Contributors of the Atom Accelerator DAO are currently voting on a proposal to apply an “Operational Freeze” to Youssef Amrani, Patricia Mizuki and Grace Yu - to allow the rest of the DAO to traverse the complexity of the current situation, without impacting current operations or allowing any of these 3 members to exert influence on DAO members.
Learn more here:
The messaging in the announcement is a bit misleading as it suggests the core team was caught unaware. This report is not a bombshell.
Contributors were kept informed.
Report Context
Transparency in Process
Publication Timeline
Nature of the Report
Publication Rationale
The special report is a redacted report.
It represents our commitment to providing factual, verified information to the community while balancing the needs of the core team. We do not appreciate labeling the report as “accusations” made.
@Syed
Grace, I say this with the utmost respect for your office (and you personally), but the following is just one small extract from your report that any sane person would boil down to the word “accusation.”
Areas of Potential Misconduct and Mismanagement:
These points outline the material issues of potential violations in behavior and business practices, if the Financial Controller’s provided testimony is true.
Maybe we could have spent more time massaging the exact phrasing and wording we used. Maybe “potential” and “alleges” and “unproven statements” would have been better to use.
But seriously, I feel that you are splitting hairs now.
As the person who wrote the prop and the tweets, I apologise for offending you with the use of the word “accusation”. But I still believe the word accurately characterizes, at the very least, the quoted text above.
Edit to add:
Our statement said “…evaluate the accusations made by each party” - i.e. it ALSO refers to Youssef’s response post above.
Looking forward to when Youssef’s also sends a hate-post about that word when he sees our statement.
It’s not “splitting hairs”.
“Potential” implies possibility, not certainty.
As stated above. We still published with “potential” to buy your team more time. Whereas, I’ve been able to substantially corroborate much of @Patricia’s account.
You’re a comms guy. I know you know there’s a difference between stating “potential misconduct” and making a direct accusation – which is something we did not do.
p.s.: not a hate post. My gosh
Who’s going to pay for it Youssef? I’ve been asking you this question since last Thursday.
You never denied her a performance bonus because Patricia did not ask for one.
What you continue to distort is the rhetorical question she asked you to demonstrate that your KPIs are not specific or objective KPIs.
Why is anyone surprised at this? Several teams, including my own have been advocates against those props (at least on personal token holder level) and against keeping to spend money via multi sigs, when on chain governance exists.
If thats not enough to prove that these kinda of practices must stop asap, to add to that, i can certify, that i have had a large share of teams (including my own) being ignored, overlooked or sent away by this AADAO and its bureaucratic hassle.
This is your chain token holders. Take it back!
Hello.
It should be commended AADAO formed an oversight community, though Prop#95, to voluntarily express its goodwill, and the entire staff should undeniably be compensated for great work they commit to help steward our ATOM utilization, and particularly rewarded when “exceeding expectations.”
However, moving forward, voting Cosmonauts should not have to interpret anything when reading on-chain proposals. Excluding information such as this does not exceed expectations, but should be viewed as the bare minimum.
Fascinating that Grace and Patricia are receiving this degree of backlash for performing their duties as an Oversight committee. Despite personal quarrels between the respective parties, this should not be the case. Grace’s work, especially through AADAO, continues to be extremely valuable to the Cosmos Hub’s broader community, especially when it comes to shining light for accountability, one of five core values of our Cosmos Hub.
We must hold them accountable for their misbehavior. Oversight on Aadao is not only been ineffective but also fundamentally flawed. Additionally, Aadao clearly has many flaws and has been misleading the community by making vague and unjust proposals. Relying on centralized or external oversight mechanisms contradicts the very principles of decentralization. We have on-chain governance and proposals that allow the community to decide in a transparent and trustless manner. Replacing these mechanisms with trust-based oversight is regressive and undermines the entire system’s integrity. We should be enhancing on-chain governance, not replacing it with centralized structures that reintroduce the very trust issues we sought to eliminate.
What would have been ‘effective’ oversight / what makes oversight ineffective in your opinion?
Oversight already was elected BY governance / the community.
Do you think that validators/the community have the skill set that is required to do proper oversight?
Also do you realize how time consuming that would be? Aadao employs would basically need to keep every single conversation/chat public, so that governance would actually know what they have to do oversight for. It doesn’t make sense.
If you read the report, would you say you would have been able to write it yourself?
Misleading the community with vague or unjust proposals undermines trust. You’re right that not every validator or community member has the skills for proper oversight, and it is time-consuming. However, the solution isn’t to centralize trust in an opaque body like Aadao. Decentralized governance requires transparency, even if it’s challenging, to prevent power imbalances. Proper communication and transparency would allow governance to oversee effectively without needing every conversation public. A forced update mechanism could be a valuable addition to Aadao governance, ensuring transparency and keeping the community informed. Regular check-ins at key milestones, where each power structure must report on progress (ex “we’ve used X ATOMs to develop Y, and the next milestone is Z”),would help maintain accountability. This approach would provide clear insight into resource allocation and project development, allowing the community to stay engaged and provide feedback throughout the process, rather than being left in the dark. It would also reinforce trust and prevent the misuse of funds or authority.
