Goal: remaining non-operational freeze members are pulling together a holistic review that aggregates oversights perspective + Youssef’s + key missing testimonies from DAO members not included in oversight’s account. The goal is to combine this through the existing written reports from Grace + Pati + Youssef + and cross examine all the different accounts.
The reason the remaining DAO wanted to pull this wholistic report together is there are accounts from contributors that disagree with components of the oversight review or components of how it was pulled together that are key. Contributors in the current state are fearful of sparring with Youssef and/or Oversight. And seeing oversights response to Better Future’s counter testimony speaks volumes.
I empathize with those afraid to vocalize right now, and I suppose here I am stepping into the arena to try to represent this view.
The goal remains to wholistically pull as much information together so the DAO can vote on resolutions this upcoming Friday, and for the community to have an understanding of the DAOs collective view of the situation.
In the interest of open sourcing what the conversation has looked like, here is all of the chat logs between oversight and myself from the all team slack in terms of our desire to pull together this report.
When: Tuesday, September 17th, 6:09 pm. (All Team Slack)
Poster: Carter
AADAO Internal DAO Investigation / Internal Report Generation Methodology
In late August/early September, a series of conversations and actions were taken or have come to light that are of grave concern to the Atom Accelerator DAO (AADAO) contributors.Primary among them are the following (non-exhaustive list):
- The process related to implementing changes to contributor compensation
- The potential misplaced incentives when the bonus allocation methodology was created
- The potential conflicts of interest, misconduct, subversion and other issues identified by the two parties
As we define them for this investigation, the two parties are our Oversight Committee and our General Manager. The Oversight Committee has published a report with their findings and assessments, while the General Manager has also published statements in response.In order to give the DAO time to look into these issues, without being biased or influenced in any way, the remaining contributors of the AADAO placed the parties on a Operational Freeze. More importantly, this freeze allows the DAO to remain operationally functional in the meantime.The purpose of this internal DAO investigation is to generate an internal report that helps the DAO accurately understand the facts, circumstances, hearsay, and context surrounding Pati, Youssef, and Grace’s interactions with each other and the DAO in 2024 - leading up to the incident report and what came afterwards. The DAO will vote on resolution at a later date. This internal DAO investigation is our best effort to create a neutral report by DAO contributors not impacted by the Operational Freeze of Pati / Youssef / and Grace.Process:
-
Gather questions from all DAO members about anything related to the incident report, specifically questions to be asked separately for Pati / Youssef / and Grace.
-
This question gathering stage was done over the course of 3 videos sessions, and multiple asynchronous communications from 9/13 - 9/17 with non-freeze DAO members
-
Initial questions for Pati / Youssef / and Grace that will be surfaced on the calls will be circulated in advance of the calls to Pati / Youssef / Grace. Calls of course can net questions not circulated in advance, but we will do our best to provide the lion share of comprehensive questions in advance.
-
Perform recorded interviews with Pati / Youssef / and Grace that will incorporate these questions from AADAO contributors. Agenda for the call are as follows [call expected to be around 1hr 15mins]:
-
Timeline of events leading up to Incident Report [10mins]
-
Q&A from DAO contributors on the call
-
Timeline of events after Incident Report [5mins]
-
Q&A from DAO contributors on the call
-
In the event that Pati or Grace or Youssef refuse to take a recorded call, we will instead ask for written response to the DAOs questions. However, the DAO is formally requesting a call, as officially passed by supermajority in prop A4 of AADAO. Rejection of a call may result in a forum post highlighting this. This is because non-verbal ques, follow up questions, and assurance that no external parties are helping with text responses, are key to having an effective review session for the DAO.
-
Moderators will ensure that facts / observations are what we stick to, and not accusations.
-
Two moderators to be announced by EoD on 9/18
-
Moderator’s role is to be neutral, not insert opinion but have the ability to ask clarifying questions
-
Moderators will help relay questions (and testimonies when relevant, with permission given) from other members of the DAO
-
Testimonies from any members that are not Pati / Youssef / and Grace will be generated and submitted internally. There will be a 24 hour window for all non-operation freeze DAO members to submit testimonies internally to the internal investigation slack at the time of this post.
