J, I tend to agree I’m just highlighting an issue that I see which is my opinion. Doesn’t mean it’s correct, I just don’t see the point of having the same people over & over, should be a point where if you’re spending CP funds at least cosmos Stakers should have a say in future elections. As for French Canadian, I wouldn’t know who is what because of the transparency but I’m a US maxi which I’m biased too. So agree to disagree, I said you’ve done a good job. But I wanted to give critical feedback instead of giving everyone a gold star because I only thinks that’s the fair way to comment. Otherwise, the work has been great, just a few comments I had, didn’t mean it to be absolute!
In Jacobs fairness, I don’t think many are aware to the WEF connection. Would cause an issue if more were aware. I think people are more upset that technically the money given to AA was from the community pool.
1 Like
Accountability does not organically transpire øver time. It needs a framework, a process and procedural rules for standardized reporting requirements, reporting cadences , etc.
I applaud AADAOs consistency in generating and sharing monthly reports. And for being responsive when there have been requests for information.
But so long as transparency measures are a product of self policing and internal controls within DAOs and other cp funded recipients, community members will question the accuracy and comprehensiveness of disclosures made.
It’s difficult to create a culture of honor in the system when it’s wholly reliant on the honor system.
https://forum.cosmos.network/t/no-funding-for-wef-affiliates
Yes of course it would cause an issue because we don’t want that around here, I don’t even think that this is a controversial point of view. I could be wrong but my opinion is strongly that it’s quite non-controversial that it’s a bad idea to fund the WEF.
1 Like
I’m 100% on board with it. I don’t think it’s a “global collective” rather then siphoning dollars from the economies for their mission of control.
Jacob has a right to express his concerns regarding this situation as every community member does. Just want to clarify this wasn’t directed towards or anyone in particular and I’m certainly not questioning the validity of his concerns either.
1 Like
J. Parillo shared the following comment in Cosmonaut HQ. Sharing here because it’s a very good suggestion.
And am in agreement.
Renewing AADAO, and renewal of the team that administers it’s mandate are separate issues, and deserves its own consideration process.
Would be great to hear aaDao express how this can be supported in its forthcoming proposed plans for operations.
"I feel as though a vote against the members of AADAO leading the grants process is somewhat different from disbanding the grants process entirely. I assume if the AADAO is rejected for renewal, it shouldn’t be done at the end of the life of the 9 month period. The proposal to renew AADAO beyond 9 months should be submitted with sufficient runway for alternative solutions to be considered and implemented. We vote for the President of the US in November so that there can be a tranistion of power over several months.
If the AADAO receives approval to continue, it should include some thoughts in their request that discuss the timing issues and future considerations regarding how a transition of power would work.
During this new proposal period, other teams could submit competing proposals to step in on behalf of the AADAO. Presumably any team that hypothetically picks up the torch, would submit their plan for overseeing previously approved AADAO grants that have milestones that extend beyond the life of AADAO." (J. Parillo, Figment)
i agree very much with this, i strongly beleive we need mor daos that carter for different aspects , there should be a dao or mechanism for much smaller grants of less than 3000 usd with faster turn around.
1 Like
Absolutely agreed with that. This is the path for the future, it will happen imho
I absolutely agree with this.
The single most disappointing part of being in AADAO is that we have thus far inspired other people to setup other DAOs.
I would strongly encourage more people to do so.
2 Likes
Thank you for the updates, AADAO. Salute. Hope the team is doing well and staying healthy.
_
Concern: When AADAO chooses to fund entities like “Cosmos Millions,” what are we expecting? Unfortunately appears to be an enabling force to mostly fund pals because of XYZ (personalized) collective reasoning.
“We the people of the Cosmos (Cosmonauts), in order to create a free world…” will be sparked with strength to carry out the mission more aligned with the original vision for the Cosmos Hub.
Atom One + Constitution
Thank you everyone that has replied here or reached out privately. We really appreciate the feedback and support.
After careful consideration and based on insightful feedback from the community, the AADAO team has decided to not move along with a signaling proposal asking for a 3 weeks mandate extension.
Importantly the extension we are asking for is not significant enough to justify the energy of the community on a public governance vote. As such, we will finish our mandate as originally planned, on November 12th.
As announced in the initial post, we will pause application intake on September 5th as we calculate that we will have enough pending applications by then to issue grants in both September and October/November.
There are a number of key questions that we and the community need to resolve around the end of our mandate and any future mandate renewal. The DAO will be developing our ideas and we welcome all feedback on this.
4 Likes
Well you might not have looked to Millions codebase yet. One of the most advanced tech built on Cosmos ecosystem, involving IBC, ICQ and ICA.
Also, pointing out a “french conflict of interest” is indeed ridiculous when it represents 2 out of dozens of projects submitted to the AA.
I support this proposal and will vote YES.
Also from the initial proposal: ‘Four Part Time Proposal Reviewers (4) - Cosmos Hub validators to participate in voting on grant proposals’
Grants reviewers in many other grants programs are selected in a more decentralized and community driven process with public applications in the forums, governance approval and votings and more. In the case of the AADAO, representatives from Imperator, Citadel, Cosmostation and Chorus One were chosen without any applications open or any selection process. Moreover, there wasn’t any signalling proposal in the Cosmos Hub for the community to approve or not the chosen validators. In this forum thread nothing is mentioned about the next steps regarding the selection of validators to be part of the reviewer committee. All validators in the Cosmos Hub should be given a chance to apply to be part of the reviewer committee, a council should be selected by the community to evaluate applications in a fair and unbiased way, and then the selected validators should also be approved via governance with a signalling proposal. This is a serious issue, how can the AADAO justify itself about biases or conflicts of interest if the reviewer committee is selected directly in a centralized way by the AADAO founders? This also applies to other members/committees of the AADAO but it is particularly relevant for the reviewer committee since these validators are voting and choosing which applications receive funding.
AAdao is only necessary for validators to more easily run ATOM like an unregistered security.