At first we requested them to be anonymous, then Grace questioned the process of them being anonymous. We then removed the clause requiring them to be anonymous so as to proceed with things as opposed to getting hung up on defining an entire process for interacting with anonymous testimonies.
We are not happy to change them (testimonies) as we want. Jordan was looking for folks to give a review of his account, which is completely fair.
And yes, correct. We are releasing this information to the community so folks can understand that this is not a one sided story. That we expect the highest bar for oversight, just like we do for the GM.
I never rejected hopping on a call. I said a process must be clear as to how you are utilizing these interviews, and I also asked you to make your procedure public before we commence interviews.
Grace, Your highlighting of problems within the performance comp have merit, and Iâm not trying to discredit your work on that. Much was lacking, and the DAO needs to correct that for sure.
Where I have a problem is seeing how you pretend you didnât know of Pati being the upstream source of this whole situation gone awry, and I really cannot comprehend why you chose to ignore this as context to why Pati might act and behave a certain way in a âhe said, she saidâ controversy with Youssef?
Blaming me for not going into detail in an early discussion with you when you never asked about this topic also seems pretty sad, TBH.
Did I not tell you directly on an early call that âPati wanted bonuses for Oversight, Youssef got mad at her over it, and thatâs how this whole situation got startedâ â why donât you play that clip for the community?
TBH, I should be able to trust senior colleagues to take a conceptual comment and interpret it and act on it, yeah?
If that is how the situation got started with Pati and Youssef being in a big fight in Feb, and it was relevant context to how Pati flips it back on Youssef in September, why didnât you consider it in your investigation? I mean, did you just forget to interview me to gather the detail after I said that to you?
Did you think it wasnât relevant context in the context of a âhe said, she saidâ situation to have the testimony of a first person witness who witnessed how all of this got started down the path of going south?
It seems odd for a person as thorough and detailed as yourself to just omit a whole section of the context, let alone even one key detail â I donât know why you would do that?
Before this is all over, I think the AADAO team and community should weigh in on your role in causing this whole situation to look a certain way, and whether or not that is becoming of Oversight to paint it one way when there is a much richer context and set of facts at hand.
Anyways, thatâs my final post for tonight and I hope on this topic too.
I donât wish ill of you, Pati, or Youssef, and just think a lot of mistakes were made leading up to how we got here by multiple people, TBH, and Iâve tried to be fair and equally critical of all three parties to the situation.
Carter, you need to pay closer attention to the details. The key word here is âUNTILâ. The screenshots youâre referring to do not contradict the information that was provided to you earlier. Let me clarify:
My request was for a coherent and fair process for ALL individuals being âinterviewedâ - this includes Youssef.
The point was to ensure that no oneâs reputation, including Youssefâs, would be unfairly dependent on the âbetter judgementâ of the contributors.
I had suspicions about potential bias in the process.
First I would like to acknowledge the work of Oversight and then the rest of the DAO in doing this work. It isnât comfortable reading and I suspect it is even less comfortable to do the process and do the writing.
My view based on the DAOs position as posted by Carter:
Youssef should resign rather than forcing the hands of good people on the DAO to remove him.
Grace and Pati seem to both be beyond working with the DAO and seem to either not trust it or think they are above it. This is not healthy or sustainable.
They either need to accept the findings in full and get back to a working position or they need to quit and bring a vote to dissolve the DAO. Returning to work is obviously preferable.
The general tone of the responses have made for a truely unedifying and not what the community should get from teams it funds and individuals it elects. For shame.
More Iâm reading AADAOâs responses more I want to dissolve itâŚ
Oversight should be able to do its job without being vetoed by the other parties.
