-
No one demanded a bonus compensation, certainly not an Oversight member.
-
The person who “manipulated” the retention formula is you. The previous Oversight Coordinator and the Financial Controller recommended it’s appropriate to use 2023 base compensation rates rather than 2024 compensation rates.
1 Like
It’s beyond an exaggeration to say I joined “forces with”. My “involvement” – hesitate to even describe it as such, is minimal at best. It’s not substantial.
Can you explain to me why AtomOne is a competitor to the hub? Is Litecoin a competitor to Bitcoin?
1 Like
The more I read about this whole thing, the more I am convinced that you were absolutely right to make this report public.
It is infuriating to learn about these types of behaviors, and at this stage I can’t think of any arguments or new elements that could make it look less damning.
Not only is it mismanagement and misappropriation of funds, it also shines a very bad light on the whole ecosystem and we don’t need that.
Nevertheless I do share some views with @CALCVLVS.
You have an enormous impact and reach on the community, and this “recreational curiosity” of yours can easily pass as an endorsement.
Since AtomOne is born as a direct result of JK’s disagreement with prop 848, and explicitly intends to fullfill the “original vision” of Cosmos… yes, it is objectively kind of a competitor.
You see how the combination of these two items can raise concerns and subject you to an intense scrutiny given your unique position.
Not that it is in any way relevant to the matter at hand or should be used to question your integrity (we all support projects that are actually competing or at least have a similar scope), but it is inevitably an argument that will be made to try and undermine your work in Oversight, especially if the whole thing snowballs into a general public feud, Cosmos-style 
7 Likes
I agree that this was an inappropriate wording. I hope you can understand that I had a bad feeling when I looked at those I have highlighted, who are a key group in supporting your approach, correct me if I’m wrong there.
Of course, this is not nearly enough, but merely an indication for me to be cautious.
2 Likes
Yes, I would say Litecoin is largely a competitor to Bitcoin. Especially as the liquidity is split between these similar assets. Also, even if the application/investment basis is not congruent, a (successful) atom fork would cause further confusion - especially for potential investors outside the ecosystem.
Therefore, I think it is quite likely that a significant competitive situation will occur with Atone. Especially as voting behaviour is going to be penalised accordingly, which I think is a very bad practice. If this becomes the norm, most will only vote in such a way that they get the most out of it, not what makes sense for the community in the long term.
1 Like
Thank you for sharing.
I’m an elected representative of Cosmos governance – and if the community overwhelmingly feels my extracurricular interest (hesitate to even describe it as involvement) in AtomOne is an issue I must respect the community. Full stop.
Notwithstanding these concerns, it’s imperative to maintain focus on the substance of the Oversight report.
Our reporting obligation to the community supersedes – and guided by this principle, we published our report. Any attempts to divert attention through specious arguments and conspiracy theories are unproductive.
Please note the report’s publication was predicated on the existence of supporting evidence and interviews.
Our utilization of qualifying language (e.g., “alleged,” “possible,” “potential”) was an "accommodation* extended to the contributor team, positioning them to buy more time for their internal assessment (although literally at Oversigh’s reputational expense).
Upon reflection, this linguistic caution used, was an unnecessary and possibly, detrimental accommodation, as our findings are, in fact, conclusive rather than speculative.
Furthermore, in the course of our review of all personnel-related expenditures, we have uncovered additional irregularities that constitute mismanagement of public funds.
Specifically, these irregularities manifest as discrepancies between vague public statements made to the community and internal actions. We will provide an addendum to the report as to how this wasteful spending particularly impacted Oversight.
Moreover, we’ve identified operational errors that pose material liabilities to the organization. The contributor team were kept apprised as these issues were discovered.
For the the time being, we are of the view the community has sufficient information to decide whether the GM’s misconduct/mismanagement merits censure or removal.
FYI, as a matter of procedure – it is possible for oversight to initiate a motion for the removal of a DAO member, but we are unable to do so as the Oversight Committee is not properly set up on DaoDao at the present time.
I’ve also asked the contributors to doxx their wallets on DaoDao. I cannot think of a good reason as to why this information should remain censored.
6 Likes
UPDATE RE AADAO Oversight Coordinator Role
The Oversight Coordinator position has remained vacant since June.
On August 30th, I formally advised AADAO’s Strategy Committee to request Youssef’s immediate recusal from any processes related to the selection and hiring of a new Oversight Coordinator.
This recommendation was made in light of the ongoing internal review into allegations of misconduct against Youssef.
The intent of my recommendation was to ensure the integrity of the hiring process for this critical role.
However, I learned, that on the very same day, August 30th, Youssef reportedly extended an “offer” for this position.
It is crucial to note that, according to my understanding of AADAO’s protocols, any such offer requires formal ratification through an all-DAO vote to be considered valid and binding. The all-DAO vote has not taken place yet.
2 Likes
Can you kindly rephrase? I don’t understand this statement. Thank you in advance.
Looking forward to the GM’s responses and for all this to be resolved respectfully, efficiently and effectively. Still baffled Grace’s value is being questioned, however.
3 Likes
Sorry for that. I was trying to refer to my feelings about the group of people I mentioned in my first post, who I felt were not necessarily favourable to the (further) development of the Cosmoshub through AADao.
1 Like
That’s wild. It’s kinda like if you don’t like the work that your police is doing (to you), you get a new police.
I can imagine that in such a job interview, the main goal is to find out wether the new police would do their job with the same integrity as the current one, OR if he (Youssef) could away with his shit. Like, no Reports or questions asked.
