpi can be propose and approve • Many new practices…

Excerpt (1196 of 1294 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmos_Nanny: Coordination to doctor “testimonies” There’s evidence of collaboration in crafting and refining testimonies, such as offering feedback on @0xjordy statement; he also says he will alter per suggestions from the team. Producing misinformation to manipulate public opinion The group discusses the timing and sequencing of information release, suggesting a calculated approach to shaping public opinion. Selective use of information They appear to be cherry-picking accounts that support their narrative, potentially ignoring or downplaying contradictory information. Lack of/deprivation of due process There’s little indication that Pati or I will be given a fair opportunity to respond to allegations or present our perspective – as they will “push” what is not “peachy keen and peachy clean” about Oversight. Biased summarization The planned “summarization report” is likely staged to present a skewed view of events, given the biased nature of the information gathering. @Cosmos_Nanny Grace, politely, what is stated above here is not true. These are incorrect assumptions of myself and others on the call. Please do not twist words or intentions here.…

Excerpt (1198 of 12108 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This 100%. All this has demonstrated that Oversight isn’t safe within the current structure. They need to be able to speak truth as they find it, not as any of those being scrutinised might want it.

Imagine a community fund that was eager to satisfy community oversight as part of a job well done.

So, since we are all sharing… I personally feel like I’ve wasted more time on this saga in the past ~4-6 weeks than I should have. And aside from messing up my already non-existent work-life balance, it has definitely held up every other team, project and grantee I’m working with. My tl;dr thoughts. Not doing “PR-polishing” and not taking comments or feedback - I’m saying what I’m saying. To @Youssef : • I’m grateful that you gave me the opportunity, at short notice, to exit the ICF but still continue working with the Hub. I was effing desperate to leave, and you helped give me a solution within a matter of a few days. I will always be grateful for that. • I believed you when you said we are building a rocket-ship. And I agree - I have managed to do more at AADAO in the past ~6 months, than I ever managed to achieve in my 2 years at ICF. [and to those who will ask “but token price at ATL, what did you really do”…just get a maketmaker if you’re interested in short-term pumps] • However, I stand by the letter I co-signed to Oversight when this crap came out: Both the “ we are extremely concerned about… ” bit and the “… we are not making this letter public to the whole…

Excerpt (1196 of 4204 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

How could I have raised this issue earlier? After I suggested on February 16th that we base the retention bonus on 2023 salaries, Youssef mentioned that Oversight’s role within AADAO needed clarification. In my meeting with Better Future and Youssef on February 23rd, I was told I was overstepping my role, so I chose not to question the compensation structure further. This issue came back again because I was pressured to process individual bonus payments, despite expressing my discomfort in proceeding without proper disclosure. I hope you can understand my side on why I didn’t disclose this earlier.

Community now needs to Freeze AADAO. Its an org that has never fulfilled the tasks set to it and it will never be able to; especially with current leadership and composition. Oversight should be spun into its own DAO properly and its remit made clear and AADAO reconstituted or disbanded.

The unprofessionalism of those involved in the DAO (excluding Oversight) is pretty clear. No one in Oversight should be subjected to what @Patricia and @Cosmos_Nanny have - just because they have been doing their jobs.

AADAO has no morals and no agency to speak of at this point.

" 1. Grace and Pati seem to both be beyond working with the DAO and seem to either not trust it or think they are above it. This is not healthy or sustainable."

Respectfully, you’ve got this wrong. Oversight is doing exactly what its meant to do.

Analogy: It’d be nice to be best buds with your driving test examiner but its not strictly necessary. AADAO shouldn’t get to mark its own homework.

The issue here is that AADAO seems to think Oversight is subservient or answers to them. Its not - They are there to give confidence to the Community that things are being done properly.

They need to be their own DAO with the relevant remit.

Syed:

• and moved faster to solve it internally.

Speaking of, put up a prop on DAODAO:

AADAO Team | Update Internal Protocols and terminate the employment of...

This is an extraordinary proposal, invoking the use of AADAO Internal Protocols v1.0 (as ratified here and updated by proposal A4) to terminate the tenure of the General Manager - Youssef Amrani. Th

I posted this without having others check the clauses and stipulations I added. So we may end up voting no on this prop and replacing it with another as required.

