There have reportedly been two full DAO team discussions about the “Master Report” process and production.
During one of these team calls, you apparently shared your recollection of our call that took place on August 30th between you, me, and another contributor.
You reportedly stated that during this August 30th call, I suggested removing Youssef, possibly implying that I was prematurely advocating for his removal before the review was complete. And that this was what you perceived as my motivation in organizing the call with you and another contributor.
This is incorrect.
And in fact, the other contributor who was on that August 30th call with us corrected your recollection, communicating to you that your recollection is inaccurate.
According to her, she was actually the one who first mentioned Youssef’s potential removal, in response to me sharing what transpired on StratComm call earlier that same day.
I have recently listened to the recording and the recollection of the other contributor is true. I did not bring up Youssef’s removal first. And it’s true to say that was clearly not the objective of our call given what was discussed.
Specifically, the other contributor mentioned the option of removing the GM bc of the clear misconduct of Youssef involving his wife in DAO related matters; and his wife’s acts of intimidation and coercion to manipulate the Controller into approving policies the Controller could not objectively or reasonably support.
To clarify the actual content and purpose of our August 30th call (since your memory appears to be vague at best): we spent over 70% of the time discussing your and the other contributor’s salaries and negotiation processes.
We also spent a considerable amount of time discussing the appropriateness of the GM citing commensurate salaries for his role in the private/similarly positioned venture funds in crypto as basis for his total possible compensation.
And the selective inequity of subjecting new hires especially of a accepting lower salaries because AADAO is a “public” – community owned DAO.
The primary purpose of that call was to discuss compensation. While Oversight perceived a parity and equitablility issues with the team compensation structure, I felt it was necessary to understand the perspective of the contributors themselves. After all, if the compensation structure makes sense to the team, Oversight has less cause to go on withholding approval.
Specifically, I wanted to:
- Understand the reasons contributors agreed to salaries below market rates.
- Learn about any promises or guarantees given regarding bonuses that would potentially bridge the gap between your current pay and your purported or perceived market value.
- Do you think the compensation structure and proposed bonus methodology is fair.
Regarding the mention of removing the GM (General Manager), just want to reiterate that:
- This topic came up after the other contributor had introduced it as a possibility the team should consider during our call.
- When I mentioned it subsequent to the suggestion, it was more as a point of discussion rather than actively advocating for or “lobbying” for this course of action.
You also sent me messages in Twitter DM in the immediate aftermath of our call. I won’t be sharing those publicly at this time. But I believe you have other motivations as to why you are participating in this less than dignified group narrative exercise.
Please. Just do the right thing. It’s not complicated.