-
If any of these testimonials are used as facts in the final internal DAO report, it will require permission from the testimonial submitter
-
A primary internal report draft will then be procured by the moderators using all of the above information, with a target completion date of 9/27/2024. This internal report will be circulated (with a chance to append / revise / gather additional information) via all the internal DAO contributors not impacted by operational freeze in advance of this target internal release date. In the event additional time is needed, this deadline can be extended to ensure the report is properly procured.
-
Follow up DAO votes on resolution will proceed after the completion of the internal investigation / document is procured.
-
As per prop A4, once the DAO has conducted its fact-finding calls, the DAO shall then summarize its findings and make recommendations for remediation by way of a proposal for an All of AADAO Vote.
-
Should the DAO not reach a 60% supermajority according to the Voting Protocols below, a new proposal for remediation can be raised, and the process shall repeat till a 60% supermajority is achieved.
-
Any contributor of the DAO with voting rights on this proposal is eligible to raise a remediation proposal.
We are happy to receive feedback from Pati, Youssef, and Grace on the above (please submit within the next 24H) as we’d like to incorporate the feedback (if possible / feasible) and then proceed accordingly with the calls & internal report generation & testimonies.Thanks,
-DAO contributors
Tuesday, September 17th (Slack All Team 8:30 pm. - 11:10 pm.)
Grace: Thanks for sharing the above Carter, are the moderators AADAO members or non-DAO members?
To be clear, the objective of StratComm led review is to understand the circumstances possibly contributing to the drafting of the Incident report of August 30th? What about Oversight’s Special Report of September 11th? Are Core DAO members challenging the veracity of Oversight’s findings?
To AADAO Contributors:
Your proposed procedure for reviewing the recent issues within AADAO raises significant concerns regarding fairness, objectivity, and respect for established governance structures. While the DAO has the right to seek clarity on internal matters of how Oversight conducted review of issues of misconduct/mismanagement involving the GM, overall – your proposal appears to undermine the Oversight Committee’s function and could be perceived as an attempt to discredit our findings rather than you addressing the substantive issues raised in our 9/11 Special Report.
My primary concerns with your proposed review procedure are as follows:
- Unclear Objective: The purpose of your review is not clearly defined, potentially leading to a directionless or easily manipulated investigation.
- Procedural Fairness: The impartiality and quality of your proposed review will be highly inluenced by the selection of two moderators. How these moderators are selected lacks transparency, and the selections (if made by StratComm) are highly vulnerable to bias given that StratComm members are effectively GM hires/appointments. Please don’t forget, the scenario where the Strategy Committee investigates matters that may implicate the GM also involves StratComm members by extension. Allegedly, StratComm was kept informed re GM policy directions and decisions to override recommendations from Oversight. This is an an obvious conflict of interest that clearly creates a troubling circular accountability situation, undermining the possibilities of StratComm led review.
- Undermining Oversight: To the extent an objective to the core-dao lead review exist, it’s difficult to ignore the fact that this procedure largely sidesteps the mandate of Oversight Committee, challenging its authority, expertise, and diligence in handling governance issues. What happened that the StratComm finds it appropriate and necessary to do the job of Oversight?
- Validity of Re-investigation: Investigating the circumstances leading to the Special Report without clear justification could be seen as an attempt to discredit Oversight findings. Can you provide a justification please?
- Inappropriate Concentration of Power: The proposed procedure vests extensive authority in the Strategy Committee, which lacks both true independence and the requisite expertise for this task.
- Insufficient Separation of Powers: This sets a concerning and unfortunate precedent concentrating significant authority in the hands of the Strategy Committee; blurring the critical distinctions between strategic planning, operational management, and oversight functions.
The core DAO’s reluctance to accept the Oversight Committee’s report at face value is deeply troubling. If there were specific issues with the report’s methodology or findings, these should be addressed directly rather than initiating an entirely new investigation.
Are you challenging the authenticity and veracity of Oversight’s Special Report?
Very confused,
Grace
Carter: Where does this say it is a Strat comm led review?