This might not be how you would like the structure but they are employed by the DAO and not separate to it.

However if they can’t work with the DAO which is exactly how this appears for the terrible tone of this dialogue.

We need a functional oversight. If the oversight is not able to function alongside the DAO the whole thing needs a radical reset.

This whole thing reeks. Why should there be bonuses that are such significant amounts for “attending meetings”. The whole methodology reeks and I don’t trust AADAO should be determining their own bonuses.

Unfortunately it makes me suspicious of other activity AADAO has performed. Can you please explain to me what exactly a venture grant is and how it is different from a typical grant. I would expect normal grants to benefit the community.

Which parties benefit from venture grants?

Does AADao receive any benefit from venture grants?

What is the average cost of these compared to a typical grant?

What safeguards are in place to make sure these are done at an arms length?

Is it even legal?

The fact that $20k isn’t a motivator for you to do well shows the actual flaws in the methodology with kpis such as “attend meetings” rendering the bonuses useless and waste of funds from the investors funding your salary. This shows that there needs to be actual KPIs in place and that rather focus on having investors spend more money, the focus should be more on making sure the quality of work environment is better. It’s not fair for you to do all the work when there are others that could take some of the load. It also shows that that investors money is being mismanaged

Better_Future:

Well, you cannot be a victim of a situation that you were part of creating, yeah?

What do you mean I can’t be a victim of a situation I helped create? I didn’t establish the 2024 Compensation Structure nor the KPIs; I merely raised questions and was labeled as ‘lacking integrity.’ In February, I was excluded from discussions about the KPIs and bonus methodology because you and Youssef assessed that I was overreaching my role. However, when it was time to publish the KPIs in late July, Youssef and others informed me that I needed to approve the bonus methodology. It felt I was being used to ‘approve’ the methodology on behalf of Oversight when it was convenient for the GM. Yet, when my questions caused discomfort, I was told I was overstepping my role.

Better_Future: I actually wanted to keep this embarrassing mess of a situation private as a humanist who tries to live by the principle of never hurting others. Your actions and Youssef’s actions let the entire DAO down, and rather then publicizing a lose-lose outcome for the two of you, I hoped you could escape from this situation with some lessons-learned and step-up and apologize proactively and repair the situation and save your relationship with Youssef and the community. What exactly did my actions contribute to the current situation? By transparently raising legitimate concerns that ultimately led to the majority of contributors deciding on Youssef’s resignation and by openly discussing these concerns with Grace? This situation is not a personal conflict between Youssef and me, it’s about the lack of transparency in his actions, which seemed to benefit himself. I was the only one with full visibility into these details. You need to understand that, regardless of the final outcome of his compensation, if the process had been handled with objectivity and proper disclosure, it would not have compromised his integrity. I have consistently tried to involve everyone…

Excerpt (1199 of 2328 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Your memory of our conversation is inaccurate. I have a complete recording of our call to verify this.

I’ll share both the entire transcript and the recording, though it’s quite lengthy. To save time, I’ll provide a summary for the community, emphasizing that there’s nothing controversial or concerning in the content of our conversation.

Btw, you were informed by the other contributor on the call that your recollection is incorrect. I’m left puzzled by your choices Jordan.

What do you mean I can’t be a victim of a situation I helped create?

Hi Pati, gm. how about you first answer these two questions I asked you yesterday, and then I can respond to this question I asked you here, yeah?

• How many times from Jan 1 to Feb 23, 2024 do you remember asking Youssef or Damien for bonus comp for Oversight? For example, was it 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 times? Or more then that?

• Also, how many times did you remember asking Youssef or Damien to have the retention formula changed to the 2023 methodology? For example, was it 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 times? Or more then that?

Better future….Why did the person “Roo” post these same questions and then delete their post and then your post was essentially a copy paste? Why does that person like your posts in this thread? Are you using sock puppets to make AADAO look better in this thread? How is this ethical?

Better_Future:

Where do you believe all of the alt accounts defending you on the forum have come from?

