You did not get a reaction from me for voicing concerns broadly. Like, I don’t know how to make it more clear that concerns and discussions around the structure of this group were welcome and expected. You got a reaction because you said the authors “may be acting disproportionately in the interest of Set” and that we “set ourselves apart from the community” and I think both of those are false and I don’t have to just sit back and accept those nonfactual claims.
When I say full power of the community I am talking about the power you have to alter the structure so that if you feel this way then it won’t come about. And I am more than happy with that. It is as simple as what Verto said (below).
That is idea started while discussing with the Set contributors about brutal truths and hard problems the Coop is facing, but the FTs said that we did not feel we had the community trust or buy in to lead this effort, so we wanted to turn it over to the community. That is the origin story.
I don’t think any of the authors are pushing back on concerns of conflict of interest in the group structure that have been brought up. If that is how we all feel, then let’s change it! The “Full Timers way or the highway” is a complete misread on your part, because we don’t feel that way at all.
You are right that this went unanswered on the WG lead chat, but I didn’t answer because I had already answered you personally (see below). The way you are trying to spin this is just false.
This is not going to happen and none of the FTs are pushing for this to happen at this point - the community feedback was clear and this has been a dead conversation - no one is pushing it forward anymore. So to use it in a conspiracy theory that the FTs are trying to governance capture in combination with this proposal - that is just silly.
Any pushback I have given is to defend the intentions of the authors of this proposal, which are no where near what you are characterizing them to be. I would really just love to get off this conversation and focus on the actual merits of the proposal.
Going through these comments this morning - lots of good points and spirited discussion. However, there are some frustrating themes that we need to move beyond.
Jumping to conclusions. This post is one day old, the conversation is just starting. We should be collaborating and finding solutions, not rushing to draw battle lines. At the end of the day this is a big enough discussion that we will likely need to bring in multiple third parties and have multiple groups working on different aspects.
Assuming worst intent. Basically, every single person I have spoken to across essentially every organization (Set, DFP, Investors, Community) is aligned in the need to give more ownership to the contributors who are building this DAO. Everyone has different ideas on how best to implement this and no-one has the final solution. Assuming that everyone is operating exclusively to maximize their personal economic utility is short-sighted and ignores the fundamental reality that we are all in this together. Everyone’s stake no matter how big or small is worthless if we cannot work together and assume the best intent.
Not working to find solutions. Not a single person in the Coop has made a proposal without that proposal being significantly improved through community feedback. We are all trying to solve these problems together.
Finally - we need to seriously refocus on Servant leadership here. Protocol ownership is for everyone, we need to be working hard to ensure that every single Copper, Bronze, and Silver Owl has a road to meaningful protocol ownership. This is bigger than individuals. People are relying on this protocol to provide for their families and future. We owe it to everyone to solve these problems.
Negative attacks, threats to escalate, or degradation of this debate brings EVERYONE further away from the end goal.
Earlier today I reached out to a fellow Aussie to help kick start our outreach efforts to find an independent mediator. I can not thank @sassal enough for providing perspective and providing context around this very topic. Looking past the emotions, let’s come together and broaden our reach to find a truly independent mediator.
Perhaps VCs are the wrong direction. What about someone who likes cultivating the right community dynamic. In my eyes the 1Kx idea is to contentious and will derail this exercise. So to me 1Kx as a valid option is no longer on the table.
We can start with a blank sheet of paper, draft a new ownership structure and figure out how we can get there.
I’d love to see someone like 0xMaki or Stani come in and help out.
Listen from the 7 min to 20 min sections.
Thank you again @sassal
Sharing this publicly because this approach is abhorrent, toxic and goes against every single principle of our community. Trying to push someone out of the DAO because they disagree with your opinion is a new low @Matthew_Graham.
Yes I sent that msg and regretted it ever since. I deleted it soon there after and wish I never sent it. I sincerely apologies. I thought I managed to deleted it before it was read, clearly I didn’t. Above all else I am sorry it doesn’t reflect my values.
To give context, it was made clear you are planning/considering leaving Index Coop as soon as the vested tokens come available and that was a while back now. Given we are clashing on the forum, I thought you may be even closer to leaving.
I am thinking about whether this process is the correct process at all. Instead of electing a council of people to create this roadmap. Can we not host a collaborative workshop that is open to anyone to attend and provide an opinion, anyone can be actively involved in shaping the future of this DAO. Just a suggestion, but I am wondering can we attempt to approach this process in a completely different way altogether?
It might solve the alignment issues we saw with the first autonomy group. Feedback is most welcomed. Maybe we need to think about this differently.
Prior to further comment or debate on this thread, we need to collectively re-affirm our principles and values.
A good starting point for getting this conversation back on track is if everyone involved re-affirms their commitment to our Guiding Principles and Code of Conduct.
While we are still working on getting something formal in place - a good gesture would be to comment on Guiding Principles and Code of Conduct and affirm your personal commitment to upholding our community standards.
I had a lot of follow-up with JD on Discord here and think a lot of where we differed was that I had concerns about the optics and he has an absolute belief in the constructive intent of the authors. I’m sold on that and that point should have been a footnote but it got a lot of airtime due to it being a bit sensational and targeted to the point of feeling personal. I regret if that contributed to escalation in the thread, but stand by my constructive input here: Formation of a Protocol Ownership Kick-Off Group - #13 by fallow8
Just want to express my agreement with this. Appreciate @fallow8 for being a great steward of the community, and I think our debate was mostly fueled by the passion we both have for the DAO and the community.
Well played @fallow8 and @jdcook. That’s how these things should be discussed and handled!
I am open to the autonomy group doing this work or this new proposed WG handling it - as long as it is handled and at the right time. I’ll let the community’s votes decide. For me, personally, right time = next few months. Not having thrashed this around by the end of the year would be a failure (an outcome I don’t think we’ll experience).
I appreciate @jdcook and the FTs pushing this forward, and although I am appreciative of @fallow8’s points, I take their motives as they are described. Let’s do this!
I’m so glad this core, core topic is getting more and more focus - it’s festered for a while building up to this.