Edit (After 20% of the allocated funds are used, there should be a proposal to engage the community, gathering feedback on the team’s progress and whether they should be allowed to continue.)
I shared the following message with AADAO Contributors today – am sharing here as well, as it addresses several questions addressed here and on socials:
Oversight’s function is not inherently tricky; rather, it’s the public perception of your oversight committee and your lack of internal clarity that creates complexity. I ran in the election to help you make progress on this issue.
This perception stems from both deficient internal governance structures and the community’s somewhat primitive understanding of checks and balances in principle and in practice.
From the outset, I’ve maintained that oversight exists to establish and enforce ethical governance, steward public mandates, and ensure responsible allocation of community pool resources. I view AADAO as a community-owned DAO, subject to the standards of a public-facing entity. My role is both to enforce these standards and to educate, helping to preempt operational vulnerabilities and governance challenges.
Perhaps the most profound tension I’ve identified with respect to your governance and by extension our relationship is — while you publicly embrace your identity as a community-owned DAO, internally, I have heard and observed senior management operating with the prerogative of a hybridized model that I do not believe the community ratified or supports.
I respectfully disagree with the characterization that I’ve sought out conflicts in my limited capacity as the elected member. My actions have been deliberate and mindful, often choosing not to escalate numerous situations. I believe the perception that I’m seeking conflict is affected by recency bias, and the general cognitive dissonance created by lack of internal resolve as to how you will collectively address the power imbalances in your organization. I respectfully ask for you to consider albeit limited, all our interactions with the DAO since my onboarding.
The recent report was necessitated by specific circumstances, particularly: a) Oversight’s decision to withhold approval for the proposed bonus methodology b) issues and concerns pertaining to GM’s misconduct/mismanagement and c) Youssef’s “communique” strongly implying the use of DAO resources for an external investigation — this is a resource allocation question.
The decision to publish the report this week was not taken lightly, and the team was kept informed throughout the process. Several critical factors necessitated this timely release:
I’m deeply sensitive to the concerns raised about my support for AtomOne and want to address them directly:
I see projects like AtomOne as complementary experiments within the ecosystem, not as competitors to the Cosmos Hub. It is the Litecoin to our Bitcoin, ATOM.
The either/or mentality and ultimatum-driven bargaining has balkanized the Hub and the Cosmos. It is distressing to me personally that contributors and community members are endorsing binaries that are wholly non-constructive in my view.
Personally, I feel we should embrace experimental forks of the hub.
While I understand how my interest can be misconstrued, it does not constitute a conflict of interest. I’m not a woman preoccupied with optics.
As an Oversight member, not a Core DAO contributor, my role focuses on governance and resource utilization, not AADAO’s public image. The separation of duties and responsibilities is essential to understanding separation of powers, checks and balances.
I acknowledge this may affect optics, but it’s crucial to distinguish between your PR/marketing needs vs. actual and potential conflicts of interest. My right of free speech should not be abridged for organizational PR objectives, either.
There is a huge difference.
My commitment to ATOM and AADAO’s success and integrity remain unwavering.
I’m here to support your vision and help navigate the complex challenges of building a community-owned DAO. I’m open to discussing how we can address these concerns constructively and establish clear boundaries and procedures that maintain both the principled reality and impartiality of oversight members’ roles.
Respectfully,
Grace
I have been a substantial Atom Holder Cosmoverse visitor and closely observing community member since the beginning of 2021. It is very difficult for outsiders to make a decision for one side here. Your commitment, transparency and ability to articulate this is admirable. However, the conflict of interest cannot be dismissed out of hand. Over the years, by closely observing and reading the communication, I have developed a clearly negative impression of the current main supporters of your position, such as Jae Kwon, AiB and Jacob G., who in my opinion represent predominantly destructive positions, without being able to see any positive contributions. I also don’t understand how Atone can be both useful and complementary to the Atom community. Your decision to join forces with these people can, in view of your position, be described as very unfortunate at best.
I very much hope that an agreement can be reached, especially with regard to the disputed payments, and that the work of AADao, which I consider to be fruitful, can soon continue without negative sentiment.
She could be working full time for Polkadot and I couldn’t care less. What she brings to AADAO is VALUE because she’s doing the JOB.
(Youssef instead would plant a senior oversight who he knew wouldn’t have the capacity to do the job. He’d pay him nevertheless and reduce his salary twice after it was called out that he doesn’t work at all).
Further talking about what Atone is and what it’s not is just distraction from why we’re here. We’re here because Youssef gets rightfully called out, and he hates it. I am sure he wishes he could pay an oversight who would only say yes and not work at all, like he did in the past.
What the community should understand is that it should be our top priority, that the elected oversight holds AADAO contributors accountable. It’s THEM who should add value to Atom. Graces job isn’t to be an Atom Moongirl just so you can like her for holding the same bags.