10000130951080×1437 306 KB

10000130961080×1788 261 KB

10000130981079×1634 217 KB

Screenshot 2024-09-23 at 1.03.19 PM1552×816 89.2 KB

I don’t use alts.
It’s all pRoJeCtiOn.

But it appears that you do @Better_Future aka @Roo!

And so does AADAO’s Marketing/Communications lead.

While not criminal, it’s certainly unethical to manipulate community conversations on governance matters this way. This is all very undignified and disrespectful.
I’ve had enough.

No more comments needed from me. Will circle back with transcripts.

Screenshot 2024-09-23 at 9.54.33 AM2412×680 46.7 KB

Screenshot 2024-09-23 at 9.53.33 AM1702×970 74.7 KB

Screenshot 2024-09-23 at 10.13.12 AM1644×450 27.9 KB

Hi Whitemarlin, the Roo account is mine and it is the only other account I have on Cosmos forum. I created it about a year ago thinking i might start to write under my real identity (my initials RO), but I never did transition and have always stuck with the pseudoynm and that’s how everyone in the community knows me, and hence why this Roo account has never been used. You can see in the stats it has never ever posted anything (apart from that one misfire post 20 mins ago). When I login in the morning “with Gmail” if I am using my RO gmail, then I get logged into this Roo account, and I errantly did that this morning. Sorry for the confusion. I’ll continue to post as betterfuture, as that is how I’m known in the community.

Cosmos_Nanny: Your memory of our conversation is inaccurate. I have a complete recording of our call to verify this. I’ll share both the entire transcript and the recording, though it’s quite lengthy. To save time, I’ll provide a summary for the community, emphasizing that there’s nothing controversial or concerning in the content of our conversation. Btw, you were informed by the other contributor on the call that your recollection is incorrect. I’m left puzzled by your choices Jordan. Thank you for the reply Grace @Cosmos_Nanny . To be clear to everyone, I do not have a recording of the call between myself, Grace, and the other DAO contributor. My recollection is just based on my memory recall of the events. In the spirit of being cooperative, I am generally a reasonable person so I am more than happy to be corrected, if the recording does differ significantly at all, from my recollection. My recount I typed above is all based upon my rough recollection of events through my perspective, as I typed them at 2-3am my timezone, last night. They were also unedited, and I did not receive feedback from any other AADAO members prior to posting. I also want to flag…

Excerpt (1198 of 2612 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Are you advocating for a system that, through a lack of disincentives, incentivizes malfeasance and, once discovered, negotiates with the wrongdoer to correct the misuse of funds while allowing them to remain in place to find new ways to misappropriate resources?

Obviously not.

I am actually saying either oversight need to accept the position of the dao or they/the community need to vote to disband it.

What you need to understand is when you’re aiming to challenge a person’s credibility and reputation, “something along the lines of” is not good enough.

And it’s wholly inappropriate to allow and or invite your colleagues to make alterations to your given account/statement. The group effort that is clearly your “statement” invalidates it.

BendyOne:

Obviously not.

I am actually saying either oversight need to accept the position of the dao or they/the community need to vote to disband it.

what does that mean? are you saying AADAO’s position is one advocating for a system that, through a lack of disincentives, incentivizes malfeasance and, once discovered, negotiates with the wrongdoer to correct the misuse of funds while allowing them to remain in place to find new ways to misappropriate resources?

Cosmos_Nanny: What you need to understand is when you’re aiming to challenge a person’s credibility and reputation , “something along the lines of” is not good enough. And it’s wholly inappropriate to allow and or invite your colleagues to make alterations to your given account/statement. The group effort that is clearly your “statement” invalidates it. Grace, I was not aiming to challenge anyone’s reputation or credibility. I mention this in my original post above. I was told by fellow DAO contributors that they thought my recollection of all events, including both my onboarding to AADAO of receiving the job offer from the GM, as well as my call with you and the other DAO contributor- was important to at least add to a holistic report. Again, I also did not have the luxury of the recording of said call. You do, in this case. So I am willing to be corrected within reason. My statement above is not the result from a group effort. Respectfully I want to reiterate on the Strategic Committee call, September 20, I was asking for feedback on the call because this is my first time ever posting to Cosmos Hub forums, I am relatively newer to Cosmos in a professional…

Excerpt (1194 of 1483 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

So how are we going to move forward? This back and forth bickering on things can only go for so long. The community deserves a resolution to this ASAP.