Grace: Who is leading the review? It is unclear to me.
Carter: There is no lead, it’s the DAO contributors that are not Youssef / Pati / Grace
Grace: I still can’t comprehend the objective of the core-DAO review. Is it bc the DAO refuses the authenticity of Oversight’s Special Report? Is the team challenging the veracity of our published report?
Carter: Grace we’re literally just trying to formulate an internal memo 
Grace: An internal memo on what?
Carter: All of this haha there is a lot of moving pieces here
Grace: Lots of moving parts and no clear communication as to what the objectives are. That’s the problem. How long are you going to lean in to the “moving parts” narrative Carter? I don’t want to be unsympathetic, but this is an unholy mess. Please clarify what is being reviewed and why. The memo you shared about procedures and process is super unclear. What is the purpose? Can we start there? And why?
- Why is the DAO reviewing our review?
- And why is this necessary?
- Your review of Oversight’s review process implies the core-dao does not accept our findings as per the published Special Report – true or false?
- If true, what is your basis for questioning our methodologies in drafting and publishing of the report?
If you can’t establish a clear objective for the review, perhaps the team can help delineate the purpose and objectives of the review by answering the above. Thanks.
“The DAO will vote on resolution at a later date.”
To make the process fair and transparent for me, Pati, Youssef , you can’t leave undefined the possible resolutions the team is considering at a “later time.”
Reasons why:
-
Lack of Due Process:
By failing to delineate potential outcomes or resolutions, the DAO is effectively denying those under investigation, our right to due process – specifically, the right to be informed of the potential consequences we face. The absence of clearly defined resolutions creates a situation where those questioned cannot adequately prepare their responses or defenses, violating principles of procedural fairness. By not disclosing potential resolutions, the DAO is also violating the principle of informed consent. Participants in the investigation cannot give their fully informed consent to the process without understanding the range of possible outcomes. In fact, I would advise Pati and Youssef not to give their consent to participate in the scheduled interviews until the DAO makes unambiguously clear the range of “potential resolutions” that may be applicable to them at a later time. -
Arbitrary Questioning:
Without predefined resolution options, there is HIGH risk of arbitrary or capricious directionality in your “interviews”. In order for your moderators to enforce “neutrality” in their line of questioning, they also need to be informed of possible range of resolutions being considered by the team. Otherwise, how are they to determine what is pertinent/impertinent?3. Transparency and Accountability:
The failure to specify potential resolutions undermines the principles of transparency and accountability that are fundamental to an impartial and fair review and/or investigation.6. Risk of Ultra Vires Actions:
Without clearly defined potential resolutions, there is an also risk that the eventual and or resulting resolutions can exceed the DAO’s authority – especially where it concerns Oversight members. Defining potential resolutions in advance helps ensure that all considered actions fall within the DAO’s scope of authority, and where it may not.Given these concerns, it is essential for the DAO to clearly articulate on the record the range of possible measures it is considering. This should include:1. A comprehensive list of potential resolutions, from minor corrective actions to more severe measures (for each person, me, @Youssef Amraniand @Pati). -
The criteria that will be used to determine which resolution is appropriate.
-
The process by which the final resolution will be selected and implemented.
-
Any appeal or review mechanisms that will be available in the aftermath of the DAO’s completed internal report. You also need to share all of the above with the community.
-
Moderators will ensure that facts / observations are what we stick to, and not accusations.
-
Two moderators to be announced by EoD on 9/18
-
Moderator’s role is to be neutral, not insert opinion but have the ability to ask clarifying questions
-
Moderators will help relay questions (and testimonies when relevant, with permission given) from other members of the DAO
This statement describes desired behavior rather than establishing necessary procedural safeguards. It fails to address the crucial difference between aspiration and enforceable standards. The statement does not outline any specific procedures or mechanisms to ensure the moderator’s impartiality.While allowing clarifying questions, the statement provides no guidelines on what constitutes an appropriate clarifying question versus one that might lead or influence the discussion. In deposition processes (which is effectively what you’re trying to achieve through the interviews), there are often strict rules about the types of questions that can be asked to maintain impartiality. How do you know your selected moderator has requisite expertise and experience in this regard? How are you going to enforce the desired neutrality from your moderators?
