I agree, to remain in positions of leadership at this point is to effectively condone misrepresenting the truth to partner communities. People have suggested they feel deceit is too strong a word but euphemisms aside here deceit is simply
deceit
/dɪˈsiːt/
noun
- the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth.
For those that claim there was no policy to say a subDAO can’t just spin up - therefore Matt was not misrepresenting “truth” it is not our position on policy that matters here.
Although this is only one comment - this member felt the truth was misrepresented and it is the tip of an iceberg. FEI has spoken and ultimately voted 90% NO CONFIDENCE to delegate to GH. Regardless of our position on “degrees” of truth or the need for policy, we have been found wanting.
Leadership should be above reproach and set an exemplary standard of conduct. Regardless of whether policy exists or not Matt you knowingly and repeatedly misrepresented the truth and imo so long as you remain a member of Council, the entire coop is seen to condone misleading behaviour
You’ve got some ground to make up here but what astounds me is that you would claim community oversight for GH on all decisions while proactively subverting the community governance process here.
What recent changes?
Wen creation of Governance House?
Why a new delgate address?
Why present an early stage discussion as a done deal?
I can think of only one good reason - you were hoping to accrue voting power prior to the GH IIP in order to vote GH into existence because you are aware that it is a distraction to our mission. It is a brilliant innovative idea, but the timing here was wrong and you’ve effectively undermined your own reputation, the reputation of Coop and our industry standing.
Our continued silence in respect to affected stakeholders is to effectively condone the deceit which I finding absolutely unacceptable. Decisive action should already have been taken to apologise and begin to repair the damage done. People lose jobs for this kind of misconduct, presidents would face impeachment.
PROBLEM: I’m seeing here a crisis of governance legitimacy, coop reputation and industry trust, which will impact us in the long term.
QUESTION: How do we repair the relationship of trust that has been undermined, knowing that the way we are perceived throughout DeFi is critical to our success
SOULTION: We need to 1) own the mistake 2) prove accountability (Matt) 3) apologise and make ourselves available to receive feedback from those the felt mislead and in this way mend the burning bridges.
@Matthew_Graham you need to stand down from Council. Council are then in a position to clearly signal (internally & externally) and communicate on the forums of all affected stakeholders that we do not condone the misleading of partner communities and as such the person responsible has elected to stand down leadership positions pending clarification of the situation.
I know this will not go down well with many people but it needed to be said in public because pleading this case via DM has proved disappointing