Due process in disbursement of funds

I am attaching the record of Community WG budget disbursement sheet below for Term 1: Community WG Payments - Google Sheets

@Coltron.eth Can you kindly provide a justification and relevant links to the discussions where this budget disbursement was approved by at least three stewards,

a) expenses paid by yourself to yourself for hosting Twitter Spaces x 7 at $50 per space.
b) expenses paid by yourself to yourself for 8 articles worth $1,100.
c) expenses paid by yourself to yourself as lead steward amounting to several thousand USDC.
d) expenses paid by yourself to other contributors for their work.

Please be kind enough to provide record of approvals for these funds by the Community WG Multisig as per the due process which doesn’t involve yourself deciding on the disbursement unilaterally. Please also feel free to mention how many of these works were carried out before funding was approved and how many projects were funded retroactively. Thank you!

Each entry in the spreadsheet has a transaction id associated. If you paste that into etherscan, it will show you information on the transaction, showing it was a multisig transaction with attached signatures. The threshold on the multisig was 3/5.

That is not the question I asked. I asked about due process during budget approval, not budget transactions alone. Are you suggesting that budget for each event was approved on the go and each transaction carried out immediately afterward? Sounds highly unnatural. In Coltron’s own words in a meeting he had with me, “Validator was always present with his key whenever I needed to disburse budget”. I am looking for explicit approval of stewards in writing or on record of some sort that allowed Coltron to call on the stewards to sign their transactions. There must be some record, some post, some meeting where Coltron’s prices were discussed and approved before they were disbursed.

The transactions are a record. They demonstrate the approval of at least two other stewards on each disbursement; it’s impossible to disburse money without those approvals.

Where is the post approving the budget for those transactions though? Where is the post approving budget for 8 articles for $1,100 or appointment of lead steward or approving compensation for hosting twitter spaces? Six figure budget disbursement must have some record other than the transactions alone? Or is this how you reckon transparency works? I am not asking for a demonstration of approval but the proposal itself. Are you suggesting that every budget approval happened verbally and there is no record of why/how/when for any of the work that those transactions pertain to? Surely the 8 articles were not written on the same day that the transactions happened. Were they written before? After? Were they solicited?

Follow-up Questions:

Lead Stewards must be appointed within first five days of the beginning of a term according to Rule 8.1 of EP12. I am unable to find such an appointment post for Coltron for term 1. I am sure it is around but I cannot find it. Any help in finding that will be nice.

Nowhere does it say there needs to be a forum post associated with any of those decisions. As @nick.eth points out, in terms of spending, the smart contracts enforce funds can only be spent by a majority of the working group stewards.

Coltron was appointed lead steward either in a chat or a call between the MetaGov stewards. It could be telepathy for all we care. That decision doesn’t involve any DAO resources, it’s just an internal position for working groups to help organize.

Retroactive grants happen all the time, no one is entitled to one. This is unrelated to the reason you actually created this post, which is that you are embarrassed you made a mistake and promised someone DAO funds you hadn’t actually secured.

Stop trolling, this is highly unprofessional and a waste of the stewards’ time.

1 Like

Lead Steward takes home $1000 per month from the DAO treasury. Perhaps read the rules before repeatedly stdouting irrelevant opinions :sleeping: Don’t you have an app to code that is 300% late?

While you are at it, read my post again. I have asked for term 1, not term 2. You are in so much hurry except when it is a deliverable :thinking:

Do you feel the same way about it, Coltron? That there doesn’t need to be any forum post or discussion or minutes of a meeting that one can refer to for disbursed budget? Or that appointment of Lead Steward comes at no cost to the DAO and can be done over telepathy whereas Rule 8.1 says otherwise?

1 Like

You keep bringing that up, and I keep pointing out there is no deadline on the grant you’re referencing, only an aggressive estimate. I’ve been in contact with the accountable group (the working group) the whole time.

I am aware of the term you were referring to and my points still stand.

The lead steward compensation, as with all steward compensation, is part of a budget that needs to be passed explicitly by the DAO, delegated to the working group. Once the working group has it, it’s allocated by their vote and processes.

Thanks for your concern, but there are no witches here! :slightly_smiling_face:


I am sure Coltron as the Lead Steward can answer my simple accountability questions. He doesn’t need two bouncers, one of them cluelessly regurgitating to the point of laughter, to defend him from questions. Or does he?

Thanks for adding term 2 to the equation. Coltron should also provide the nomination post or notification of appointment for term 2. DM communication with the stewards will do, or even a proof of telepathy. I didn’t write the rules sir, Alisha did. Coltron gave procedural correctness significant lip service, so it is only fair that he meets the same standard. He is a man of honour so he will agree with me, I think.

