Please listen to the provided audio here, and provide responses to questions accordingly. Thank you.
1 Like
Chill Validation does not agree to, and did not expect the bonus structure to be hidden behind an IPFS file containing a link on page 8 behind the word âhereâ to a Google Doc authorizing awarding 100k of Atom for âmeets expectatonsâ.
Reference burried link on Page 8 of IPFS: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmcsiSgQKmaMkVKNQSSSsY1u6VZu4Q6R8VwhDLVXKk4mGx
The bonus schedule could have been put in the main proposal like all other figures and tables, or at the very least linked descriptively, but instead it was hidden. A programmer hiding a bug for their own benefit or a proposal hiding a bonus for anyoneâs benefit is unacceptable. We do honor the bonus structure document.
The team demonstrates the ability to communicate clearly and has chosen not to.
Meets expectations is what one must do to get the agreed grants or salaries.
KPIs for bonuses should be onboarding amazing TVL, delivering incredibly well adopted and useful value building features beyond initial scope or showing mass adoption significantly above normal growth curves, getting the crypto space to talk about an amazing DApp on the Cosmos launched by AADAO might be a good start.
In reference to:
Asking to hide the details of the compensation file is unacceptable with public funds.
In reference to shared audio in:
We are disappointed to see the poor treatment of Patricia Mizuki, AADAOâs Financial Controller. AADAO members, including Oversight must treat each other with respect. No matter how well earned a bonus might be, anyone acting in an abusive manner, especially towards their own team, should not qualify for bonuses.
We will not encourage abusive behavior. It is not the future we want.
Feedback request responses:
- Was it explicitly clear that the 100,000 $ATOM bonus allocation for âPerformance and Retention Protocolâ could be used to supplement monthly salaries?
No
- Is it appropriate to use the bonus pool for contributor performance that merely âmeets expectations,â (average/unexceptional performance) or should it be reserved for performance that âexceeds expectationsâ or better?
Meets expectations does not qualify for bonuses.
- Did you interpret a âYESâ vote on Proposal 865 as approving all policies within linked documents, such as the âAADAO Performance and Retention Bonus Protocolâ?
No, the information was not clearly presented. It appears intentionally hidden.
- In your opinion, does passing a proposal implicitly ratify all linked documents and their contents, or should such ratifications be more explicit? Additionally, how do we determine if document linkage is sufficient, and where should these links be presented?
Details should be either in the on-chain proposal, or all in a single IPFS link. IPFS supports multiple files in a single URL.
5 Likes
This reflects 100% how I feel about it, too. Consider this opinion as also mine please.
1 Like
Thank you so much for the thorough response.
The community may now better understand why Youssefâs actions constitute both misconduct and fiduciary mismanagement. Over seven months, Patricia endured verbal abuse and harsh treatment during one-on-one calls with Youssef, and some also with his wife (not a DAO contributor).
This pattern of inappropriate behavior became shockingly evident during a team-wide call, where Youssefâs hostility actually escalated beyond what is heard in the shared audio clip. He viciously attacked Patricia while we were trying to understand his proposed bonus methodology. In response to this berating, Patricia stated that this had been her experience from the moment they began discussing bonuses and related distribution methodologies.
Surprisingly, I was the only one who recognized and admonished this unacceptable conduct during the call. Subsequently, I shared an internal incident report documenting the behavior and Patriciaâs account of the year-long intimidation and coercion she reportedly faced.
Given these circumstances, I remain puzzled about what the AADAO contributors feel they need to âverifyâ. The most relevant facts are already on a public blockchain, and seven other contributors witnessed his conduct, and Patriciaâs testimony on Aug. 30th.
Am grateful for your thorough response regarding the scope of approval for Proposal 865.
The core disagreement between Oversight and DAO operations centers on determining exactly what was âratified.â I hope other community members and validators will follow suit and share their mindset when they cast a Yes vote for Proposal 865.
This issue of ratification interpretation is crucial as it extends to several other areas. For example, AADAO has allocated $5M for venture funding and $3M for grant funding.
In my opinion, this distribution is not aligned with their original and or their renewed mandate, which is primarily to function as a community-owned grant-making DAO.
Theyâre investing significant mental and financial resources into operating as a âventure fundâ - an operational approach I donât believe was approved.
5 Likes
Itâs becoming increasingly obvious that Youssefâs position is untenable. Pleased that this is finally out in the open for all to see and a big thank you to Grace for her tireless work on shedding light on this prolonged grift. Yousefâs uncouth unprofessional behavior, questionable ethics and financial self prioritization are clearly not aligned with what we as a community are trying to engender in the cosmos. We should come together as a community and condemn such behavior, has no place in cosmos. I believe itâs prop and spill time, let the people vote on new leadership because current AADAO âleadershipâ is getting paid a lot to do very little work as weâve seen.