There have reportedly been two full DAO team discussions about the “Master Report” process and production. During one of these team calls, you apparently shared your recollection of our call that took place on August 30th between you, me, and another contributor. You reportedly stated that during this August 30th call, I suggested removing Youssef, possibly implying that I was prematurely advocating for his removal before the review was complete. And that this was what you perceived as my motivation in organizing the call with you and another contributor. This is incorrect . And in fact, the other contributor who was on that August 30th call with us corrected your recollection, communicating to you that your recollection is inaccurate . According to her, she was actually the one who first mentioned Youssef’s potential removal, in response to me sharing what transpired on StratComm call earlier that same day. I have recently listened to the recording and the recollection of the other contributor is true. I did not bring up Youssef’s removal first. And it’s true to say that was clearly not the objective of our call given what was discussed. Specifically, the other…

Excerpt (1194 of 3538 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Yeh, wish people just stopped.

DAO currently voting on: AADAO Team | Update Internal Protocols and terminate the employment of Youssef Amrani as GM

Frankly this is a disgrace.

Set egos aside and hop on a call to determine a path forward. He-said she-said stuff could potentially go on for weeks. Figure it out, folks. We need to move on so the DAO can finish their mandate, or cancel the whole damn thing.

What exactly did my actions contribute to the current situation? Thank you for asking that question. • In v0.1 Internal Protocols that went on-chain with Prop 865, Oversight was given the role of finalizing the Performance Incentive Plan protocol. The intention was that this be done in an absolutely neutral and irreproachable way by an independent Oversight. • Prop 865 provided about 60-80% of what was necessary to administer the performance comp, yeah? And there was still work to do, yeah? KPIs, KPI measurement, formulas for calculating retention, etc. • When you started asking about performance comp and retention that seemed to benefit yourself, then I understand that Youssef felt he had to take the performance comp admin task away from you on grounds you were being self-interested, that is what I personally witnessed happening on the Feb 23 call, yeah? • So once he took it away from you, this was the beginning of the current situation of Youssef going off on his own and creating his own version of bonus pool splitting formulas and retention formulas and admining the plan (which is NOT the positive design architecture involving Oversight as a guardrail to admin the…

Excerpt (1195 of 1860 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I feel it’s important to remind ALL AADAO CONTRIBUTORS that, as previously communicated to you, all conversations regarding Oversight’s review have been recorded. This includes every discussion beginning with my initial call with Patricia on August 27th onwards. Utterly baffled by the actions of certain contributors who are promoting predetermined narratives for the “Master Report”. The invalid conjectures and directionality of your Master narrative conflict with the factual evidence captured in many of the audio recordings. Why is there all this energy invested in creating doubt on our work and harm to our reputation? Why do I hear a perverse joy in your voices as you coordinate to hack a report that Pati and I are not “peachy keen peachy clean.” You’re driven by motivations that are unclear to me. I don’t need to know the answer. Not right now. For now, I ask you all to do the right thing . Recommended sequence of “doing the right things:” • Immediate GM termination • Lift ‘operational freeze’ on Oversight • Migrate AADAO to Cosmos Hub • Establish AADAO Oversight SubDAO by 9/25 • Alter your charter and bylaws to make it unequivocally clear, the Oversight Committee…

Excerpt (1199 of 1422 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Why can’t the community end this drama by just voting to “fire” everyone, freeze & get back control of the funds, and make new elections?

Probably Juno, not having legal entities, wasn’t so bad nor slow & bureaucratic

Do new structures & governance processes still need to be defined? I can help.
It will be much easier & transparent now on DA0DA0…

Can we please get more details on the “investments” that AADAO has been making using investor funds?

Why is AADAO the one benefiting from the upside of these “investments” from other peoples funds?

Why is there no oversight body monitoring the term sheets of these “investments”?

How much economic benefit are AADAO members seeing from these “investments”?

Replied to you on telegram btw.