Carter: Those are great questions, let me see if I can get clarity on all of them for you
“That’s the problem. How long are you going to lean in to the “moving parts” narrative Carter?”
Please don’t direct that to me as an individual, the DAO is trying to find a path through right now. But I’ll circle back in a bit once I’m around a laptop
I think all of your questions are resolvable.
Let’s find a resolution and keep moving forward.
Grace: I didn’t mean to direct the questions at you personally, Carter. The “you” is rhetorical. My apologies.
I’m trying to keep this fair – for everyone involved. That includes Youssef, regardless of Oversight findings in the Special Report.
I have issues with the proposed procedure. It lacks a lot of guidelines and safeguards. It’s really important you establish the objective of the review and present clearly to each person the possible range of resolutions the DAO is considering with respect to their role/responsibilities.
“If any of these testimonials are used as facts in the final internal DAO report”…is fundamentally flawed.
Testimonies are inherently subjective accounts, not objective facts.
The process fails to establish:a) Who determines what qualifies as a “fact”
b) What criteria are used to elevate a testimony to the status of a “fact”
c) How conflicting testimonies are reconciled. This ambiguity in fact determination can lead to cherry-picking of information and potential bias in the final report.
“There will be a 24 hour window for all non-operation freeze DAO members to submit testimonies internally to the internal investigation slack at the time of this post.”
Can you rephrase? I don’t understand the meaning of this statement.
But to the extent I can infer a meaning – will say that the principle of audi alteram partem (“hear the other side”) is violated here. Why is there no provision for me, Youssef, and Pati to respond to or refute testimonies? Those investigated should have the opportunity to address and potentially refute claims made against them in testimonies.
The 24-hour window is arbitrarily short and unreasonable too, imo. I don’t understand the reasoning for the established time frame. And “submit testimonies internally” in relation to what? It’s unclear.
Carter: Alright I’m still on mobile here, if you can’t trust the DAO with the ability to discern facts from opinions that’s just untenable. Note that the final internal memo is subject to review by all members not impacted by operational freeze, so everyone is involved in the process except the people that would have bias (the people being examined)
You’ve generated roughly 30 questions / claims in all the above so bear with me here.
Grace: This isn’t about trust; it’s about establishing a fair, transparent, and defensible processes. In any adjudicative procedure, clear guidelines for fact-finding and evidence evaluation are essential, regardless of the trustworthiness of the individuals involved. It should not be taken personally.
We all embrace this as principle and ethos. Isn’t it why we are in the realm of distributed and decentralized?
We shouldn’t have to trust anyone to “discern facts from opinions” – that’s a horrible process
Carter: Mmm what if I told you people are afraid to give their testimonies
Because of power imbalances
Thus the desire to keep it private from the people being examined
Grace: I know I’m being a pain in the ass, but I’m doing it for the DAO and for those being questioned.
I know my questions here might be aggravating but that’s not the intention. I want to help you make sure the objective and procedure is tight so we can all live with the outcome.
Carter: Nah you aren’t being an ass
I just can’t keep pace haha
Laptoooop
Grace: Have you ever had these “nitro brews?” They’re insane.
It’s nitrogen infused coffee. It’s like the lovechild of black coffee and Guinness. Sounds gross. But it’s quite nice. It results in higher caffeine concentration…and although I have no experience experimenting with illicit substances, the impact on my drug free body was pretty wild. Was buzzing for 36 hrs.
Carter (September 18th):
Here’s a 25 minute video response to all of your questions Grace.
Grace:
Dear Contributors,
Based on the video shared by Carter Woetzel, the following is my understanding.Purpose and Objective of the All-DAO Led Review :The purpose of this review is to generate a comprehensive master report that reconciles the various documents and statements produced since August 30th, including the Incident Report, Special Report, Youssef’s forum post, and Pati’s documented response to Youssef.The primary objectives are:1. To identify contradictions between these accounts
2. To establish ‘completion’ wrt relevant timeline and various events
3. To evaluate which version of events is substantiated by credible evidence
4. To produce an internal document that will inform potential resolutionsMy Concerns Regarding Testimony Collection and Use :I have concerns about the confidentiality and anonymity of testimonies provided, and how that can affect the authenticity and reliability of testimonies provided.1. It would be procedurally unfair to withhold material content from affected persons if that content directly challenges their statements, analysis, and or reputation.