I would have been ashamed if I couldn’t pay RnDAO for their work that we finished within our aggressively estimated timeline. We finished the work as aggressively estimated, they got paid, even if it is out of my wallet. I have cleared my liabilities as aggressively as estimated. I would definitely be ashamed and embarrassed if I was 300% behind on my aggressive estimates, or if I had deployed a contract horribly wrong and had to beg the delegates to save my arse, or if I had skipped an entire stage of voting while asking for $4,000,000+ for my company, or if I had promised gas refund for my mistakes out of my personal wallet but was now not-so-cleverly offloading the responsibility on the DAO. I am well and truly clear of embarrassment good sir :upside_down_face:

With regards to your accusation about trolling, as long as I am within the bounds set by CoC, it is my right to ask questions. Coltron also has the right to not answer. Although I am hoping that he would at least give me the links to the 8 articles that I so desperately want to read :pray:t2:

To reiterate, Coltron received $16,500 in Lead Steward compensation in term 1 and then also paid himself $1,100 in articles and $350 in twitter spaces. I would imagine that those two tasks would be covered in the $16,500 compensation but probably not. If not, then what is covered under it? Anyway, at this moment if I was a coordinator, it would be nice to be able to refer back to some discussion to get the context. Even during my short stint as a coordinator, I referred back to this document for hints. There are also several exchange transfers from limes.eth to limes.eth (e.g. the IRL event at Helen’s NYC) which I don’t know what to make of and no other info is provided. Then there is the positive fact that subWG coordinators in the Community WG apparently have a small salary that no other WG pays to their coordinators. That is very good and a good implementation by Coltron! DAO will sure owe Neiman some funds who has spent countless hours in those meetings and attracted the most attendance of all meetings. I think there should be a retroactive payment to all other coordinators who didn’t receive equal pay and other WGs should mimic this idea in the future. Transparency is very good since it enables others to see how everyone operates and take hints & advices from that experience. Carlos being anti-accountability doesn’t surprise me but Nick is being unusually defensive about this for someone who has himself made number of errors recently to put it kindly and yet had the biggest and smoothest payday.

Your phrasing “paid himself” is misleading. :point_down:

I was a co-lead on the Learn Docs and Coltron spent tons of time and work on that, probably more than myself, among the other tasks he was doing as a first term Steward. If you have an issue with the amount of compensation, then say that plainly instead of insinuating a person is acting in bad faith. This isn’t the first time or the first person you’ve attacked their character or intentions with quite baseless claims.

Your toxicity level is increasing, and it seems intentional.

1 Like

When you take the work done by someone in good faith and turn it into bad faith accusations, you will get scrutiny for those allegations. Instead of accusing me of toxicity, you can just as easily provide me the links of those articles. I only came here asking for links to discussions or the work itself or the appointments required in our rules. Consider me like a watchdog. They are never nice since the questions they ask are not meant to please anyone. Surely Coltron applied all the rules to himself just as he did to me. Just want to make sure that there are no irregularities in the budget and no procedural oversights were made. That is all. Easiest way to shut me up is to just show me that rules were followed :pray:t2::seedling:

I have not made any claims sir. Please show me if you see any :pray:t2: I have not said anything with regards to whether Coltron was overpaid or underpaid. When I say “paid himself”, that is what it says on the spreadsheet. From ‘Coltron’ to ‘Coltron’. I have only asked for information. You can also deny me this information of course :v:

I have honestly written quite a bit myself on ENS at https://forum.interplanetary.company and I need to see how to calculate possible retroactive payments with the Small Grants App. Some of it is analytics work, some is documentation and some is dev work. I know it is unlikely I will get it but I want to try at least :pray:t2:

1 Like

I think that this would be an appropriate time for ENS DAO to collectively decide that participation in the ecosystem would reflect a greater overall positive sentiment if we start looking into a transparent (to onboarded member) enterprise-level digital asset management platform.

1 Like

That already exists, as has been pointed out. The blockchain is the ultimate audit platform. Every single cent out of the DAO account is allocated by DAO-wide vote on smart contracts, and every cent of working group funds (allocated to them by the DAO) is allocated by majority of steward votes on the multi-sig. This is all easily independently verifiable and enforced on the public Ethereum blockchain.

There’s no actual issue here. This is just an example of the most toxic member of the forums unfortunately continuing their streak, and trying to invent rules that don’t exist to be broken (again, there are no rules requiring the documentation he is “requesting” need exist) – lashing out because they were denied compensation for work that the DAO never approved.

It’s no coincidence the only steward targeted in this “watchdog” thread is the lead steward that had to inform them that they would have to cover the unrequested work on their own.

I think our time would be better spent working on things for the improvement of the ENS protocol, its community, and public goods, what the DAO is supposed to actually be spending time on.


I’d love to see you get audited some day and your lawyers in disbelief when their client says that nothing else is necessary other than blockchain. Until then, don’t you have some aggressive estimates to catch up to? Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I only respond to people in seriousness who compete their work before bouncing around appealing to authority. It is very easy to ignore my questions and not waste your time :v: You can choose not to respond since I am not looking to converse with you anyway

@coltron has been one of the most important and impactful contributors to the DAO. He deserves all of our thanks.

The original motivations behind this thread were likely retaliatory and disingenuous.

Perhaps we can all just agree that it’s best not to continue to engage with this conversation.