There’s a lot of personal laundry airing going on here. Do these personal grievances need to be made public? I get that people are hurt but I don’t think it’s respectful to those who are not directly involved.
Hello Spacemonster, in my contribution I mainly address the issue of Mr Robert Kelley Ayala being utterly unqualified for the task he suddenly here seems to bestow upon himself.
This is amongst others done with the help of the an overview of his remarkably jumpy carreer path as featuring on several Linkedin profiles that suddenly have all been taken offline.
You do not get into any of my critical remarks in there which leads me to believe that you can’t refute them meanwhile demonstrating for me your conflated stance regarding decentralized decision making vs its execution.
Might be best to let some healing punch get shared around without spiking it or making it about us if it isn’t.
Welcome to decentralized community contributions?
2 Likes
I’m afraid I don’t see the immediate relevance of your replies so far towards my entries here. It would help to stay on-topic and address brought up arguments. You’ll otherwise run the risk to mainly come across as noise.
Hello Bendy, I’ll ask you directly: was this implicit proposal by the for the community (untill very recently) largely unknown Mr Kelley Ayala who has seemed to have gone literally to great length flying around the world to visit Cøsmos-related events in any way, shape or fashion sollicited via AADAO and/or you personally?
Hi Soverin,
Happy to answer.
Rob is not connected to AADAO.
I met him at Cosmoverse because I did some work there with Seb and we went for a curry afterwards and Rob (as Seb’s friend) was sat opposite me. We discussed his impressions of Cosmoverse compared to other crypto conferences he had been to. He struck me as an observant person and someone more interested in the culture of crypto than the financial side of it.
Fwiw most of the conversation probably was actually about music and the arts in general.
Neither I nor AADAO solicited Rob to get involved however I am delighted to see his post gain some traction. I always think that the more people wishing to contribute the better.
4 Likes
It’s just mind-boggling what’s going on here. I highly appreciate everyone’s contribution to this conversation.
I haven’t had such a good time reading through forum posts ever. Hope that wounds will heal and we, the Cosmos community, can get out of these sometimes tedious, destructive, and never-ending-seeming accusations and arguing, stronger and more aligned than ever.
3 Likes
Hi again Soverin,
One more clarification: the only Cosmos event I flew to was Cosmoverse. I live in Paris, and so the Nebular Summits were both accessible by foot.
Thank you.
Lol can’t a MFer post on the forum about how he went to cosmoverse without getting personally attacked?
7 Likes
Oh, and another clarification: my jumpy career is listed on only one LinkedIn profile. If anyone has been creating and/or deleting profiles with my name on them, well, it ain’t me. Also keep in mind that Robert Kelley is a very common name, which is why I added my second last name professionally.
Decentralization is based on communication of totally different people. And this is main difference with the Dictatorship: many different people with different opinion and different vision try to understand each other and find the best solution, that will be accepted by many different people with different opinions - we call it Consensus!
And even if sometimes it’s hard to reach the Consensus, as Decentralists, we need to try to reach it!
If everyone has the same opinion, and everyone should share the same point of view, and everyone who disagrees should be fired - this is not decentralization. This is more like the Hare Krishna sect, or the Stalinist party.
Decentralized Governance brings us Decentralized Politics. Decentralized Politics implies the participation of completely different actors, each of which can influence the situation, as well as enter into alliances with each other.
The main difference from Classical Politics is that we enter into alliances not for the sake of pursuing our own interests, but for the sake of the interests of the Network and the Community!
If someone begins to pursue personal interests to the detriment of the interests of the Network and the Community, this is the same as a cancerous tumor inside the body. Cancer cells are the same cells of our body that cease to pursue the interests of the body, and care only about personal interests. As a result, cancer cells die along with the body, since they are not able to live without the body.
We all need to strive for better. Do not blame each other for mistakes, do not try to insult or belittle, but try to understand each other, listen to each other’s arguments, and develop a new point of view that will have all the advantages of different points of view, and will not have all the disadvantages of different points of view.
In the language of mathematics: we need to find the set C, which is the intersection of sets A and B.
If sets A and B do not intersect, we need to create a set C, which will include part of the set A and B.
I was not at the origins of the Cosmos, and I am very glad that the Cosmos did not become managed by one foundation led by one person, like Ethereum.
I really like the level of Decentralization of the Cosmos, and of course Decentralization is inferior to Centralization in the speed of decision making. But I am ready to pay for the speed of decision-making so that I am not in Centralization, where any decision will be made very quickly, by a small centralized group, and my opinion will not be taken into account, since I “look wrong”, “I think wrong”, “I do not this way"…
I am a political refugee, I have already seen enough of Centralization in Russia, where for any manifestation of an alternative opinion you can be sent to prison.
Let’s appreciate Decentralization, which gives us the opportunity to unite completely different people, with completely different opinions, in order to achieve collective interests!
3 Likes
Hi Robert,
Glad to see you made it onto the forum! I really enjoyed our chat at Cosmoverse, and I think you’re making some great points here.