Excited to move on to talking about “doing the right things”. Still not sure all of the facts have been brought to light in a holistic manner though. We likely can’t fix the “breakages” in the governance design in a robust way if we don’t understand how / why it broke, yeah? One thread I am still unclear on is why Damien left his Oversight role within the DAO? What date did that happen? Can anyone who knows Damien ask him to come here and make a statement? Grace, is there a transcript of your call with Damien? Can you provide it end to end in some way? I was really hoping your investigation would bring these kinds of details to light, and was sad when it didn’t seem to do so. When you spent 7-8 days making methodological critiques of the team’s attempt to get you and Pati to respond to questions, it just seemed so odd, IDK, your words about being willing to share everything transparently and your actions they did not really match the past 7-8 days. ++++ I know moving to DAO DAO on Cosmos Hub is in the works. But it’s probably more complicated then that as DAO DAO feature set today won’t fully solve the issues of how to ensure performance comp and retention distribution…

Excerpt (1197 of 2105 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Better_Future:

Did I not tell you directly on an early call that “Pati wanted bonuses for Oversight, Youssef got mad at her over it, and that’s how this whole situation got started” – why don’t you play that clip for the community?

How is this relevant to the situation? If anything this is a separate issue. Stick to the topic at hand.

Better_Future:

DAO DAO feature set today won’t fully solve the issues of how to ensure performance comp and retention

Performance comp and retention bonuses should be removed entirely. This is a non-issue. As I see it there is currently no logical reason for not migrating to a preconfigured DAODAO setup on Cosmos chain, today.

@Cosmos_Nanny ’s suggestion really is the only way forward on this.

Add to that, @Better_Future clearly needs to consider his future in the DAO. Anyone listening to that call between Pati and Youssef knows it for what it was - clear signs of an unsafe working environment. No one should be treated like that; especially for doing your job. Totally unprofessional.

Just a simple question as well, what would happen to a grant application from a team that had been as @Youssef put it “Compromised”.

Were they making grant decisions based on this? On politics?

Thank you for the DAODAO proposal @Syed, seems the only logical next step. I agree with @BendyOne about how oversight and the DAO need to work together though, the length and content on this thread is absurd and honestly a waste of time at this point.

Let’s get a new post from AADAO about how they are planning to proceed and what they are going to change. Thanks to all involved for their work.

“Working together” with Oversight isn’t Oversight. It’s “Compliance”. Or “Legal” Or simply just “Management”.

It’s not called Side-by-side-sight.

It’s also not a synonym for post hoc auditing.

If there’s a redo then everyone hired into AADAO v2 should sign a common formal acknowledgment that they are Accountable to Oversight. I.e. accountable to the community.

And their job (with KPIs) is to keep the community satisfied proactively, not operate first or opaquely & then get reactionary over _ Investigations _.

Or else call it something besides Oversight. Mission Alignment. DAO Diligence. Disfunctional Debate Club. Whtvr.

Well, evidence is relevant if it establishes the context of an event, the circumstances of an event, or if it explains a chain of events. Remember this whole investigation started under the label “Notification Regarding Proposed Bonus Methodology, Alleged Misconduct and/or Mismanagement Involving the General Manager (GM), and Governance Concerns” As it relates to whether the GM behaved correctly, it may seem like a separate incident, but as it relates to whether the bonus methodology was designed fairly, or whether there are governance issues involving the DAO and Oversight itself, then it is extremely relevant, yeah? afaict, the Feb events were: • in the direct chain of events leading into all of the issues reported in Grace’s incident report, • help the DAO and community to understand circumstances of how and why Oversight was removed from admin’ing performance comp and why Youssef was working on performance comp basically independently thru 2024, • shows context of Pati’s emotional disposition towards Youssef as she may have felt steamrolled by him from their earlier multi-week dispute in Jan/Feb which he ended by reprimanding her and taking back the function…

Excerpt (1197 of 1723 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I mean, if you look at the other candidates that were up for the position they both acted as if it was some kind of PR role, meant to assure or convince the community that whatever was going on was perfectly fine and that they have nothing to worry about. One even went so far as suggesting that they would (paraphrasing) ‘ensure grants are approved as quickly and with as little red tape as possible’.
The fact that this was seen by the majority of candidates to be a potentially winning position is in itself is a massive red flag.