4 Likes
ok so regarding x.com
This audio transcript is yet another damning element. Sorry that Patricia had to endure this.
Trying to answer the questions objectively:
1/ At the time not really, at least I donât recall having understood it as such. And yet, itâs actually stated in the bonus document: the combination of the distribution and methodology appear to mean exactly that â at least in the absence of clear KPIs, which were shared months later.
2/ I wish the companies where I held business development positions had that kind of metrics for bonuses. Iâd be a lot wealthier right now.
Hard no on this.
3/ Yes. There was a lot of information, many documents to read, and overall it was complex stuff â but for a $10M project, it sounds legitimate.
4/ It does; the problem in this case was the large number of linked documents, sometimes containing themselves links to other documents. It was easy to miss something.
This could maybe have been mitigated by ensuring that all relevant documents were listed and linked in the main post, instead of being scattered across multiple interventions.
I do not feel like there was a conscious attempt at obfuscating elements or hiding anything at the time.
Instead, the realization that the rules could be taken advantage of came at a later moment, perhaps when defining the KPIs and salaries for 2024⌠Either way, the current situation does not reflect what we voted for.
6 Likes
I think you should post only once per day because you are repeating and flooding here.
I am happy with your work but a bit too aggresive.
My other tought : AADAO leader is bullying patricia, she is doing her job.
I want change of leadership of AADao.
Who is youssef? a activer leader with a grea idea
From prop 865 : * Program Manager : As the leader of the Strategy Committee, the Program Manager represents AADAO publicly, advises on budgetary matters, and collaborates in setting roadmaps and KPIs for sub-DAOs. The GMâs role extends to supervising subDAOs, coordinating recruitment efforts, and developing internal controls and policies in conjunction with the Oversight Committee.
What Youssef did :
Bad execution
Having wrong KPI
Budget : misjudgment (5M for ventures?)
Feedback request responses:
- Was it explicitly clear that the 100,000 $ATOM bonus allocation for âPerformance and Retention Protocolâ could be used to supplement monthly salaries?
Bonus is Bonus. No supplement monthly salaries
Retention can be a bonus
- Is it appropriate to use the bonus pool for contributor performance that merely âmeets expectations,â (average/unexceptional performance) or should it be reserved for performance that âexceeds expectationsâ or better?
Reserved for performance that âexceeds expectationsâ
If you ask anyone in X, they canât even say what AADAO did in 2024 then how did they exceed?
- Did you interpret a âYESâ vote on Proposal 865 as approving all policies within linked documents, such as the âAADAO Performance and Retention Bonus Protocolâ?
Yes was for the AADAOâs vision for 2024
- In your opinion, does passing a proposal implicitly ratify all linked documents and their contents, or should such ratifications be more explicit? Additionally, how do we determine if document linkage is sufficient, and where should these links be presented?
Proposal is The bonuses are neither automatatic nor guaranteed, and are subject to review of Strategy Committee and Oversight.
Kpi should be given in advance and in main proposal.
We choose a oversight commitee to pin out potential problem.
Now we should figure out solution.
Quick feedback :
Oversight & financial commitee exceed my expectation.
Youssef : disappointed my expectation
AADAO : ok
3 Likes
Cosmos Ecosystem Enjoyer since 2021.
In my view, AADAO appears to be a fragile organization, lacking originality and struggling to direct funding towards initiatives that genuinely benefit the community or add tangible value to ATOM.
Grace simply spoke the truth, and within just two months, the organization is already showing signs of instability. If the truth is enough to lead to your downfall, it suggests that the foundation was weak to begin with.
4 Likes
Is it appropriate to use the 100,000 ATOM bonus pool for contributor performance that merely âmeets expectationsâ (average/unexceptional performance)?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
According to your interpretation of the Performance & Retention Bonus Protocol document, was it made explicitly clear that the 100,000 ATOM bonus allocation can be used as a variable compensation tool (as a supplement to contributorsâ monthly salaries)?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
Do you believe and or support that a âYESâ vote on Proposal 865 means approving all policies that are indirectly linked policy documents, such as the Performance & Retention Bonus Protocol document?
An indirect link means a document that is not directly linked and or identified by title (and or via sufficient description) in the actual proposal text
- Yes
- No
0
voters
In your opinion, does passing a proposal implicitly ratify all directly and or indirectly linked documents and ALL of its contents?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
Do you believe that AADAOâs proposed use of 100,000 bonus ATOM is consistent with what you believe was âratifiedâ via governance, as per Proposal 865 passing?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
4 Likes
Hey everyone,
We wanted to update you on what the DAO has been up to since the Operational Freeze came into effect a week ago.