2. Anonymity without accountability can lead to unsubstantiated claims, exacerbating the “he said, she said” problem you ostensibly seek to addressTo address the concerns about testimony collection, I recommend that the DAO consider:1. Implement a process for affected parties to respond to material allegations made against them, while still maintaining necessary anonymity for the source
2. Establish clear guidelines for what constitutes admissible testimony, focusing on verifiable facts rather than opinions or hearsay
3. Creating a mechanism for challenging or corroborating testimony through additional evidence or witness statements
Request for Clarification on the DAO’s Plan:As previously requested, I propose that the DAO should provide to those affected by operational freeze, and the community :1. A clear, written plan outlining the exact deliverables to be produced by your review
2. Specific safeguards and guidelines for producing the master report, including:
a. Criteria for evaluating evidence
b. Procedures for handling testimonies; procedures for handing conflicting testimonies
c. Methods for ensuring fairness and impartiality
3. A clear statement on how the report will be used, including:
a. Whether it will be strictly internal or shared publicly
4. A projected timeline for:
a. Completion of the master document
b. Draft of potential resolutions; how will they be shared? Is there a community consideration process or are resolutions strictly at discretion of the DAO?
Carter: Appreciate this response Grace - we will circle back on this as soon as possible
Grace: When will you publish a public plan? This was promised earlier this week.
Carter: We’d like to get this out today, at a minimum an update
(now proceeds to quote grace above post with answers)
Carter:
Purpose and Objective of the All-DAO Led Review: The purpose of this review is to generate a comprehensive master report that reconciles the various documents and statements produced since August 30th, including the Incident Report, Special Report, Youssef’s forum post, and Pati’s documented response to Youssef. The primary objectives are:1. To identify contradictions between these accounts
2. To establish ‘completion’ wrt relevant timeline and various events
3. To evaluate which version of events is substantiated by credible evidence
4. To produce an internal document that will inform potential resolutions**----**
Feedback: Largely agreed on your summary paragraph on the purpose, we would just add on that we would also include testimonies & any other pieces of information that has been publicly publicized on any communication medium by Youssef, Pati, or Grace as part of the various documents you mentioned.
(1) Agreed
(2) Agreed
(3) “To evaluate which version of events is substantiated by credible evidence”: the portion of decision making on which version of events is substantiated by credible evidence is decided by DAO voting & the resulting resolution pathways, and is not imbued into the document. That being said, the report will of course focus on procuring all credible evidence and accounts.
(4) Agreed
---- My Concerns Regarding Testimony Collection and Use:
I have concerns about the confidentiality and anonymity of testimonies provided, and how that can affect the authenticity and reliability of testimonies provided.1. It would be procedurally unfair to withhold material content from affected persons if that content directly challenges their statements, analysis, and or reputation.
2. Anonymity without accountability can lead to unsubstantiated claims, exacerbating the “he said, she said” problem you ostensibly seek to addressTo address the concerns about testimony collection, I recommend that the DAO consider:1. Implement a process for affected parties to respond to material allegations made against them, while still maintaining necessary anonymity for the source
2. Establish clear guidelines for what constitutes admissible testimony, focusing on verifiable facts rather than opinions or hearsay
3. Creating a mechanism for challenging or corroborating testimony through additional evidence or witness statements
Request for Clarification on the DAO’s Plan:----
Feedback:
(1) Agreed, we have alignment that all testimonies / reports would be circulated and visible by everyone internally to the DAO, with an opportunity for referenced counter parties to respond. Additionally, we have achieved alignment internally that no testimonies will be anonymous internally, but permission from testimony creator must be given before said testimony is used as material in the public eye.