Fortunately the voters did not just vote for whoever seemed to be trying to appeal to the dao itself in place of basic ethics and standards.

OK, why not go a step further and investigate the entire existence and total historical actions of the entire project? There’s a lot more context I could bring up that is barely relevant but can be presented in a way that it may seem as if it is.
(See where this leads?)

On a more productive note - are you implying that there is some conspiracy or coverup going on here? Does the oversight ‘officer’ in your mind have some hidden agenda or something? I really do not see the point you’re trying to make here.

If your point is like “Yeah OK, Youssef might be a real jerk, but so is the person who pointed it out” then no, those are two completely different things that are really not relevant. Why? Because the accuser has provided and brought to light a fair bit of evidence to back that statement up.
So far all I have gathered about the comments and accusations directed toward oversight is that it seems like certain individuals are feeling incredibly inconvenienced because they are being held accountable for probably the first time since they became a part of this organization.

Better_Future: Grace, is there a transcript of your call with Damien? Can you provide it end to end in some way? I did speak with Damien on Sept 3rd, after reaching out to him on Sept 2nd. He agreed to the call on the condition that our conversation remains confidential . I respect his wish for privacy and cannot disclose any further details about our discussion. Damien has made it clear that he does not want to be involved in this matter at all, and I urge everyone to respect his boundaries . Concurrently on Sept 3rd, I had my 4th conversation with Pati, lasting approximately two hours. Please note that these interactions were not conducted in a therapeutic capacity as implied by you. In all my interactions with all contributors, I have conducted myself as an elected member to Oversight. Franky, what you allege as my “cherry picking” of facts, and allege as bias towards her “narrative” is demeaning to the rigor I bring to all my professional engagements. You don’t know what I know. By the end of the Sept 3rd call with Pati, following prior communications on Aug 27th, 29th, and 30th, I had the majority of supporting material I felt I needed to see to prepare a…

Excerpt (1195 of 4182 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

oof, I missed this one. This is disgusting, and confirms pretty much everything I had already gathered from previous statements, and just the events in general. Anyhow… a couple people have already stated this and I tend to agree - this conitnued back and forth becomes less constructive as time goes on. In the end, the situation boils down to quite literally ‘he-said, she-said’. Due to the nature of the issue and the environment we occupy here, it will always be this way, and for that reason it is impossible to not take both sides at their word on everything they say. The more important focus, and the only way imo to make any kind of sensible judgements in these situations is to look at three things: • a person’s reputation • a person’s current actions • a person’s potential motives Again I will remind you, I don’t get paid for this, nor do I stand to gain anything in any possible way. Hell, I barely even hold any ATOM at all anymore, and it’s specifically because of the perpetual swindling that goes on and the complete lack of desire by just about any existing party to correct any of it. Therefore, I will close with this: This is not my first job, actually it’s…

Excerpt (1198 of 3084 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

hi @cordtus , @betterfuture here from my personal account. My protests are procedural. If we’re going to do investigations within AADAO in the future, lets learn from this situation and improve our process going forward. Grace was directionally correct in her review of the GM and she was brave to stand up and challenge the GM and it was honorable that she would defend Pati to report information. Yet, at the same time, in parts of the process, it left a lot to be desired. For example, the process did not really achieve the original objective of identifying the governance gaps (and there are no resolutions to that, afaict). We need to make deeper improvements in our governance or else its just a firing brigade, and we will just be right back in a similar rut in the mud 12 months from now. I will try to gather up a few thoughts over next few days and discuss more with the various DAO members, but quickly now while it is all still fresh: • Its really not a good look to report on conclusions before all of the statements have been gathered. • If a person is stonewalling an investigation, Oversight needs a way to deal with that, but running to the forum with a report that has…