AADAO contributors are currently working to form a holistic summary report, including testimonies from the three contributors on Operational Freeze and the remaining DAO members. This review will help inform potential resolutions, and will culminate in All of AADAO proposals as stated here.
We are liaising with the three contributors to define a methodology for this internal review, so that all parties are satisfied with the process.
To clarify, we do not necessarily disagree with the veracity of Oversightâs report, nor is the Oversight Committee prevented from accessing any data on our operations during this freeze. The freeze only affects any decision-making or executive roles the contributors might have otherwise played.
We will keep the community updated in the coming days as the situation progresses.
We thank you for your patience in the matter, and allowing time for the remaining DAO members to continue with our operations.
Hey everyone,
We see no future for the AADAO with the current leadership and seek a resignation by GP @Youssef . Additionally we request the current unfrozen AADAO members to propose a new temporary GP as an internal promotion while the situation evolves and hiring can start for the role.
Lastly we expect a reaction to this within the current freezing window (ending 28th of september 2024) or we will seek alternative methods to revoke power from the AADAO through the safeguards mentioned in proposal 865.
Thank you to Grace and Patricia for speeking up and all other people with we spoke in-private to make sense of the situation.
Best,
Ertemann
Lavender.Five Nodes
8 Likes
Iâd like to address serious concerns Pati and I have with the core DAOâs investigation process and overall communication practices. These concerns are not just procedural but fundamental to the AADAOâs fragile integrity during a critical time
âInterviews vs Testimoniesâ
Your announcement today describing our interviews as âtestimoniesâ without prior notice is troubling. You do understand the difference?
The sudden change from âinterviewsâ to âtestimoniesâ significantly alters the perceived formality and potential administrative implications for how we participate. This reclassification moves the process closer to a deposition-like scenario, which typically requires specific protocols and safeguards.
If youâre moving towards a more formal, deposition-like process, itâs crucial to have well-defined rules and procedures in place. The absence of ground rules to the process (despite having twelve days to develop them) suggests inexperience. A process isnât merely fair by virtue of you believing your personal involvement will make it fair.
Moderators
Earlier this week, Pati and I were informed in Slack that our âinterviewsâ would provide for two TBD moderators. When asked how youâre selecting these moderators, your response was an equivocation describing the moderators as ânot really moderatorsâ. These changes create confusion and undermines our confidence the coreDAO members can capably manage an impartial process.
This isnât just a semantic issue; words you use can potentially alter the nature and implications of participantsâ interviews. Such changes need to be clearly communicated and justified upfront.
History of Partiality for Imprecise Language and AADAOâs Administrative Errors
The DAOâs history of using imprecise language has created significant problems:
- Labeling a non-repayable $80,000 grant to Cosmoverse as a âtemporary loanâ in May misrepresented the financial arrangement.
- Labelling a repayable grant as a âloanâ rendered your initial execution of MOU with Cosmoverse as potentially unenforceable.
- Calling investments âventure grantsâ when the funds provided donât function as grants creates confusion in the community and potential legal issues for the DAO.
- Calling variable compensation mechanisms"bonuses" misleads the community on the use of 100,000 ATOM bonus pool
- Now, we see interviews suddenly described as âtestimonies.â Your normative and non normative functions requires precise terminology to processes requiring more than âconcepts of plans.â
Anonymized Testimonies from Non Freeze Members
Via AADAO slack, the team has communicated to me and Pati that the investigations leading to a production of a Summary Report will involve collection of anonymized testimonies from the contributor team:
- Please clarify the extent of anonymity: Is it from the core team, the public, or just those affected by the operational freeze?
- Whatâs the exact process for submitting these anonymized testimonies?
- Will these also involve oral interviews?
- How will you ensure the integrity and accurate representation of these testimonies?
- How will you deter tampering with submission of testimonies?
Investigation Methodology:
We request, on our behalf â and on behalf of the community, that the core DAO submit a structured and clear explanation of how youâre conducting the various internal procedures for the making of a Summary Report:
- Who has access to the collected information?
- Whatâs the decision-making process within the investigation?
- What safeguards are in place to ensure fairness and impartiality?
The integrity of this process is vital for maintaining what little trust remains in the organization. Your previous responses in the AADAO Slack over the past two weeks, while appreciated, havenât adequately addressed Oversight Membersâ concerns.