Youâre trying to deflect whatâs important towards whatâs not. As a simple holder and community member I do not care why and if all of this started when Pati asked/talked about Bonus. The screenshot shared by Grace on 2023 vs 2024 shows clearly how most of the bonus got sucked by the GM who has the bigger one and increasing it even more. I do understand now why ATOM price action was so bad itâs because the GM was too busy finding ways and schemes to boost his salary by 40% each yearâŚ
I rather focus on resolution and next actions rather that speculate on why Pati ask for bonus 8 months ago. Could be for her self own interest, or to engage the GM about it or simply towards fairness for herself and other members, itâs just doesnât matter compared to GM being able to fix his own bonus, disregard other membersâ concerns and disregard oversight report⌠etc
Oversight should have its own sub-dao ;
AADAO should vote fast on reforms :
New leadership
HOLD bonuses until new fair kpi can be propose and approve
Many new practices for conflict resolutions, oversight reporting and autonomy, transparency of salaries and bonusesâŚ
@Cosmos_Nanny
Grace, politely, what is stated above here is not true.
These are incorrect assumptions of myself and others on the call.
Please do not twist words or intentions here. Regarding the September 20 - Strategic Committee call - no one is at fault of any wrongdoing here, whether myself nor the AADAO Strategic Committee. The DAO aims to aggregate information.
There is no coordination to doctor my testimony nor manipulate public opinion.
The DAO-led summary is simply the AADAOâs best attempt to aggregate all accounts to provide both the whole team at AADAO, and provide the community, all the information relevant to the situation at hand. With a situation as complex as this it is important to coordinate and gather everyone on the same page, including both all members of AADAO and the community. For the DAO to vote any member out, including the GM, is a pretty serious move, so collecting all relevant perspectives and information is important.
Included in this DAO-wide summary would be accounts and perspectives from several contributors across the board, including Oversightâs incident report, Patriciaâs thorough account, Better_Futureâs recent document, Youssefâs responses - and then I was asked to potentially provide an account of my own. Carter_Lee_Woetzel mentions this toward the end of the recording link you shared. Out of all perspectives considered, mine likely is minimal in relativity to others.
To provide additional clarity and context, the feedback that I was seeking from others within the DAO on my statement doc, during the September 20th Strategic Committee call, was primarily because I am not well-versed in such a complex scenario, which may involve me potentially interfacing with both community comms & the GM and/or Oversight in such a dramatic or escalated situation.
I was seeking feedback because I am hesitant on âentering the frayâ if you will. I am someone that is apolitical and I like to stay out of drama in general. A messy situation like this is not something I am keen on getting involved in directly, if I do not have to.
Additionally, I was also hesitant on getting involved for fear that given both the roles of the GM & Oversight both being in positions of power, that me speaking up at all may put myself, my role/function at AADAO at risk. I have nothing to hide, but I think the desire to not directly be involved is reasonable given how complex of a situation this all is.
To simplify, my account of the situation was basically just going to be a brief run through of events as they unfolded from my, albeit limited, perspective. Up to everyone to decide if this is relevant or not.
May 2024 - After several interviews, I was provided a job offer to join AADAO to lead âVenture Grantsâ, basically leading AADAOâs new venture arm
In response - Prior to accepting the job offer, I attempted to negotiate my salary package up to what would actually be a competitive market rate, as stated in the job description. After negotiating, I only received a slight bump in compensation and was told that I can only be offered a below market rate by the GM as AADAO was community funded and a governance mandated organization.
I was also told that I would receive a token allocation in ATOM attached to the compensation package, pro-rata to the base salary, a bonus dependent upon my completion of KPIs on a yearly or semi-annual basis. I had assumed at the time that some of this token allocation was provided to the compensation package by default, regardless of KPI performance. I didnât realize at the time to obtain all of the ATOM token compensation you had to achieve and exceed all KPIs
My assumption is likely because as I interviewed at both web2 tech companies and web3 companies (such as blockchain foundations or other web3 startups), in many cases it is normal practice that the base salary indeed is supplemented by both a full benefits package of health insurance alongside some sort of equity - in the case of web2 this would be RSUs, stocks/options for web2, or in the case of web3, a token allocation (this token allocation was typically not KPI/performance dependent, but much rather provided with the compensation package by default)
However, I did also think at the time of the offer it was a little odd for the job description to mention it pays a competitive market rate, but upon receiving the offer that it was not actually the case
I then eventually reasoned to myself and from input of the GM, that the compensation package was fair when considering the base salary and the token allocation combined, and the prospect of being able to help contribute towards and improve upon ATOM as a token. From someone who was a relative outsider coming from EVM/Solana/Move being able to contribute to Cosmos Hub & ATOM, was exciting to me. I also saw the string of recent impressive contributor additions to AADAO and the calls I had with several contributors were intellectually stimulating.