(2) Definition for admissible testimony that we will be referencing will be as follows: Any DAO member is qualified to submit a statement/testimony. Submission of a testimony does not guarantee inclusion in the report. Admission of the testimony is based on our procedures surrounding how we handle what we consider to be credible evidence.
-
A testimony that is considered relevant and valid to the AADAO fact-finding mission and is allowed to be presented to the team. For testimony to be admissible, it must meet the following criteria:
-
Be relevant - The evidence must help prove or disprove a fact that is important to the case. It must be able to make the fact more or less likely than it would be without the evidence.
-
Be obtained voluntarily - The evidence must not be provided voluntarily by the witness.
Feedback:
(3) Mechanism for challenging or corroborating testimony: testimonies will be posted publicly in the full-team chat, with a chance for any party mentioned by the testimony to respond with counter evidence or any statements in regard to the testimony. This material will then be taken into account for final report procurement.
---- As previously requested, I propose that the DAO should provide to those affected by operational freeze, and the community:
- A clear, written plan outlining the exact deliverables to be produced by your reviewFeedback: will do this, working on this today asap 2. Specific safeguards and guidelines for producing the master report, including:
a. Criteria for evaluating evidence
b. Procedures for handling testimonies; procedures for handing conflicting testimonies
c. Methods for ensuring fairness and impartiality------
Feedback: our goal within generating a credible summary / report would adhere to the following format - (a) Criteria for evaluating evidence: Credible evidence refers to any information, testimony, data, or documentation that is reasonably believable and convincing based on its source, content, and context. It is not limited to strictly empirical or scientifically verified data but may include a wide array of information types that, when taken together, provide enough support for a claim or belief.Credible evidence may include:**
- Direct Observation or Testimony – Statements or firsthand accounts provided by witnesses, where the observer is considered generally reliable. Even without extensive corroboration, the testimony may be considered credible if it is consistent and reasonable in context.
- Anecdotal Evidence – Personal experiences or individual accounts that, while not scientifically verified, are plausible and align with known facts or trends. This type of evidence is especially valuable when other forms of evidence are scarce or when it is part of a larger pattern of similar accounts.
- Documentary Evidence – Written or recorded material (emails, contracts, reports, media, etc.) from sources with a reasonable level of credibility, even if the material itself is not formally validated or official. The credibility of such evidence may rest on its relevance, authenticity, and alignment with other information.
- Circumstantial Evidence – Information that does not directly prove a claim but strongly suggests its truth by inference. Circumstantial evidence can be compelling when it fits logically within a broader narrative or set of facts.
- Expert Opinion – Statements from professionals or authorities in a given field, valued for their specialized knowledge. While not definitive proof, expert opinions can provide reasonable support for a claim, especially when multiple experts agree or there is a lack of contradictory evidence.
- Statistical and Empirical Data – Numbers and data gathered through research or observation. While rigorous scientific standards are ideal, credible data can also include less formal or smaller-scale studies, polls, or surveys if they appear reasonable and are interpreted with caution.
- Corroborative Evidence – When multiple independent pieces of information, though each may be weak on its own, point in the same direction or reinforce each other, creating a more convincing whole. The credibility of such evidence grows from its convergence.
- Logical Consistency – Arguments or claims that are internally coherent and logically sound, even if the evidence backing them is incomplete. The strength of logical consistency can sometimes suffice when direct proof is not readily available.
- Historical or Established Patterns – Past events or trends that mirror current situations can serve as credible evidence, especially when similar causes or effects are observed. Historical precedent or well-established patterns are often used to predict outcomes or support claims.