(I am aware that there’s differences between oversight and police. But you get the idea)
Note:
Because of this 
a community elected position can’t be removed by the Dao itself. AADAO is not a private org. I don’t know how @Youssef thinks this would work, but Grace getting the job is a ON CHAIN decision.
AADAO doesn’t govern the chain.
Therefore only the CHAIN can remove her. Youssef might wanna spend more of the money the community gave to him to hire people to do the same job that Grace is currently doing. I don’t think that helps him tho.
I agree wirh @highstakes observation that the shift of focus from the report to Grace is textbook cosmos tactics. It’s easier to get a mob because there’s a connection to the evil „EnEmY“ of the hub (Jae), than have the community read the report and decide for themselves.
btw, if Gnoland was supposed to compete (who received his bribe exit drop?), why not AtomOne with IBC enabled?
you must be naive or somehow dishonest to believe otherwise.
2 Likes
I take it you have read my comments in the French TG group, otherwise the coincidence is uncanny.
Yes to all that.
I personally don’t feel like I need to view the evidence myself at this point; unless others claim that it happened differently I’ll consider your report true and factual (especially since Youssef did not dispute your account of the events themselves).
But I suppose you are prepared to make it public in case it becomes necessary.
Anyway. The process is ongoing and I expect that things will come to a conclusion in the coming days, hopefully without the community having to resort to governance or any coercion methods.
Then we can discuss how to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.
Whatever my position may be on other subjects, this is a net positive for the ecosystem and largely thanks to you. 
4 Likes
I should add at least a few thoughts on the content of the report. I apologise in advance for any further inappropriate wording - English is only one of several second languages I currently use.
Briefly about my background, in terms of relevant experience, here: I have been an investor for a good 40 years, I used to attend the annual general meetings of stock corporations frequently and tried to help shape decisions before voting, unfortunately usually with little success, as most other participants were mainly interested in the free meal. In addition to software development, I also worked in bank controlling supervision for securities traders.
Because of these experiences, I believe that OC governance is only suitable for assessing individual work performance to a very limited extent. We therefore absolutely need a competent and incorruptible oversight who is committed to the cause. In my opinion, we should have found this with you.
On the accusations levelled at the GM:
The basic problem seems to me to be that there is no transparent, sensible regulation on the distribution of bonuses. In addition, the basic salary should be paid out in a non-volatile asset if this is not yet the case.
In my view, the greatest possible damage with these disputed sums would be to lose good people because they are not adequately paid for their work performance. It is therefore possible that the distribution made by the GM was intended to prevent precisely this and should therefore not be assessed merely formally.
Furthermore, I would not make bonuses primarily dependent on the asset price, but rather on the cash flow generated for Atom Holders, fed by revenue, airdrops and other inflows, as well as on individual work performance!
Despite undoubted mistakes and, at best, unfortunate approach (involvement of wife), the decisive question should be: is there a better person for this position in terms of the work and experience gained to date or is it not better to learn from mistakes and move forward on a joint basis?
4 Likes
Show me how I have been corrupt, and I will resign.
If I were corrupt, we would not have published the report.
As said, many times – Oversight has a mandate. And we take our reporting obligation concerning resource utilization seriously.
1 Like
Base Salaries are disbursed monthly as USDC.
All bonuses (retention, performance) are paid out in ATOM (there are no team/individual bonuses vesting bc Oversight withheld approval; the only bonus paid out currently is the retention bonus).
Please see Historic Compensation and Bonus Distribution spreadsheet, which was linked in OP.
2 Likes
Yes, I did see your comment in Cosmos France. The issue with qualifying language has been discussed on CT and other TG groups as well.
During my review process, I successfully secured interviews with relevant parties except for Youssef. Despite his initial verbal agreement to cooperate, he ultimately did not participate. It’s important to note that Youssef’s interview would not significantly alter the findings, as there is substantial supporting evidence corroborating Pati’s account.
However, Youssef’s refusal to be interviewed and his subsequent actions indicate, and also reinforce Pati’s account of Youssef’s pattern of obstructing oversight members:
- He actively avoided communication with me.
- On September 5th, he unilaterally cancelled Oversight’s review.
- He demanded an external investigator, implying that the considerable cost of an ombudsman’s services should be covered by DAO resources.
We had also previously established team-wide protocols for discussing the issues of misconduct and mismanagement.
All DAO members had agreed that conversations related to the August 30th incident report should be recorded and shared transparently with the team. This measure was intended to ensure all parties could respond to claims or allegations, while mitigating for the risk of undue influence.
Despite this agreement, on Monday, September 9th, Youssef held a nearly 3-hour call with core DAO members and prohibited recording.
In my considered opinion, the sum of these actions by Youssef constitutes obstruction of Oversight’s duties and responsibilities. The pattern of obstruction precedes the Financial Controller’s challenges with Youssef beginning Feb this year – rather the evidence indicates he has been undermining the proper function of Oversight since the beginning of AADAO’s inaugural mandate.
4 Likes
Anyone knows who’s the admin of the forum?
This account who only joined to write one comment here deleted the comment / or the comment seemed to be removed by admin.
Usually when you delete a comment, you can still scroll to that comment and it says ‚it’s Deleted‘
But his comment nowhere.
Okay, so can admins remove entire comments?
Only way I can explain that yea. I mean admin powers must be good for something, and I can imagine removing entire comments being one of these powers.
ChatGPT says that typically admins can do that
@catdotfish @can you see which admin removed the comment of ‘tiredbuilder’
Tagging you because I don’t see that you’re in any way involved here