It is important to note, I was completely unaware of what other contributors were being paid, including the GM. I believe that not other contributors were aware of anyone elseâs compensation or KPI/bonus structure, aside from likely the GM & the Financial Controller, until Oversight shared their findings on Aug 30
Fast forwarding to recent events from August 30
Friday - Aug 30 - 10am EST - Strategic Committee Call - findings, and questions around the Bonus & KPIs framework, and Mismanagement/Misconduct of the GM were brought forth on the call, from Oversight (Grace + Patricia). If Iâm not mistaken, compensation of the GM & other contributors were revealed throughout the call, alongside the KPI & bonus structure
Friday - Aug 30 - Post-Strategic Committee Call - I had a brief text exchange via Slack with Grace after this call. Overall, I was shocked, disappointed at what the GMâs salary was relative to my own.
I remember remarking in disbelief to Grace (via Slack text) that the GMâs salary was more than double my salary (I am not sure if that was including the retention bonus or not to contributors.)
Same day, Grace then messages me wanting to hop on a call with me. She did not share the specific reasoning, but I assumed it had to do with the findings that have recently unfolded. I did think it was slightly odd, given Grace and I do not typically have 1-on-1 calls on a regular basis.
Eventually, Grace reaches out to me and mentions another DAO contributor was also going to hop on the call- this contributor was not sitting on the Strategic Committee, which also was slightly odd, but I was open to seeing what everyone had to say
During this 3-person call, Grace informs the other DAO contributor of Oversightâs findings. Grace, myself, and the other DAO contributor, we all express how disappointed and shocked we were at the situation - specifically regarding the difference in contributor compensation vs. GM compensation
Upon hearing the new findings from Grace, the other DAO contributor mentions that they have no faith in the current leadership of AADAO and suggests potentially that we may need new leadership
As conversation goes on and time elapses, the other DAO contributor has to leave the call due to another time commitment
At this point, it is just me and Grace on this call, I believe I mention to Grace that I had a little bit more time to stay on to talk
Something that stood out to me in my call with Grace, that Grace mentions something along the lines of, âthe DAO [AADAO] may have not have any choice but to vote the GM outâ
My thoughts at the time were that this was all a lot to take in ⌠the findings from Oversight, and then now Grace from Oversight already suggesting that the GM would have to be voted out. At this current moment, not all members of the DAO were all fully made aware yet of Oversightâs findings yet. The only ones that were informed of the situation of Oversightâs findings were Strategic Committee (minus Mark, who was not in attendance for that meeting due to being OOO), and myself
I didnât think much of it at the time, but I did think it was just very soon to already suggest GM removal to me, or anyone, upon only just learning about all the information on Aug 30 - Friday
The Oversight incident report, in writing, was then published internally on AADAO Slack, the next day, Aug 31 - Saturday.
As I brought up my recount up to other DAO contributors of how odd the whole situation all felt, they thought that my perspective should at least be brought forth to both the whole DAO and the community in the form of an aggregate summary
Thatâs about it.
I want to reiterate, none of what I, nor other contributors are saying is attempting to discredit or undermine Oversightâs findings. Oversight have done good work in bringing forth information on potential misconduct. That being said, this all probably could have all been solved internally. I am simply just providing information from my account of the situation, in order to add to a more comprehensive and holistic summary, that aims to aggregate all perspectives, including Oversightâs report, Patriciaâs doc, Youssefâs responses, and others.
Please look for official comms from the AADAO account.