6 Likes
Good Morning everyone,
After reviewing the whole thread, going through the TG AADAO group messages for any further context, reviewing prop 865, and speaking with several people in DMâs, we strongly recommend that @Youssef resign immediately, without any further payment.
We urge that the AADAO promote an internal existing member to serve as a temporary GM to replace Youssef while the team works to create a process to elect a new one. From our understanding a gov prop will need to be made and approved to do so.
Misuse of community pool funds is essentially theft against the community, and I donât care how âdisrespectfulâ this comes across against Youssef. Disrespecting the community is >>>> disrespecting Youssef/any single entity.
Prop 865 wasnât meant to be drained via paying the GM more, it was meant to bring in innovation and new builders.
To both Grace and Patricia, whom we spoken to in private regarding the situation, we appreciate all your efforts and dedication to trying to do the right thing. No one should ever have to put up being treated and spoken to like that. More than happy to excise my asshole Marine mentality as a moderator/supporter on your next call.
Since these reports and findings, plus lots of work in the backend to do so and bring it in a well written format that takes lots of time, you two should split his current bonus. 
If we are going to consider any work âexemplaryâ to bonus, these reports are it.
-Erialos
-The Silver Fox
ChatGPT Prop 865 Summary:
When Cosmos Proposal 865 passed, the following key items were approved:
- Funding of 975,811 ATOM for ATOM Accelerator DAO (AADAO): This amount, equivalent to around $8.3 million at the time, was allocated from the Cosmos Hub community pool to fund the AADAOâs activities throughout 2024â(
)â(
).
2. Grant Program Expansion: The AADAO committed to continue managing grants through two main channels:
- Open Grants: Applications from community members for innovative projects within the Cosmos ecosystem.
- RFPs (Request for Proposals) and High-Priority Grants: These are strategically targeted grants that address specific challenges or opportunities identified by the DAOâ(
)â(
).
3. Ecosystem Development Initiatives: The proposal outlined efforts to expand the utility of ATOM by fostering partnerships and integrating it into external platforms such as MakerDAO and real-world asset tokenization. Additionally, there were plans to increase ATOMâs liquidity across various Layer 1 and Layer 2 networksâ().
4. SubDAO Structures: The AADAO planned to develop specialized subDAOs within its structure to handle grants and other operations more efficiently. These teams would focus on specific areas such as technical research and strategic partnershipsâ().
5. Commitment to Transparency and Community Involvement: While there were critiques regarding a lack of transparency in the first year, the AADAO committed to improving its communication with the community and providing more detailed breakdowns of how the funds would be usedâ().
In summary, Proposal 865 approved significant funding for the AADAO to continue driving growth and innovation in the Cosmos ecosystem while addressing some of the communityâs concerns regarding transparency and equitable distribution of resources.
3 Likes
I agree with what @Ertemann said:
- Thanks to both Grace and Patricia for bringing this issue to our attention
- +1 on resignation of the current leader
- +1 on the resolution of this by the current freezing window [6 days from now]
As I see in the DAOâs statement above, they want to do their summary (review, report, investigation, [insert other synonyms here]) to âinform potential resolutionsâ. Thatâs more than reasonable. And looking at the âAll of AADAO proposalâ they linked, they just want to do a call with you, Patricia and Youssef, in order to do this summary.
Noting that they have just 6 days, your requests, while reasonable, seem impossible. It feels like they just want to have a call with you, and you want them to instead create methodology, frameworks, safeguards, etc.
Again, while your request for those things are reasonable, judging by the discussions in this thread, I will bet my bottom dollar that whatever methodology they define, you will find ways to poke holes in it.
Quite frankly, for the sake of everyone - just get on the call!
How do you know what the DAO wants to do?
Are you a DAO contributor?
Nowhere in this thread have we discussed AADAO review methodology prior to today. Where do you get the confidence to âjust trustâ theyâre doing things correctly?
The core team had sufficient verified information to make a resolution two weeks ago, but they didnât act on it.
Youssef made serious allegations that he hasnât been able to substantiate.
If the core team had genuinely wanted to speak with me, I would have been willing to do so.
Itâs crucial to understand how the team is handling anonymous âtestimonies,â as these could significantly influence the conclusions in their Summary Report.
My concerns about the process are legitimate and based on concrete information, not just speculation. There are clear indications that their investigative process may be flawed.
Since the ADAN association received ATOM via a vote towards proposals 70⌠Iâve been fleeing this ecosystem. What was the point? Prove to me something better since then?
