How do you know how much skin in the game the candidates have?
Also, what does ‘in the front of the line’ mean?
I believe Grace was as ‘in front of the line’ as one can be when at ‘war’ with Jae Kwon. Why? For holding AiB accountable. (Remember what oversight is about) whereas, I didn’t know who Clyde was before this post. And neither did anyone I talked to.
would you say, the best oversight for Apple is the person with most Apple Stocks and who works for a company that’s building stuff for apple? Like let’s say camera lenses not made by apple (just an example, trying capture the validators - cosmos relationship)? Why would it matter how many apple stocks someone has?
Please explain how you know that Clyde has the most skin in the game. I’d love to know.
It means currently holding a role that contributes to the Hub.
In no way do I question Grace’s contributions to the Hub but the difference to us is ‘was’ and ‘is’.
I think you’re referring to financial “skin in the game”, which is not what we’re referring to. My apologies, we should have clarified!
By ‘skin in the game’, we mean Reputational Skin in the Game. As a team member of one of the largest validators of the Hub, Clyde puts his entire reputation and that of SG1’s on the line as member of the committee. Therefore, in our opinion he is the most likely to act in the best interest of the Hub.
To your second point. It’s true, Grace is currently not employed in Cosmos, but she’s practicing oversight of AADAO for more than a year. As a result she was offered the job oversight directly by AADAO. I think spending your free, unpaid time, for months, to ‘deal’ with AADAO is unbeaten when it comes to proving you really want the job done.
Question: why do you delete the poll, and how do you think does this behavior enforce confidence?
It already took so much time since you (C1) promised to review everything, collect feedback.
If the poll showed anything, than that your position as Gov Lead isn’t well executed. Poll was terrible, but it was also PROVING that however the voters interpreted the poll, they raised their voice for abstain. More % votes for abatian / Grace than for Clyde. Holding your word would mean to finally abstain.
No matter who posted the poll, it’s in your responsibility that it’s correct. Can’t blame and social media lead for this.
So, for real now, are you just gonna find a way to make it sound like the people you ask, your community, actually believe that there’s no coi when you just showcased that you don’t even know how to ask the question right? Shouldn’t someone who says knows that there’s no coi, know how to ask the question? Specially as so called Gov Lead?
I think you have proven to not deal well with this whole situation, and respectfully, execute your role. therefore, in order to not make things for your REPUTATION* (something you value) and C1’s worse, vote abstain.
To me, this is sufficient proof you do not understand material conflicts at all. Or how legit and professional concerns for one’s reputation manifest.
A person with minimum concern for “reputational skin” would have asked their employer to abstain.
Rather than passively abiding with employer’s utterly dissgracefull participation. Pun intended.
C1 revoted 9 hrs following SG1’s vote.
One can argue, neither validator operation is positioned well to sell “we care about our reputation” seriously. Y’all behaving like you’re above accountability. And I suppose that’s the point of having friends in oversight places.
Caring doesn’t mean micro managing. It means cultivating a wisdom to express share of mind on the things that really matter, objectively.
When I give voice to an issue, it usually involves issues of organizational and operational integrity. Because integrity matters.
All the time.
Integrity is paramount. It’s the intensity that sets the foundation for everything.
We are made through how we live.
And what we make expresses how we be living.
Thus, it’s no surprise to me that many Cosmos products bear the marks of fragmentation and insularity that bears symmetry to an overly self righteous, intersubjective, and “chosen” culture.
We need to get back to integrity and strive for meritocracy. Funding teams and ideas with $ATOM that chase real-ness and real need. Fund projects with competitive liveness that challenges incumbent safety and authority biases.
Cosmos tech doesn’t excite because it feels overly pedantic, sanctimonious and inaccessible. It’s a reflection of the code owners who keep it alive.
I think, as a community – we can take a huge step forward if we open up to the simple fact that the source of careful and bold conversations, be brokered by persons that are not our “friends.”