(b) Mechanism for challenging or corroborating testimony: testimonies will be posted publicly in the full-team chat, with a chance for any party mentioned by the testimony to respond with counter evidence or any statements in regard to the testimony. This material will then be taken into account for final report procurement. (c) For ensuring neutrality, we are relying on all of the remaining non-operational freeze members (9 members) to create, revise, edit, and approve the publication of the finalized summary. The report will perform an onchain AADAO DAO DAO post for signaling of approval of the post and its contents via the non-operational freeze DAO members. To ensure contributors approach this document procurement with a fair and neutral mindset, we will be asking contributors to read the above definition of credible evidence. (d) Format: (1) Timeline of all events (with material linked)
(2) Summary of points of contention between various accounts during the timeline
(3) Archive of all links and materials to all key accounts from Pati, Grace, Youssef, testimonies, and various documents
(4) Potential resolution pathways to be put to vote
------ 3. A clear statement on how the report will be used, including:
a. Whether it will be strictly internal or shared publicly------
Feedback: the report will be shared publicly
------ 4. A projected timeline for:
a. Completion of the master document
b. Draft of potential resolutions; how will they be shared? Is there a community consideration process or are resolutions strictly at discretion of the DAO?------
(a) Yes, will provide (would love to have this complete by next week Friday)
(b) Yes, potential resolution pathways will be shared with the community. Final voting on resolution pathway will be at the discretion of the DAO.
Carter: we would like to proceed with announcing the public plan for the DAO to procure a summary report + resolution pathways targeting next week Friday, working in collaboration with all of the involved counter-parties.
Grace, Pati, Youssef, would it be fair to say we have directional alignment on what the DAO is aiming to achieve here by next week Friday? Your sign off is valuable for sending a signal to the community that we have traction on heading towards resolution.
(no response or agreement given after this summary report was given)
I wanted to open source this whole conversation so the community can be aware of the DAOs current attempts to create an internal memo so we can vote on resolutions this upcoming Friday. In leau of key testimonies that add…additional color to the whole investigation, I find it important to offer up what I consider to be a third perspective on this whole situation. I plead with Youssef, Pati, and Grace to be willing to work with the DAO to traverse this situation.
My personal take - I’m deeply disappointed / saddened by Youssef and the damage that has been done to the DAO through the decisions that led up to the incident report, as well as the conduct that occurred after the incident report. The fact that there are calls for removal of the GM by the community with the information at large, is in my opinion fair/warranted.
Simultaneously, I believe oversight’s report is missing some key elements.
- Oversight’s report did not include any testimony from Better Future, who has a counter account to Pati’s account of history. (which was just now shared a couple of posts ago). Grace is framing Pati’s account as the source of truth, and she failed to gather or display any potential counter evidence of Pati’s account. I find this concerning. Who watches the watcher? Where was the due diligence to ensure a complete and holistic understanding of the situation between Pati X Youssef? The initial oversight report was incomplete, and it appears it was potentially rushed. While I may agree with the heart behind the urgency, and even the potential outcome (that may involve removal of the GM), I think Oversight should own the fact that their account was incomplete.
- There is a DAO member that reported internally that Grace suggested the removal of the GM very soon into the internal incident report generation process. This suggests the goal of her report was determined early into the process before the completion of the process. Even if there was already calls from members of the DAO to remove Youssef, it still feels concerning that oversight was already nudging undecided DAO members towards this (desired?) outcome.
- Oversight has been remiss to rapidly engage with the remaining DAO members who are trying to pull together a holistic summary of all information so we can make voting decisions. Instead, our desire to simply aggregate information (that may disagree with oversight) has been pushed back on and stonewalled. You’ve chosen to not hop on calls that the DAO tried to organize with you for fact finding sessions (same with Pati), and instead have stayed focused on generating as many questions for the DAOs attempt to slow down the creation of our summary report.
Just as we have concerns about Youssef that may result in his removal, we also have concerns about the completeness of the report, and the neutrality of the method.
Who watches the watcher? Those brave enough to engage 
Our goal should be to resolve the current conflict through voting resolution this upcoming Friday (leaning on super majority voting to come to consensus), modify AADAO protocols to avoid these situations in the future, and continue with our mandate for creating value for ATOM.
If by Friday, the DAO is unable to begin voting on resolution / next steps, I will also be resigning alongside Better Future. On a separate note, Better Future is one of the most ethical individuals I have ever met. He deeply cares about the hub, and his desire to work through all of this internally & peacefully has been plainly evident to me (and can be seen in his screenshots his desire to do this, all the way to the bitter end).
Thanks,
Carter Woetzel (AADAO Strategy Committee Member)