Pati, on how many occasions between Jan 1 and Feb 23 â either verbally or in writing â did you ask Youssef if Oversight could receive perf comp? Why were you advocating for the retention bonus methodology to be based on 2023 vs 2024 salaries when you were the only person in the org who would benefit from this methodology? On how many occasions did you ask Youssef for this 2023 method of calculating retention between Jan 1 and Feb 23? Did you enlist the help of your Oversight peer Damien to also advocate that performance comp mechanisms be a certain way? Based on your long and deep experience as an auditor, do you believe it is generally a good practice for a neutral party designing a perf comp framework to be advocating for methodological choices that would lead to their own personal gain â yes or no?
Youssef, why havenât you learned your lessons about being a bit too aggressive with people? After you took back development of the performance comp methodology from Patricia in Feb, why did you work on it more or less privately from there? Why didnât you bring the overall performance comp framework to StratComm for ratification when this was the protocol we had included in Internal Protocols? The word ratify means âformal and official approvalâ â when had the performance comp framework that you sent to Pati for payment in early September been formally and officially approved by StratComm? Why did you cease team communications for 10 days after Grace published her incident report earlier this month? Do you realize as a leader you cannot just go silent on your team for extended periods?
Grace, why did you decide that only Patiâs side of the story had relevance in a âhe said, she saidâ situation with Youssef? Is it OK for a member of Oversight to take one side of a âhe said, she saidâ as gospel truth while demonizing the other side? Do you agree that a member of Oversight needs to act in an unpredjudiced and impartial manner in order that the concept of Oversight to remain neutral and respected? Why did you tell StratComm you would keep the investigation private, and then ~1 week later publish a lengthy account on the forum? Where do you believe all of the alt accounts defending you on the forum have come from? Would it be helpful to do speech analysis of those alt accounts to learn which community member is behind them?
Rather than publishing a personal statement with my own views on what has happened, Iâve decided the most honorable thing I can do is ask these key questions openly to the individuals involved in a public setting (above).
I donât think AADAO or the Cosmos hub can find success with self-interest, manipulation, double standards, deceit, and betrayal laced throughout the steward org.
A steward org needs a set of contributors who put their self-interest and ego/pride aside, come with humility and selflessness to the jobs, maintain healthy interpersonal relationships, and work together in an ethical and non-political manner.
There are still a few people within AADAO who have maintained their honor, and for the sake of these individuals I hope the org can rediscover its purpose and positive direction.
I have a great level of sadness from the entire situation, the Cosmos community deserves much better than this.
If by this Friday AADAO members are not in a position to begin voting on a proposition to resolve the present situation, I will need to resign from the DAO and separate myself from the situation, at which point most likely, I would also recommend to the Community that funds be clawed back from AADAO wallets.
2 Likes
Your questions indicate you do not read 80% of what I post in Slack. This has led to misunderstandings and misguided questions from you because you fundamentally miss or willfully ignore information Iâve already shared.
Let me clarify a few key points:
-
Timeline and Communication:
On Aug 29th, we had informed the team that we would publish our reasons for withholding approval of the bonus methodology. We also communicated that our report, initially focused on compensation issues and bonus mechanisms, would be published approx September 5th. -
Scope Change:
I explained to contributors why Youssefâs actions on September 6th necessitated expanding our reportâs scope. His actions plainly indicated abuse of power and deviation from agreed-upon protocols for Oversightâs review regarding his conduct, which the team, including yourself, had previously accepted.
Youssefâs actions on the 5th were sufficiently egregious that apparently a majority of contributors were prepared to propose Youssefâs removal. Pati and I were asked to delay our report. The vote didnât occur, and you played a role in this decision. -
Conduct of Inquiry:
Iâm confident that Iâve conducted all my inquiries in an unbiased and unprejudiced manner.
The most significant concerns are widely accepted as factual, as evidenced by your own line of questioning to Youssef above.
I am also confident the purported and essential impartiality of the DAO-led review of Oversightâs Special Report and related events/accounts is deeply flawed.
I am confident because I have evidence.
Iâm aware that youâve been informed about my possession of this evidence, which may be influencing your recent forum post that appears to misdirect the communityâs attention.
Given the misleading and self-serving nature of your post, it is my opinion that AADAOâs leadership crisis cannot be fully resolved without your resignation. Your actions suggest youâre part of the problem, not the solution.
A complete reset of leadership, including your position, appears necessary.
2 Likes
Before addressing your questions, I want to clarify that Iâm not sure youâre fully grasping the seriousness of the GMâs actions. Given all that has transpired, I find it concerning that on September 19th, you suggested I restore my relationship with him so the situation could be happily resolved. This issue isnât about personal dynamicsâitâs about the misuse of public funds without proper transparency, which raises serious concerns about personal benefits. By proposing this approach, youâre essentially endorsing collaboration with individuals who handle public money without transparency.
4 Likes