Me requesting for feedback on my doc or account of the situation as they happened through my perspective was not because I, nor the Strategic Committee is attempting to doctor or fabricate my account of the situation. Again, I was also not, nor any others on the Strategic Committee attempting to discredit or undermine Oversightâs incident report in any way. Please donât twist any of the DAO members words or intentions during the Strategic Committee - September 20th call.
What you see above in bullets is what happened from my perspective. I am not familiar with posting on Cosmos Hub Forums at all or what it means to put out a public facing recount. I donât like to engage in drama or escalated situations, and I am a relative Cosmos outsider. I have never even had an account here until today. This is my first Cosmos Hub Forum post. I am one of the more recent hires for AADAO having joined ~4 months or so ago. I have worked in other blockchain ecosystems including EVM, Solana VM, Move, but I have not worked in Cosmos in a professional setting until joining AADAO. I have however been involved in Cosmos as a casual user & curious researcher in the past.
The DAO-led summary is just intended to aggregate all information so everyone, all of AADAO and the community has transparent information on the whole situation, and that we all can move forward to a reasonable, productive solution.
To the community, the DAO does intend to come up with a reasonable solution before the Operational Freeze end, and I do hope that we can all come to a reasonable path forward.
I just want to get back to actual, real work, do what I was hired to do, and that is drive value towards Atom & Cosmos Hub.
PS. Apologies if there are any typos or grammatical errors in my post. Super late, 3:46am here.
This 100%. All this has demonstrated that Oversight isnât safe within the current structure. They need to be able to speak truth as they find it, not as any of those being scrutinised might want it.
I personally feel like Iâve wasted more time on this saga in the past ~4-6 weeks than I should have. And aside from messing up my already non-existent work-life balance, it has definitely held up every other team, project and grantee Iâm working with.
My tl;dr thoughts. Not doing âPR-polishingâ and not taking comments or feedback - Iâm saying what Iâm saying.
Iâm grateful that you gave me the opportunity, at short notice, to exit the ICF but still continue working with the Hub. I was effing desperate to leave, and you helped give me a solution within a matter of a few days. I will always be grateful for that.
I believed you when you said we are building a rocket-ship. And I agree - I have managed to do more at AADAO in the past ~6 months, than I ever managed to achieve in my 2 years at ICF. [and to those who will ask âbut token price at ATL, what did you really doââŚjust get a maketmaker if youâre interested in short-term pumps]
However, I stand by the letter I co-signed to Oversight when this crap came out: Both the âwe are extremely concerned aboutâŚâ bit and the ââŚwe are not making this letter public to the whole team, in fear of causing more aggravationâŚâ bits. Though, given that the aggravation is already here, and that letter is also in publicâŚit is what it is.
â
On the actual issue of performance bonus and overall comp packages of contributors:
Iâm not phased by the absolute amount of Youssefâs salary. Whatâs concerning is the discrepancy between salaries. Speaking only for myself, yes, I took a 40% pay cut cause I was desperate to leave ICF, remain in Hub orbit, and knew I was becoming a âcivil servantâ. But it does feel like you (youssef) pushed the latter bit onto the new recruits only.
I do sit on the âOperations Committeeâ. I technically sign the monthly salary payments. I should have spotted this earlier, but I didnât. I trusted the other contributors. Iâm not blaming you, but @Patricia you should have highlighted this earlier. It is my fault for âblind-signingâ.
On the âbonus methodologyâ - it was defo a shitshow. Forgetting the fact that it was being worked on in month 6 of 12 (or thereabouts), it was more complicated than it needed to be. Beyond pushing back on a few elements, yes, I didnât pushback much cause:
I just wanted it sorted
If I open my mouth, Iâd likely get stuck with doing it myself
AADAO might be a stopgap for me, so chances are, Iâd never get my full allocation anyway
Cause of the way the methodology was designed, I knew I would never get 100% of my âon-paperâ allocation - I think part was cut cause I joined mid-year, and part was based on âteam kpisâ which would never hit 100%, and on my own performance, I knew I would never be given 100% at least on principle (and that was evident in my performance review that was done)
So my rough calc was that realistically, my âbonusâ would like be around $20k. And quite frankly, ~$20k isnât really a motivator for me to âwork betterâ. I give my all to whatever I do regardless
[donât quote me on ~$20k. Maybe itâs more, maybe less - check Patiâs public files. all I remember is that it was not enticing enough for me to pay attention to anyway. And when you look at the file, note the point above about âon-paper allocationâ vs what I would ever get]
â
On the shitshow:
wtf
a giant freaking waste of time
we should have both had more time to solve it internally, and moved faster to solve it internally.