Excerpt (1199 of 3815 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

So the point you’re trying to make is finding out: WHY was Youssef acting like an unsustainable GM who crosses lines. // WHAT LED Youssef to abusing his power. // HOW did Pati cause UNJUSTIFIABLE - NO MATTER WHAT - behavior by Youssef. While you may think you’re trying to present us ‘the whole picture’, your current proposal on DAODAO shows that it doesn’t change a thing. The context that you think you gave us was no new information at all and wouldn’t have changed the report one bit. Some things are simply not worth adding to a report. Like, when someone commits a crime you ask about the motif, you don’t ask endless questions what led to having this motif. A misconduct is a misconduct. Red flags stay red flags. The facts were so obviously true when Youssef didn’t even try defend himself one single bit. His indefensible behavior caused an unusual wave of attention on X. the audio recording, Patis receipts…which were the basis of the report !! were found authentic by the community - which is why this whole “fact finding” investigation seems super odd. It’s really on you guys, to have wasted so much time. Removing Youssef was literally the first comment to the report - by…

Excerpt (1196 of 2375 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

@betterfuture here, my personal account. While you may think you’re trying to present us ‘the whole picture’, your current proposal on DAODAO shows that it doesn’t change a thing. The context that you think you gave us was no new information at all and wouldn’t have changed the report one bit. Some things are simply not worth adding to a report. Like, when someone commits a crime you ask about the motif, you don’t ask endless questions what led to having this motif. A misconduct is a misconduct. Red flags stay red flags. I’m hearing you. In retrospect, you are correct. In my head all of the events were linked, and it was all one big long chain of events, as that is how I lived through it. But in terms of the case against the GM, I mean, yah, Grace did package it up pretty neatly, and it was sufficient info to create a momentum to remove the GM (as the unanimous team vote shows), even if not holistically complete. Apologies if I didn’t understand what the objectives were. I thought the objectives were also addressing how/why the perf comp went off the rails at AADAO (and what to do about it), and, making gov improvements so that it doesn’t happen again. Probably it is…

Excerpt (1199 of 1469 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

2 years in is no way a young org. It not being able to meet objectives assigned to it is a function of its setup. In Structure, in Processes and in Personnel. If anything the GM’s removal should prompt a reassessment of everything. Why has it been a failed org so far? Is it even measuring any of the indicators relevant to its success? Why are grant evals taking so long? What’s with the venture obsession? Is this what the community voted for? All is up for reassessment - and I have to say @Better_Future your takes on all this just shows you don’t get it. You’ve constantly been trying to excuse the inexcusable. The community at large should be looking at your role in all this. The vote establishing AADAO meant it became the gatekeeper to funds intended to grow and ensure the health of the ecosystem. From the evidence of the last 2 years (even given wider market malaise), number of users has gone to nothing. There have been no original ideas, no one thinking from first principles. Instead the community finds out the DAO was putting its energies into suppressing and concealing disclosures of grift and wrongdoing. There’s a lot that is wrong here and new leadership needs to be…

Excerpt (1198 of 1252 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Following a recent vote by the contributors of Atom Accelerator DAO (AADAO), Youssef Amrani has been removed from his role as General Manager.

Please read the blog below for more details
https://www.atomaccelerator.com/202409-aadao-votes-to-remove-youssef-amrani-as-general-manager/

Hey sorry I didn’t have time to fully ingest this but yes I agree there are more, and maybe deeper issues here.

I think one of those issues is that aadao feels as if oversight is beholden to them in any way. They aren’t. Oversight represents the interests of the community and of the chain above all else. There is absolutely no scenario in which the entity being overseen should have direct influence upon the oversight body.

Which is why hiring process for Oversight Controller and Oversight Coordinator must also be redone.

Please see

AADAO Oversight - Elected Member Updates & Reports AADAO

AADAO Structure and Governance: Core DAO: No members of the core DAO were elected. The GM was self-appointed. The GM hired the contributors. Oversight: The Oversight committee has only one elected member, which is my role. Oversight is independent from the Core DAO. Two key roles, Oversight Controller and Oversight Coordinator, are hired through a process involving: a) The GM creating a shortlist of candidates b) StratComm selecting from this shortlist c) The selected candidate being…