That’s our interest in oversigh: do oversight.
It would only then be an coi or a ‘Trojan horse’, if she’s purposely not doing her job and let people like Youssef get away with his shit.
Btw, if you believe that participating in an Atone call to find out what they do is contributing or even bring ‘value’ to a ‘competitor’, then why the fuck do we not have daily AADAO calls becahse they bring so much value to Atom…
We should really go back to topic now.
This report is about a GM who’s not acting in good faith. Read the report, deal with the facts.
Because cosmos is full of people who can’t deal with criticism or being called out for it.
If leading cosmos people started to learn the difference between confrontation (fact based) and fighting, nothing would ‘end in misery’.
Since you’re calling them facts yourself, how can you talk about Youssef operating in good faith? She’s paid to present us facts. Jfc, don’t do shit and you don’t get a report.
Again, you talked about how she presents facts. It’s not her job to present the solution. That’s up to she DAO, or actually the community who paid for AADAO. I give you one tho: remove Youssef, who’s not operating in good faith… since you know the facts, right?
We need people who do GOOD work to work together. I propose that the GM of a community funded (!!) org isn’t paying a senior oversight for not working (and later cutting the salary twice rather than removing him immediately).
What personal attacks?
You’re saying that after agreeing that she presented facts?
You guys would rather fight the person who reports about corruption in an org rather than dealing with the corruption.
Guess what: the community has been fed up with people like Youssef, since 82. Cowards who would threat quitting rather than dealing with the criticism of their community. Community is fed up with people unjustly filling their pockets with CP funds. Community (go ask validators who lost hope years ago) is fed up with the incompetence of the ICF. Nobody needed her voice to understand all these well known cosmos flaws that got us to 4$.
She’s trying to turn things into the right direction by calling them out. She does that with always professional manner:
Thank you for your opinion. I agree with you for the most part and certainly don’t have enough information to clearly take a side, so I just wanted to point out these points that I’ve noticed, which I think other community members who are having trouble deciding might find helpful. I disagree with your assertion that I would like an “Atom moongirl” for oversight and especially with your assertion that my observation of which of those I perceive to be more constructive support Graces’ approach is “off topic”. This is rather one of the most valuable information we community members have.
Deciding on what? Whether who wins? Grace vs Youssef? Or whether how to deal with Youssef?
The issue that should be discussed is what is written in the report. And I see people who are being distracted by Atone curiosity or the fact that she’s calling bs out, NOT discussing the bullshit.
We’re talking about a GM who has his wife make intimidating phone calls, why is barely anyone talking about that?!
To be clear, are you saying that Oversight should not have published the report?
Given the seriousness of possible violations concerning resource management, we felt a duty to report.
Not villainizing.
Please read X. Conclusion.
Here’s an extract.
“Therefore, we deem it necessary to caution against precipitous or premature calls for the dissolution or termination of AADAO, as such actions would be unwarranted at this juncture.”
Opinion is your own. You’re clearly out of touch with the community, they’re divided. I know Atom Bulls who fantasize to defund you.
Asking Grace in December 2023 if she wants to join the oversight board was not a serious move to begin with. The election tho, that SHE proposed instead, was the right thing to do.
Why are your wallets not doxxed?
After a terrible first year, paying a non working senior oversight and giving grants to terrible projects, you had to level up your org. Oversight election was a good factor to sell the community another round of AADAO.
The interest of a community elected and and representing OVERSIGHT, is to hold you accountable. Ofc you mark it as disruptive. Solution: don’t have your wife make intimidating phone calls, don’t pay people for not performing at all. Simply, be better?! This report wouldn’t exist if there was nothing to report!
You give yourself credit for being transparent but we never heard of these mistakes.
‘Digging up issues’ is her job for gods sake. How can you claim to be transparent when somebody has to ‘dig’ up issues, that would never see the light. You are community funded - community has the right to learn about issues in AADAO.
Also, really don’t know how the issues that are being reported could be presented in a good light. Do we wanna request DMs between you and Patricia? Would that help to shed some good light on the existing issues?
I am not a fan of rage quitting. I started not being a fan of it since prop 82.
It’s not allowed to be curious about what the guy that brought Cosmos to life is working on? This is pathetic. Especially given that you guys discussed this within AADAO and it was considered harmless. Bring in it up the way you do it right now is a witch hunt, only because you’re unable to talk about ANY of the issues that are talked about in the report. It further proves her observation that you can’t deal with criticism and get overly defensive.
The whole thing with Patricia is for AADAO to solve. Let me say tho it’s wild that you’re talking about ethics. Somebody, who has his wife make calls to intimidate. I don’t remember your wife being co GM.
Your headline is being value to Atom $$$. Why don’t we let the community decide if a 17k per month compensation with atom at 4$ is cool?
Oversights job is to hold you accountable. Start dealing with the report rather than giving a wrong definition of what their purpose is.
Somebody is not conflicted because you say so.
If she didn’t do her job you could say she’s conflicted. But she did, and you’re just unable to take it.