We had an opportunity at the start, there was only ever one way this would play out, but we yielded to âget consensus before going onchainâ
Yes, Oversight should be oversighting. And I get the urgency of needing to report. But this show would have taken less time from contributors if the reporting was maybe done now, instead of ~2 weeks ago - after the problem dealt with.
Again, I get the need to report and get community feedback. But going public without a fix (esp when fix is in the works) is a giant drag on time.
â
In conclusion, will just be putting up props on DAODAO and take it from there.
How could I have raised this issue earlier? After I suggested on February 16th that we base the retention bonus on 2023 salaries, Youssef mentioned that Oversightâs role within AADAO needed clarification. In my meeting with Better Future and Youssef on February 23rd, I was told I was overstepping my role, so I chose not to question the compensation structure further. This issue came back again because I was pressured to process individual bonus payments, despite expressing my discomfort in proceeding without proper disclosure. I hope you can understand my side on why I didnât disclose this earlier.
Community now needs to Freeze AADAO. Its an org that has never fulfilled the tasks set to it and it will never be able to; especially with current leadership and composition. Oversight should be spun into its own DAO properly and its remit made clear and AADAO reconstituted or disbanded.
The unprofessionalism of those involved in the DAO (excluding Oversight) is pretty clear. No one in Oversight should be subjected to what @Patricia and @Cosmos_Nanny have - just because they have been doing their jobs.
AADAO has no morals and no agency to speak of at this point.
" 1. Grace and Pati seem to both be beyond working with the DAO and seem to either not trust it or think they are above it. This is not healthy or sustainable."
Respectfully, youâve got this wrong. Oversight is doing exactly what its meant to do.
Analogy: Itâd be nice to be best buds with your driving test examiner but its not strictly necessary. AADAO shouldnât get to mark its own homework.
The issue here is that AADAO seems to think Oversight is subservient or answers to them. Its not - They are there to give confidence to the Community that things are being done properly.
They need to be their own DAO with the relevant remit.
I posted this without having others check the clauses and stipulations I added. So we may end up voting no on this prop and replacing it with another as required.
This whole thing reeks. Why should there be bonuses that are such significant amounts for âattending meetingsâ. The whole methodology reeks and I donât trust AADAO should be determining their own bonuses.
Unfortunately it makes me suspicious of other activity AADAO has performed. Can you please explain to me what exactly a venture grant is and how it is different from a typical grant. I would expect normal grants to benefit the community.
Which parties benefit from venture grants?
Does AADao receive any benefit from venture grants?
What is the average cost of these compared to a typical grant?
What safeguards are in place to make sure these are done at an arms length?
The fact that $20k isnât a motivator for you to do well shows the actual flaws in the methodology with kpis such as âattend meetingsâ rendering the bonuses useless and waste of funds from the investors funding your salary. This shows that there needs to be actual KPIs in place and that rather focus on having investors spend more money, the focus should be more on making sure the quality of work environment is better. Itâs not fair for you to do all the work when there are others that could take some of the load. It also shows that that investors money is being mismanaged
What do you mean I canât be a victim of a situation I helped create? I didnât establish the 2024 Compensation Structure nor the KPIs; I merely raised questions and was labeled as âlacking integrity.â In February, I was excluded from discussions about the KPIs and bonus methodology because you and Youssef assessed that I was overreaching my role. However, when it was time to publish the KPIs in late July, Youssef and others informed me that I needed to approve the bonus methodology. It felt I was being used to âapproveâ the methodology on behalf of Oversight when it was convenient for the GM. Yet, when my questions caused discomfort, I was told I was overstepping my role.
