There was a user who continually attacked others here. After several warnings they continued. Thatâs not the same as âanyone who asks questions gets booted.â Thatâs just not factual. Youâre welcome to look at that userâs history of posts on the forums and weigh that against the Code of Conduct.
In my opinion your very first post does not âprovide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.â It actually detracts from the topic and conversation.
I aint no attorney man but the dude got called a scammer by another user. Where does that rank on the your conduct scale? since you seem like the guy who got the rules memorized and all, perhaps you can tell me if getting called a scammer, which is a criminal allegation, not worse than ad hominim
You could start a separate topic for that if youâd like. You are welcome to do that. Only trying to keep this thread on topic. There was good dialogue going on as to if it should, why it should, or should not, if itâs needed. I learn a lot from these threads, and it just makes everything better to be reasonable people with each other. Your comments seemed unreasonable and frankly unfounded. Youâve posted a diversionary reply, and this thread continues to go off topic, again. Not attacking you, just saying stay on topic and avoid attacks. They derail the thread.
Yeah that right man, I agree. We gotta stay on topic. I aint his defense lawyer but since you peeps booted that guy, it dont look good on the DAO is all. I aint got the time to fight others battles though. Peace
On topic though, you guys need to get your accounting right. Itâs like the wild west here. Money flyin and all, no one knows where and why
I kind of see your reply more as derailing tbh. The tone might not have been to your liking, and tone can be hard to translate in text, but it was on topic.
I think itâs pretty clear that evidence of loose payments based on âsucking upâ are a thing, and thatâs a problem. A better counterargument than attacking someone with a condescending tone (thatâs how it came off to me), would be to state that money being allocated based on emotion unilaterally is a process issue, while auditing is a state issue. In other words, you canât fix the problem being discussed with an audit, so it deserves itâs own discussion outside of this thread.
So on that, if that would be your argument, which I kind of think you may have implied, I agree. An audit wouldnât solve corruption, it would just tally its score.
In my opinion your very first post does not âprovide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.â It actually detracts from the topic and conversation.
Disagree 100%. The recent incidents being spoken of are of tense geopolitics that donât belong. They, like me, did not attack the beliefs that lead to the implied mismanagement, rather specifically the act itself, because itâs absolutely irrelevant the politics involved.
Iâm now changing my viewpoint based on your reply. I think there should be a full audit from two different firms in both the English speaking world, and a country that is not a friend to the chosen country. I would nominate the UK and Iran to perform an audit. Both countries have deep cryptocurrency expertise, and a history of honesty in accounting.
If yall wanna see how corruption works, this delegate lodged a protest coz he got done bad by the DAO process and the core team offers them a grant to stop them from complaining. Right on
Maybe just an idea fam, your team should listen to community and allow criticism instead of throwing $$$ at those who got complains and buying them or booting them off. I dont like the vibe man. I got done being told by the guy Zadok to shut up coz what I gotta say aint good enough for his taste. I donât want no fights man but it looks to me that I aint even allowed to ask questions and criticise. But I aint gonna fight tho. I am small ENS token holder but this guy seems big and like on a payroll or something that he came running to defence. Nobody likes questions being asked around here seems
I see your PoV. Whenever someone is that defensive and starts just talking about the other person as a deflection, I immediately assume the opposite. Thus it is settled the need for an audit.
My counterargument that it doesnât solve the process issue might be shortsighted. First, we need to know where money is going before we can budget it.
I agree with u. OP @Sad asked about the money and where it is going and I checked out the etherscan on this
My guy Zadok received 3000 ENS worth $45,000 today from the private core company that is not covered by DAO vote or any multisig. You can see what it is happening here I feel and why people be so defensive
But this aint true though. Some funds go from working group multisig which is not by vote I reckon. That guy @inplco who got booted defended the private core team and said that the company gave people money from their own wallet, but this money had gotten funded by the DAO though. Very clever I reckon. Take money from DAO as contractor, make it private, spend it without oversight as u like. If @theaccountant didnât pick the txn weâll never know why people be acting so defensive. You gotta see it to believe it, inner circle be handsomely rewarded for their defence
Please inform yourselves on the token allocations particularly for Contributors and Active Discord users in $ENS Token Allocation (Claiming Opens Nov 8) â ENS. If you have any further questions or if you see anything irregular in the transactions list people have referenced, ask away and hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable on this topic can answer.
In regards to the âirregular token transfersâ to Zadok, 74 days ago (which is within the timeframe for what Brantley has claimed to be a 6 months cliff - link below) that would have been related to the vested tokens for Contributors/Active Discord users. There is no requirement for voting on this as it has been promised during the token launch.
I highly recommend in the future posts for everyone to be objective and provide references to their claims that can help others be informed.
Check this: Contributor airdrop?
It says it was someone named alishas idea and not from dao wallet. if it aint from dao wallet then it is not dao money. simple as that. some money was dropped randomly on 20 odd people who the private company thought were good to them I suppose. I am not alleging but it seems like it coz why else people be so defensive in explaining expenses
I donât think âanyoneâ was being defensive, if youâre referring to Zadok heâs only asked if you could stay on topic which was right. Youâre doing fine now.
@alisha.eth is part of the core team. If you want you can ask her here about that transaction.
I feel like initiatives to reward people who have been good to the DAO should come from the DAO and not some private contractor employee. it seems unusual that one person has so much authority on money in a DAO. I just wonder why this money didnât come from a working group. also it was not announced and feels like hush hush, you feel me. i mean the total in those 20 txns is like $300,000. that aint small money but this is big money dropped without oversight to folks working for the DAO by a private entity who seem to be establishing monopoly
I have been accountant long enough to know what this is about but I admire your neutrality until further evidence. dao is good to have you when I get more ENS tokens, I will delegate to you
The token distributions you are referring to come from TNLâs contributor token allocation and were earmarked for contributors at the time the DAO was launched.
These tokens were distributed, at TNLâs discretion, to contributors who had done extraordinary work in helping to establish the DAO.
Thanks for response alisha but respectfully that isnt what I was asking. That much has been established already by another user in their comment that private company TNL gave that money out of their pocket. But TNL gets all of its money from the DAO I think, so it is like the DAO is the one that really paid in the end. It is like giving what is likely too much money to people escaping the DAO process and I would kindly like to know why. Any auditor will put a big question mark on this
This is incorrect. The tokens you are referring to were never controlled by the DAO, but were instead a part of TNLâs contributor token allocation. TNL had, and continues to have, discretion to distribute the tokens it controls.
I didnât say DAO controlled the tokens. I said DAO gave TNL the tokens. I want to like emphasis the ethics, not a technicality that is being used to escape oversight. Discretion is like a big grey area and native to centralised world where it is used to drag bad stuff under the rug. It dont belong in a decentralised space where transparency should be priority over discretion. TNL could still delegate the process of recognising extraordinary contributions to the DAO but it want to walk the darker of the grey area. This is when people start using âdiscretionâ as escape. Ethical DAOs donât use discretion. People need to look deeper I feel. I guess someone will look and probably find some other infringement. Someone should look into IP and TM status of ENS at least
The vast majority of the allocation was to the DAO treasury, the airdrop, and the timelock contract for core contributors. The 0.125% portion for âactive discord usersâ was controlled by TNL from the very beginning.
when I get more ENS tokens, I will delegate to you