Personally, i think the lack of a “shared long-range vision” as you put it is central to the issue; although I would say there is a shared general vision of sovereign app-chains etc, and rather the issue is more of a lack of unity in the organisation around getting there. For someone looking in or trying to understand the sum of all the parts i believe things can be perceived as quite scattered; work is being done a bit here and there but how it all fits together is not necessarily so clear.
While I do think it’s about time a clearer path is outlined, I don’t think a small central unit is the best for reasons stated by many others here. Could you perhaps approach it as a tender, and the community could elect a body to review submitted proposals and select, say, 2-3 final options for the community to vote on?
Either way, great to have you involved and thank you for this very thoughtful contribution
omg sometimes coming back here is truly amazing 
1 Like
Thanks for this. Good effort btw.
Perspectives. Here is an analogue word to change it - competition and communication
- Burnout: very subjective
- The great goal is to get away from central management
Most of your suggestions are very subjective to a specific corporate culture and very outdated ethics values. What you see today is communication. Just like anything in psychology - perspective and understanding of all sides of the medal is the key.
1 Like
Hi @Better_Future, and thank you for this incredibly thoughtful response.
I took a few days to let this post stew in my head – sorry I haven’t replied sooner.
One thing your post helped me to see is that I can be quite sloppy with the term “shared vision.” At some high level, I do think there needs to be a set of beliefs and values and goals that is shared by everyone. This is culture, and I would be curious to know how people react to @ebuchman 's portrayal of it:
So what’s the vision? I’ve framed the ICF’s vision as nurturing a Cosmos Hub that nurtures an interchain ecosystem that nurtures the transformation of money and finance. Which leaves us to define a vision for those. For the Hub, there does seem to be an emerging shared vision as a provider of interchain security and interchain money (or is it[ interchain capital ][…]? frankly I don’t think any of us really understand money). On the interchain, I think we all generally agree on a vision for an open communications network for arbitrary blockchains and devices to enable sovereign and interoperable communities. And for the Cosmos stack, to be the leading enabler of community computers in the interchain. As for the applications to build, this is probably less certain[…]
But what I’m talking about is (I think) exactly what you describe in your post. To have a shared vision, we don’t need to think the same things, but I need to know what your vision is, and you need to know what my vision is. For example, if I pick up a knife, you might get alarmed – but if you know that I’m planning on eating a steak in the other room, then you’re less likely to assume the worst.
What I love about your ‘roadmap of roadmaps’ idea is that it would serve as a shared vision for the community, so that members could see opportunities both for collaboration and healthy competition. If this would be a good entry point to bring some value to the Cosmos, I would be happy to discuss with anyone who might be interested.
To answer your last question about org design mechanisms, I’m temped to say that your idea of ‘advisory committees’ sounds like a great place to start. While design is extremely important, my focus tends to be on the approach or style used within that design. The advisory committees will inevitably have disagreements and conflict – how can they communicate clearly and assertively (embrace healthy conflict), and how can they speed up the repair to relationships that is bound to occur? This isn’t to say that this doesn’t already happen in Cosmos – it’s just my belief that these are some of the things the community should aim to be world-class in as a means of, as you said, “get[ting] comfortable with these new decentralized ways of workding, and unlearn[ing] the old centralized ways that we learned since childhood[…]”
Hi @Tricky , thanks so much for your support. I would love to hear about your experience with coaching, if you’d ever like to discuss. Thanks!
Hi @zaki_iqlusion , thanks so much for the reply. We haven’t met yet, but I’ve seen you on stage a few times, so it’s an honor.
I don’t have any context on the use of coaching in the ecosystem (@ebuchman mentioned something similar in his post), so if you’d be open to sharing with me, I’d love to hear more, especially your reasons for why it hasn’t worked.
Thank you.
Hi @govmos,
This is an extraordinarily astute response! Here’s what I take as your key question:
Both of us expressed the notion that Cosmos might only truly thrive once we collectively reduce the remaining influence of the original founders, all of them. I’m curious to understand why this idea didn’t make its way into your final assessment. Was it deemed irrelevant when weighed against other factors after days of contemplation, or did further analysis reveal it to be inaccurate from the start?
I did choose to leave this out because I wondered how clear or useful a message it would be. The way I understand the vision of Cosmos, I believe the original founders would all like to reduce their influence, as well. This is, to paraphrase @Better_Future, part of learning how to work in a decentralized context, and unlearning how to work in the centralized contexts we’ve spent our whole lives in is much easier said than done.
I’m (perhaps over-)sensitive to defensiveness, and I think saying to people, “you need to reduce your influence” could be taken as threatening. Acceptance is they key to change, and my suggestion to get some of the most powerful/influential people in the ecosystem to sit down and build some trust and shared vision together was meant as an encouragement to accept the fact that, although we are building towards a truly decentralized future, we’re not there yet. I sensed a lot of defensiveness from the community at that suggestion, so I’m backing down. Most people here don’t know me, and I know it might take some time to earn the trust it would require to revisit the topic (or totally change my mind on it – who knows?)
I have only love and respect for sebastian. sorry about involving you indirectly.
I don’t know, unless you were also an employee at Eris Industries.
The crazy revelations keep happening, so I’m just trying to be complete here.