You basically scammed someone, dude. But sure, laugh it off.
Take the hint please, in your own words
I read the thread now a few times, and honestly, it could be understood in several ways. On the one hand, there was a very detailed proposal that includes work to be done immediately. On the other hand, there was your concise reply, “Consider the group created”.
I understand you meant it as “the group creation is approved but the roadmap is not” (right?). But it’s so easy to think your reply was also approving the work plan.
I also understand that no specific funds were promised, but it seems that @inplco also didn’t promise any specific funds (right?).
Moreover, it was very visible that the work is being done. It was communicated here all the time and there were discussions. If it wasn’t approved, the time in which the work was being carried out would have been a point to let know explicitly that it was not actually approved.
Nick was/is the lead steward of the meta-governence WG, from which inplco asked for the money. It’s easy to confuse his reply with the agreement of the WG for the work.
I asked RnDAO how much they expected and they told me $2500. I told them that I have initiated the budget proposal with their requested amount and sent them the link to the proposal. Since the work was expedited, they continued the work, as did I. I told them to stop when I did not receive a response on the proposal. I followed the expedited timeline as it was clearly communicated in the subWG formation post.
Please DM me the costs. ENSpunks.eth will pay your work performed for this survey while @inplco was a lead of the subgroup.
RnDAO will get paid one way or the other. But I will not stand idly at mudslinging on work done in good faith
The budget request is here. I do not see written approval/consent from any steward within that thread.
Work of the same, or similar nature, was requested at least twice last term. It did not receive widespread support. See, Real-time community health analytics or Dedicated analytics hover group for reference.
It appears that the creation of a subgroup may have been interpreted as a blanket approval of funds. Assuming that any amount budget is authorized without going through the proper approval process is procedurally incorrect. Also, a single steward can not approve any funding by themselves.
Discussing the finer details of this may be irrelevant at this point in time… The user who incorrectly promised the funds has declared they will be initiating a “soft off-board” from ENS DAO, and the current meta-governance stewards have decided not to pay the sum of $2500 requested in the budget linked above.
General guidelines for discussion conduct can be found: here.
tl;dr It was my mistake for taking Nick’s approval as a sign off on the work. Got it.
I can understand that the budget we were promised had not been approved, but I’m shocked we have to bear the loss as a natural third party that just got caught in between.
It’s not like $2500 will break the bank for ENS and instead having a single mother who worked over the weekend (our contributor) take the hit is horrendous.
I will pay you out of my personal stack. No issues. Hold up a few minutes. This is your address:
@danielo sent $2,500 in $ENS https://etherscan.io/address/0xB2A406a878DCc9e5ee832AdD8d0e2892209c7A8a
Setting aside the funding for 3rd parties, or lack thereof, unless I’m missing something, a reasonably person might conclude that with the creation of the SG, the scope of work was also authorized. In some jurisdictions the SG might have even had a legal duty to begin good faith performance on that scope of work.
I don’t think this is the place to make legal conclusions with respect to legal liability debts.
It’s all moot because it’s pay, but it’s certainly not expressly stated @inplco legally bound the DAO or represented authority to legally bind that DAO. It’s also being willfully overlooked that the vendor performed work at least as much based on @alisha.eth’s comments as follows:
No one knows if it’s reasonable for the vendor to have begun preforming based on anything @inplco said, but let’s assume good faith on the part of the vendor, the vendor is expressing he also formed a reasonable understanding that the DAO/Stewards had knowledge his was performing the work for the DAO SG because it was acknowledge by a Steward of the DAO. Maybe it is also reasonable the vendor subjectively believed at that point, if the DAO knew the work was being performing unfunded without authorization, then the DAO might have made in inquiry and stopped the work in lieu of acknowledging it.
It doesn’t matter whose debt it is legally, I got this one. Can’t wait for these report cards! LFG
Pretty depraved outlook considering the Director who took home >$2,000,000 + $11,500 per day (~$250,000 in travel alone) retroactively for work performed before any funds were guaranteed is playing Goliath on $2500 in work that is at worst work done in good faith and at best an honest and declared expedited misstep. But life goes on. Good talk lads Thank you for your work @danielo and please proceed with the survey I guess if you want to. It’s up to you what you want next. I have off-boarded as mentioned
The debate is not whether the budget was approved (no one claimed it was), but whether the workplan was approved.
Correct. I could not be bothered to issue a correction again. It has been said countless times that this work is nothing like RnDAO’s earlier proposal and question is about whether the workplan was approved, not funding. I can only repeat it so many times before I have to start wondering about the utility of it
If you believed that the creation of the subgroup was enough to give you authority to spend DAO funds, why did you post a budget request?
ENSpunks.eth, thank you for showing a way forward that moves us past blame games and towards a resolution. ENS is lucky to have you!
Why do you keep insisting that ‘start the work’ = ‘spend DAOs funds’? For the 100th time Nick, I did not claim that I had the authority to spend DAO’s money. I assumed that the DAO will compensate for the work that they have explicitly approved (meaning you) pending discussions on the amount. Not I, the DAO. How many repetitions will it take for me to clear the air that it was your approval that led me to move forward with the work in good faith? At no point did I have the money or I claimed to have the money. It is your fault for giving an approval that you did not mean and for not communicating clearly to the subWG that your approval was no more than a rubberstamp for another approval. Work was carried out in open but you and the stewards were absent to correct the misstep. You were tagged repeatedly in the posts and asked about the budget. Where do you get off on defending mismanagement and blaming contributors for working in good faith?
Nick deploys wrong contract = Human mistake
Nick skips an entire stage of voting = Human mistake
Contributor starts work right away after approval as declared in good faith = Disingenuous
I have paid out ENSPunks.eth who jumped the gun, being the kindest person that he is https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0560a3f1644ca3c58310bed2d02f84dbeb10e32c7e7eb6d60937677dd79259c4
I guess this wraps up this matter
You were wrong to assume that. You do not have the authority to spend money until a budget is approved. If you choose to commission work before that, it is at your own risk that you may not be reimbursed.
I don’t believe you have any honest confusion about this; your actions at the time made it clear you understood you needed to request money from the DAO. You are attempting to sow confusion here by conflating the creation of a subgroup with an authority to commit the DAO to spend funds.
I consider this matter closed and won’t be responding any further.
Yes, this matter is resolved. Your dial is stuck at ‘spending DAO funds’ narrative. I am not denying that I knew I had to request funds which is why I requested them . What I didn’t expect is Nick ghosting his duty and then denying that he approved the roadmap in bad faith. You asked me for the roadmap explicitly, asked me to outline couple of goals, which I did and the very first line of that roadmap mentions starting work on the survey right away to be delivered in less than 10 days on expedited timeline before the elections, which you then approved. Must be different universes that we are living in. Anything but an admittance of mismanagement Onwards