Hey all.
I feel I have a responsibility to comment here. I am probably mostly known as the guy that spams cat gifs on like 95 different Telegram groups, and thatâs pretty accurate. That being said, I do actually have a real job here and I actually probably get involved with a lot of things nobody including my colleagues have any clue about. I donât think many people have quite the level of outlook and experience that I do with all layers of what goes on in this crazy and interesting place.
For some background, for those who might not know me and have probably stopped reading past the first paragraph: I have been a pretty active member of several communities in this space, am a sitting member of multiple DAOs. Iâm a validator.
Sure, so are a thousand other people, but I think this is really important context for what is probably not a very pleasant bunch of points near the end, so pleaseâŚbear with me.
Among my myriad of roles [both official, and assumed], the most notable one is that of being among the founding members of what has been a large and massively positive contributor as well as a driving force for interchain community support, education and supporter of true decentralization in this ecosystem.
Osmosis Support Lab, or âOSLâ â a brand and service synonymous with interchain public service. One that I can proudly say that in my 2.5 year membership has never discriminated against any project within this ecosystem, and extends frequently to entirely unrelated projects and issues.
The fact that to this day the OSL is one of the longest standing, successful and arguably the most universally supported DAO operation in this ecosystem is a testament to our integrity, our dedication and our ethics.
anywayâŚ
To the point:
The duties and responsibilities are obvious and non-negotiable in my opinion. Thereâs no need to shop for an agenda or a platform.
If you donât know what you need to do, you applied for the wrong job.
I myself considered vying this position for a short time before considering that the mere fact I had any doubt meant I was not the right person for it.
This position is not, nor was it ever meant or even implied to be one such as is intended to âhelpâ any potential grantees, or the granters.
The intent is simple: to be the eyes and the voice of the community that elects them.
To provide oversight.
To allow an oversight member to further muddy ugly waters by getting involved in grant application is actually worse than simply eliminating the role entirely. At least if it were eliminated the community pool wouldnât be burdened by another net-negative contributor.
Ask yourself, âWhat purpose is served by an auditor who before even being elected has shown clear intent, or alignment issues?â
We donât need an elected floater of questionable intent, or some rubber stamp specialist moonlighting as âez-grantsâ helpdesk.
W e n e e d o v e r s i g h t.
I cannot say this enough.
Oversight is meant to be an impartial guard. One who knows that acting in their duty may very well may mean the end of the very thing they have been tasked with overseeing, and their role along with it. Oversight has no agenda or goal, and in an ideal world is unnecessary overhead.
The ideal candidate shall:
- Be given full access and ability to oversee the entire process from application to funding and completion of projects
- Have access to entire grant processes and proceduresââŹâfrom application review to project completion reviewââŹâacting as a vigilant overseer to detect and prevent any fraudulent or unethical conduct by any of the involved parties.
- Be of the ability to act as a âcommunity health checkâ, gauging or if needed actively canvassing public opinion in regards to the actual want/need/value of these projects. To do this, the candidate must already know the community. You canât learn about the community on the job.
The ideal candidate shall, to the best of their abilities:
- Represent and advance the interests of the community exclusively, ensuring that the allocation and expenditure of funds are conducted with integrity and with transparency, not as venture capitalists.
- Remain impartial as to the group or the prospective grantees, prioritizing the welfare of the community and stakeholders over any personal or external affiliations.
- Serve as a watchdog against corruption or mishandling of what are essentially âpublic fundingâ grants involving substantial amounts.
The ideal candidate shall at all times act in good faith toward:
- The community whose assets and very existence and active engagement quite literally underpin the value of the funds being distributed.
- The community who has time and time again demanded answers, change and accountability from the day AADAO was launched.
- The community who continuously sees recycled deliverables that nobody asked for in the first place, vaporware or worse being funded to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
- The community that remains helpless but to shout from the sidelines while this same group takes home extremely handsome salaries, yet to this day remains largely unaccountable for both their performance, and for their overall attitudes and intentions.
- The community that has expressed a clear distain for the perceived lack of engagement and transparency, as well as repeated examples of complacency and questionable decision-making by the renewed group.
The ideal candidate should, after careful consideration:
- Step down if they feel like any of this is compromised or deemed not possible for any reason at any point during their tenure
This role is for a community selected representative who has strong experience and expertise on multiple levels in this field, and who has proven ethics. Ethics are proven by the way with actions, not through the use of an obscene number and frequency of abstract concepts [bullshit buzzwords, to put it simply] as if it were a timeshare marketing pitch to a room of suckers who just wanted the free margeritas and 3 hours on the beach.
I donât know if this âMattâ canât read the room, or if he is truly so clueless and/or obnoxious to be so egregiously overstepping the boundaries of a role to which he has not yet been appointed, but nothing here really surprises me in these matters.
Yes, self promotion and platitudes are unavoidable in campaigns, but why are you even running?.
Stop asking what we want you to do.
Itâs already known.
If you need it defined, reconsider your place and give the spot to someone who understands the job. Apparently there were an âoverwhelmingâ number of candidates.
Regardless, I can already tell at least one is totally unsuitable for the role. One appears to be indifferentâŚthe one who has ideas and probably can do the job is likely non viable because of the validator mobsâŚand this ecosystem will continue to go downhill until it is entirely lost.
These ignorant and insincere self promoting pitches made without a single thought toward the project or the people that continue to put their trust, their faith and their hard-earned assets into are a clear cancer on this entire ecosystem in my opinion, and are by far the largest factor in why most of the crypto space in general considers the âCosmos ecosystemâ to be an absolute abomination and its communities an incurable, niche joke. This isnât something I believe to be true, so please prove me wrong.
Candidates â if you donât care, step out. If you donât know, get out of the line and let someone who cares step in to share ideas from a place of experience and conviction.
P.S. AADAO, please define validator recusal policy.
TL:DR, stop giving away this chain or the oversight of its value to a bunch of mid self promoters. You arenât this stupid, so stop pretending to be.