Hey @Cosmos_Nanny thanks for sharing your reply here. Here are my thoughts:
You’re absolutely right, we can disagree. And maybe you’re right, Citadel is wrong. But Citadel could just as well be right in their approach to this. At this point we do not know who’s right, simply because the Cosmos Hub community hasn’t established guidelines for what constitutes a COI in an election.
What I know for sure though, is that: automatically assuming that I’m right or automatically assuming that the opposite party isn’t, is wrong. And it’s the wrong approach to governance.
Maybe our assessment of the situation is wrong. Maybe your claims are unfounded. But until we have established guidelines that have been pre-approved by the majority, all we can do is nurture the debate around the topic, explain the rationale behind our opinions and keep an open mind.
Perhaps it would also help to share our voting rationale. it might help advance the debate around what’s a COI in similar cases for future reference:
As a validator, we have governance responsibilities to our delegators to vote for what we believe is best for the Hub. We also have a duty to the Cosmos Hub community in general to abide by the rules of its social consensus. For example, making sure that there is no conflict of interest when voting/ following the election rules…
The discussions around choosing a candidate for the Oversight Committee, in no way involved Reena ( the AADAO contributor in question). Which eliminates any possible COIs according to our internal bylaws as well as the social rules of the elections.
Absent a COI, it is our responsibility and our right as a Validator to vote on what we believe is in the best interest of the Hub. Which in this case was to chose the candidate that fits these criteria the most:
· The most skin in the game
· ‘on the frontline’ of contributing to the Hub
This is because we believe that in order to be efficient, The Oversight Committee requires a full grasp of the mission and responsibilities of the ATOMAccelerator as the stewards of the Hub. For us, the candidate that fits these criteria the most is Clyde.
That being said, we fully recognize that this is a first for the Hub. And given that there was no pre-established rules for elections, we remain open to changing our vote and welcome any constructive feedback around our rationale.
However so far, the only arguments I have seen so far are:
- An AADAO contributor is affiliated with C1
While this is true, it only presents a COI when the individual in question takes part in the vote or attempts to influence that vote in any way. Which, again, wasn’t the case here. Persisting with this argument, after you have received confirmations from three separate entities that confirm that Reena has abstained, seems unreasonable.
- The on chain data suggests substantial signalling for C1 to reconsider its vote
Are we challenging the whole concept of how dPOS works now?
Suggesting that, because our delegators voted more for Grace than they did for Clyde or Matt, C1 should reconsider changing its vote is, at best, a misunderstanding of how delegated proof of stake works.
A validator’s vote should represent the best interest of those who aren’t voting and not the opposite. Arguing that a validator should vote based on the small percentage of delegators who voted is the opposite of how governance works.
If anything, it proves to me that C1 delegators are well informed (partially thanks to us because we remind them that they could always override us if they don’t agree with our vote in all of our comms) and those who are pro Matt or Grace cast their vote for them.
It also suggests to me that we’ve moved from COI claims to lobbying C1 to change their vote because ‘this is what the community wants’.
My personal opinion is that these two arguments are unfounded and in no way call for an abstention or changing our vote. But perhaps, as you mentioned twice, I neglected to check all feedback, in which case I’m happy to be corrected and I’d love to discuss with the community any other arguments that have been brought up.
My apologies, perhaps I misexplained myself. I think the expression I have used is: “Having reason to be biased” (understandably). Which, in this case, refers to having an ulterior motive rather than exercising objective reasoning on who’s the best candidate for the position.
The fact that:
· You only brought up the COI claims after C1 voted for another candidate and not during the pre-vote discussions
· You’re trying to lobby validators to change their vote by misinterpreting on-chain data
Gives me reason to believe that you have a reason to be biased.
In the same sense, we have no reason to be biased. Unless you believe that Reena influenced the vote. A point that we’ve already covered.
tl;dr we can disagree, but we should do so with an open mind and constructively.
I actually think that you sharing your perceived COIs with the community is a positive thing and I thank you for it. As that is the only way we can contribute to openly establishing the right guidelines for future purposes.
But that is exactly what it is: perceived. And the assurances from AADAO representatives, Reena and me should be more than enough to address the claims. Especially since all of this was brought up after learning that C1, the validator in question, hasn’t voted in your favour.
There was enough time to share your concerns in the forum prior to the voting. It also leaves me wondering whether you would dedicate the same effort to this had C1 voted in your favour?
Afaik, you didn’t object to the voting guidelines prior to the elections. As a matter of fact, you reference them to point out misconduct. Nevertheless, I’m happy to engage in a debate with you and address your concerns, even though we are fully abiding to the very same guidelines.
We remain open to debate and would welcome the feedback of all community members who would like to share their opinion on the topic. Because it is my belief that, us being wrong on how we voted remains a possibility since, as I mentioned, there are no community-approved guidelines around elections yet.
