Hey Reena, I understand that Citadel isn’t a single stakeholder or owner entity.
Nonetheless, my concern stems from the precedent set during the votes on Props 95 and 865, where there was deliberate coordination within AADAO for validators associated with members to abstain. Although I acknowledge that you do not individually dictate the voting decisions of Citadel, there was perhaps direct guidance from you to Citadel’s governance that it’d be best for them to abstain in 95 and 865. And they obliged.
This being the case, I am puzzled why there wasn’t:
- Clear internal discussion or decision within AADAO to continue applying the informal recusal policy in for the current election. @Damien @Syed @Youssef
- Moreover, in the absence of explicit guidance from the Oversight Coordinator on how Citadel or other member-related validators should vote, I’m left questioning the appropriateness of Citadel expressing a preference in this election especially as it pertains to a position on Oversight. Because you failed to have necessary conversations prior to the election does not mean you cannot have them now.
From my understanding, your position is that Citadel does not “benefit” from expressing a preference in this election. I hear you.
However, the relevant “benefit” in this context extends beyond mere financial gain or opportunity. More critically, it involves the optics and the imperative of demonstrating impartiality from active members. Given your full time contributor status, it is necessary to abstain from voting altogether to avoid any perception of bias or conflict of interest. Via association, this necessity extends to your affiliated validator.
Bc of your role within AADAO and with Citadel, it is crucial for Citadel to show that it does not stand to benefit from the outcome of the election. To convincingly demonstrate impartiality—and to substantiate the claim/proof of “no benefit”—Citadel reflects this commitment through its voting behavior. Not despite it.
It’s notoriously ineffective to ask people to take your word. Which is why recusal standards exist. It’s not fair or reasonable to ask the community to believe there is no clear or indirect benefit despite how Citadel has voted. The distinction between these approaches are significant.
Finally, thank you for your advocacy for a community-elected representative to Oversight.
While this election marks a historic milestone under the banner of AADAO’s commitment to accountability, it’s important to acknowledge that many on chain elections often fall short of fully realizing democratic principles (and intent) due to inadequate procedures, enforcement, and processes.
Hosting an election doesn’t make you a more transparent and accountable organization. How you hold an election, matters.
With ten more days remaining in the vote period, it’s crucial that AADAO actively monitors voting behavior to minimize bias and inappropriate social signaling.
I’m not asking for perfect.
Actually, knowing the situation is imperfect, I’m asking that we do not use imperfect conditions as an excuse to justify shirking our collective responsibility to strive for the fairest possible outcome.
An immediate and straightforward step to ensure fairness with requisite impartiality is to have validators associated with actively contributing members to withhold from voting or voting with abstentions across the board. Additionally, AADAO should ensure that the use of voting options are applied consistently so that the meaning of these options do not become distorted or abused over the course of the voting period.