Following a raucous start to the Twitter space today, this is what I believe we mutually agreed to via the Townhall and additional conversations in AADAO Slack: Independence of AADAO Oversight: AADAO Oversight is an autonomous and independent committee, separate from the Core DAO. Its primary responsibility is to represent and serve the interests of the Cosmos hub community & stakeholders. The committee is not obligated to align with AADAO’s business, strategic, entrepreneurial, marketing, or public relations objectives. Removal Process for Elected Oversight Member: The elected member of AADAO Oversight can only be elected and removed through Cosmos hub governance. Revised Hiring Protocol for Key Oversight Roles: The hiring process for the Oversight Coordinator and Oversight Controller positions must be restructured. At a minimum, when these roles become vacant, they should be: a) Publicly advertised with an open application period b) Potentially subject to ratification through Cosmos Hub Governance Rescinding Previous Oversight Coordinator Offer: The offer extended to an Oversight Coordinator candidate on August 30th by the former GM will be withdrawn. This…

Excerpt (1194 of 1807 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Link to Townhall today: Oversight + AADAO Core Contributors

Seriously want to have an answer by AADAO to this.

And since we‘re talking about money:

Who is responsible for losing 80k (until returned…) in the most embarrassing amazeur way to a CEX address?

I can ask this in the other thread. But I expect the one who’s responsible for burning 80k of cp funds it to tell the community (and is unable to communicate with Cosmoverse what the next 80k must be considered as, BEFORE sending 80k).

I provided a thorough report here:

AADAO Oversight - Elected Member Updates & Reports AADAO

Report: AADAO and Cosmoverse 2024 Dispute I. Problem Statement: A dispute arose between the Atom Accelerator DAO (AADAO) and Cosmoverse (grantee) regarding an $80,000 initial payment for a $100,000 approved grant. The transaction coincided with AADAO’s transition from ATOM-based to USDC-based disbursements. The conflict centers on two separate disbursements, each presenting distinct issues: March 20, 2024: AADAO erroneously sent 80,000 USDC to an incompatible Kraken CEX address (Payment 1) May…

Please direct your questions re the erroneous transfer of $80k USDC for Cosmoverse in the other thread. Thanks Stunzeed.

fwiw, wanted add this personal tweet to this thread…as this saga continues.

Syed C (@syedchoudhury) on X

I would like to inform that I have made the decision to leave the AADAO. I’m committed to staying until I can hand over my responsibilities to the next Financial Controller, ensuring a smooth and seamless transition. Thank you.

Pati:
I want to express my sincere appreciation for your contributions during your near two yrs with Cosmos. Your commitment to professional principles and your courage in asking important questions, even in challenging circumstances, is admirable.

Your ability to maintain your integrity and tenacity in seeking clarity, even when it wasn’t easy, is an inspiration.

Thank you for your service and commitment. And thank you so much for helping Oversight ensure a smooth transition.
You will be missed by me, both professionally and personally.

My experience in the corporate world has given me the expertise to identify issues and gaps. However, my limited familiarity with the ATOM ecosystem has influenced my ability to effectively address key matters.
I entrusted you with important matters because I saw how committed you are to doing things the right way. Your arrival marked the first time Oversight could truly operate as intended. I genuinely believe you are a vital part of AADAO, and I want to wish you and the team continued success. Thank you!

Thank you for everything you’ve done for the Hub, especially in such challenging conditions. Your professionalism has truly set a high standard for anyone who follows in your footsteps. The community (myself at the very least) is deeply grateful and sincerely hopes you’ll stay connected, even if just as a spectator.

highstakes: ok so regarding x.com This audio transcript is yet another damning element. Sorry that Patricia had to endure this. Yes sorry for Patricia and the other AADAO members. Youssef wasn’t expecting that his selected employees will open the mouth and when they finally did for some reason he became very aggresive as seen in that audio for example. From the very first moment the idea of the ‘ATOM grants program’ appeared on the Cosmos Hub forum written by Youssef and another co-founder @Better_Future with apparently a great resume we immediately saw many red flags and tried to warn the community, we are talking December 2022. We were heavily critized and the community supported the proposal and the AADAO started. We continued to see many red flags about the projects funded, including huge easy funding for Cosmoverse (and cryptocito videos) where Youssef presented himself very happy in photos with Cito. In the renewal we tried again to warn the community and at least given our pressure Youssef accepted to open some positions to apply rather than handpick all AADAO members. Ultimately what we were warning about for 2 years finally came to light and now there is this…

Excerpt (1199 of 2837 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