On February 1st, Youssef provided me with the 2024 compensation file, instructing me to keep it confidential and not share it with Oversight, stressing that, as HR, I was the only person authorized to access it. When this file was shared internally at the end of August, several contributors voiced serious concerns about salary discrepancies, Youssef’s substantial base salary, and its potential impact on the bonus pool. They also emphasized the importance of transparency within the DAO, particularly regarding salaries and bonus allocations, and expressed concerns about Youssef’s reluctance to make this information accessible internally, and plainly available as public information .
During the Strategy Committee call on August 30th, and in a private discussion on August 29th, it became apparent that Strategy members had never seen the 2024 compensation file. As a result, Youssef’s total compensation had not been properly approved. Transparency is key in addressing potential abuse of power or personal gain. Paying oneself a high compensation is acceptable, as long as it is fully disclosed and approved by the appropriate authority, in this case, the community. Deviating from this process is what makes it unethical.
In February, given my concerns about potentially abusive compensation practices, but recognizing my limited knowledge of crypto salary structures and bands, I consulted with Oversight. We collectively agreed that the compensation seemed unusually high. However, to avoid the appearance of targeting Youssef personally, we chose not to question his total compensation directly. Instead, we focused on critically evaluating the overall methodology and rationale behind the bonus structure.
I firmly believed that the bonus pool should be distributed based on contributions that added value to ATOM. In a one-on-one conversation with Youssef, we agreed that Oversight should not receive bonuses since our work didn’t directly contribute to value creation for ATOM. However, on February 3rd, I was surprised when Youssef shared preliminary KPIs, which included basic duties like meeting attendance, participation in discussions, and adherence to deadlines as criteria for bonus eligibility. These are standard responsibilities and should not be tied to bonuses.
When I realized these KPIs were linked to core responsibilities rather than value-added contributions, I reached out to Youssef to understand his reasoning. I argued that since the KPIs were tied to core responsibilities, it would be reasonable for me, as a Financial Controller overseeing accounting and mitigating operational risks, to receive a bonus. Youssef disagreed, citing that due to conflict of interest Oversight should not be eligible. I explained that the COI could be mitigated through clear, objective KPIs and open discussions with the Strategy Committee and the team.
Later, Youssef’s wife contacted me to discuss our differing views. While she agreed that there was no inherent conflict in the Financial Controller/Internal Auditor receiving a performance bonus (a common practice in the corporate world), she mentioned that the community viewed me as an External Auditor. Despite not holding that role, she advised that due to this perception, I should not be entitled to it. I agreed, and we ended the call.
Oversight, continuing to challenge the bonus methodology, proposed to Youssef that the retention bonus should be aligned with the previous year’s compensation structure, reflecting past performance, accumulated expertise, and loyalty to the DAO. I sought Youssef’s feedback on this, but unexpectedly, he responded by accusing me of undermining team cohesion and claiming that Oversight must act with integrity and avoid self-interest. He emphasized that retention bonuses should be based on current contributions. I was surprised that questioning the methodology could be construed as lacking integrity. In my second interaction with his wife, seeking to resolve the situation in an open dialogue, her outburst and choleric reaction indicated a lack of objectivity and a tendency to prioritize personal views over constructive dialogue.
Focusing solely on the financial aspects of the bonus methodology diminishes the objectivity needed to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain fairness. A transparent discussion focused on the purpose of the retention bonus, rather than individual financial benefits, is essential to ensuring fairness. The lack of open dialogue, along with the integrity accusation, was deeply concerning.
Initially, I intended to keep the February discussions private to avoid harming Youssef’s reputation within the DAO. I believed that full transparency, validated by the community, would resolve any potential personal conflicts.
Given that those who designed the methodology stood to benefit the most, it was critical to disclose the KPIs and seek community input to mitigate potential conflicts of interest. Regrettably, my suggestion was dismissed, and I was pressured to move forward with the individual bonus distribution.
My firm stance against approving the bonus without adequate transparency measures, supported by Grace, coupled with Youssef’s accusation of lacking personal integrity during a Strategy Committee call, led me to bring up the origin of my challenges with Youssef beginning Feb this year. This decision was a direct response to his personal attack on my character on a team call, and my steadfast and principled reasoning, and the pressure to pay the bonus without adequate transparency regarding the KPIs.
Despite the evidence I’ve provided, I did not directly comment on his personal integrity. Instead, I have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and other warning signs. His ongoing accusations regarding my integrity and allegations of fraudulent activities, cannot be ignored. Should he continue making these false claims, whether within internal DAO discussions or publicly, I will have no choice but to pursue legal action under applicable laws, with Montreal as the governing jurisdiction.