Such is the spirit of integrity and decentralization…the ability to speak to the inside, from the outside.
At this point it’s save to say that C1 has been lying.
They were at no point interested in considering changing their vote.
They said they will collect feedback in order to reconsider to abstain. They did NOTHING, except for putting up an embarrassing poll on X which had an outcome that clearly says that their vote is wrong.
For somebody who has the name Gov Lead @JohnMontagu it is unacceptable to just ‘screw this up’. It was supposed to be your job and you didn’t hold your word. I am pretty sure that was on purpose. Shame on you and your validator. Shame on Reena too as she as a founder and AADAO member should de better than just watch their Gov Lead ‘screw this up’ in an election for which aadao praise themselves.
Shout out to the other candidates in Cosmos Hub’s first election, @Matt_Brown@clydedev. It was great to meet both of you through this experience and wishing you both all the best.
The “narrative” for my campaign wrote itself during the 14 day vote period. We had unprecedented turn out and engagement from voters and validators – yesterday’s outcome is a strong mandate to take conflicts of interest seriously.
Beyond an election to the Oversight committee, it was a referendum vote on what needs to change with how we steward development using community pool funds. The message is clear. Keep is clean, and fair.
I do not support transparency measures for transparency’s sake. Meaningful behavioral and organizational changes to the visibility of AADAO operations will translate into operational efficiency for all – AADAO spends less time answering questions (with visibility and availability of information), and the community can begin generating confidence in a team that has earned their trust.
I wish to emphasize, oversight exists as a guardrail – should not be a micromanager. This role exists to vet valid concerns from the community. My ability to amplify community concerns will be dependent on the evidentiary value and reasonableness of a given concern. Give me good information, and I will make sure your concern is heard. Sincerely grateful for your support, and the confidence conveyed through your votes yesterday.
Congratulations to Grace, also known as @Cosmos_Nanny , on her marathon-like effort in winning the recent election. This process was not without challenges, including conflicts and political maneuvering. However, we should all be grateful for the exceptional level of transparency provided by blockchain technology during these complex votes. Cosmos is a trailblazer in this governance space.
In close-call situations, there will inevitably be individuals who are unhappy with the outcome. While this may be disappointing, it is crucial to remember that the advanced societies we live in today have progressed due to the acceptance of election results, regardless of personal alignment.
We have created an on-chain democracy, where rules are transparent, votes are cryptographically secure, and outcomes are determined through decentralized consensus.
Thank you for your words @Govmos.
If you have specific insights or recommendations as to how we can have a fairer, smoother election process next go around, please consider contributing your thoughts here:
From my perspective, allowing validators to self police conflicts of interest was an error. Conflicts are not a matter of interpretation. There are objective standards that help us identify when conflicts exist, and several validators voted with preference despite material conflicts existing.
Abuse of vote options for bias signaling was also an issue – and we should explore ways an election supervisor can mitigate bad behavior, or ways this can be neutralized via changes in code.
Others have said the process by which candidates were shortlisted was not sufficiently democratic and or transparent.
It would be good to organize our collective thoughts while the experience is still fresh.
If we are to have meaningful accountability, we need to figure out how to do elections better – and while having multiple choice options implemented in gov module will help, it doesn’t solve for all the procedural and process issues that arise in an election environment.
Dear Cosmos Community Members,
I will be posting an agenda of what has been conveyed to me as priorities for the Community Member to Oversight to pursue (sometime next week upon completing “soft onboarding calls” with AADAO).
I’ll also be sharing details for my “community office hours,” and how you can best reach me with any concerns you have.
Thank you sincerely for the opportunity to represent the community voice – I will do my best. Am very much looking forward to working with the AADAO team.
I was about to say that. Wasn’t really a ‘close call’.
And yes! Self policing validators is a no no. Specially when it only takes a handful of validators that don’t self police and you can have like a completely outcome.
I think what you mean is that it was a “tight”/competitive race. Which it was.
“Close call” implies the winning margin was much smaller. Very different meaning.
