Draft: grace yu legal defense fund

This document is live, I am currently editing it:

Please note that any community member may choose to leave comments on the document. It is a work in progress, and your feedback is valued.

Please additionally note, that the MsgFundCommunityPool referred to in the document, is this:

1 Like

Prop is out, forum post is not even updated.

Truth is nobody cares about politics inside the cosmos and it’s a total shitshow.

After Turkey, ‘charity’, playing on pity, now this one.

How far down the abyss are we going ?

How on earth can you even put to vote a prop like this one after everything that happened ?

Why aren’t you just offering people the choice with a fundraise instead of taking the community as hostage with all the influence that few people can have regarding other validators and jeopardizing the healthiness of the community and perhaps the future of the project ?

If this passes many will leave the ship.
This is just like running president in a country, you/we are not here to care about a single individual but the greater good of majority of cosmosnauts.

If it is one of your close friend and you are trying anything to make it easier I could understand but it still looks terrible. If it only is politics than it’s equally bad.

May the truth win, I won’t be doing anything else but voting NWV


BTW @jacobgadikian I highly apprecite the work you are doing with your team, you often have a different vision/ideas that you know how to put into words & action but I highly regret the political turn it is sometimes taking.

My wording is terrible but it’s on purpose, this prop is outrageaus.
I am 100% sure the entire community but the ‘opposite’ side would have welcomed and embraced a fundraise.

6 Likes

I cannot be more disappointed with this proposal. Ever since we allowed a charity cause to slip through a lazy vote, the community pool seems to be drawing more and more “slush fund” grabbers. This proposal has zero to do with community health and attempt to elicit a “yes” vote by inferring there is some great threat lurking for ATOM.

DAOs are still just an experiment, and we are seeing how emotional manipulation can be used to pressure lay people with no real business experience to continue to let loose of community funds for things that are in no way beneficial to the community.

This will be the last straw for many. Unchecked validators will crash this project. Management had better step up.

2 Likes

NWV for me . it must not affect the hub and the community . fundraise maybe necessary but not by the community pool.
write a proposal to limit the validators voting power at first then no more issue will exist

2 Likes

They are starting to act like a government that can vote for their own pay raises and print money at will.

2 Likes

This proposal has been up on this forum for weeks, how is it you lot have just started making your feelings known when the prop is already posted. And there you go misusing NWV again. This is a yes for me…

1 Like

Big sigh.

ATOM is NOT a meme coin, nor is it to be considered $$, especially to be spending community pool on 1-1 political issues.

NWV

3 Likes

NWV, I relegated from a “Yes” vote validator to a NWV or NO validator, even on other coins.

5 Likes

The proposal regarding funding Grace Yu’s legal defense contains multiple critical flaws and concerns.

While the proposal regarding funding Grace Yu’s legal defense raises several concerns, it is important to examine it critically before deciding. There are several logical flaws within the content and proposal.

Insufficient Evidence

The proposal provides limited concrete evidence to support the claims about AiB’s practices, such as using unlawful non-compete agreements, severance agreements, and NDAs. Instead, it relies heavily on anecdotal reports and tweets.

Equating the lawsuit with the suppression of reasonable criticism

The proposal assumes that AiB’s lawsuit against Grace Yu suppresses reasonable criticism, infringing on her freedom of speech and expression. This assumption may not accurately represent the motivations or intentions behind the lawsuit, as it could potentially involve other complex legal factors or disputes.

By equating the lawsuit with the suppression of reasonable criticism, the proposal might be oversimplifying the issue and framing it to elicit a stronger emotional response from the community. This portrayal could lead to a biased view of the situation, hindering a fair and balanced evaluation of the proposal.

Potential Bias

As the content is drafted by a group advocating for Grace Yu, there is a possibility of bias in presenting facts, accusations, and conclusions. It is essential to consider alternative viewpoints and thoroughly examine the available evidence. Who are the authors behind the proposal? Do they have any conflicts of interest?

Lack of Alternative Solutions

The proposal focuses solely on funding Grace’s legal defense without exploring alternative ways the Cosmos community could support her or address the broader issues raised, such as AiB’s alleged practices and the effects on the ecosystem.

Overemphasis on Potential Positive Outcomes

The content focuses on potential positive outcomes of funding Grace’s legal defense, such as reinforcing the principles of open-source software and defending the freedom of speech. Still, it does not thoroughly address possible negative consequences, risks, or counterarguments.

Incomplete Risk Analysis

The proposal fails to consider the potential risk to the Cosmos community in engaging in a legal dispute involving one of its founding organizations. Such a risk should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to support the proposal.

Unclear Transparency Measures

The proposal states that monthly legal invoices will be uploaded to a website. Still, it does not address how this level of transparency will be maintained and enforced throughout the legal process. A clear and enforceable transparency plan is necessary.

Ambiguity around Funding Details

The content provides an estimated cost range for legal expenses. Still, it does not provide a detailed breakdown of how these costs were calculated, nor does it address the potential for costs to exceed the proposed funding amount. Greater clarity is needed to make an informed decision.

Overstating the Impact of Grace’s Advocacy

The proposal attributes the successful outcome for Denis Fadeev solely to Grace’s advocacy efforts without considering other factors or influences that might have contributed. This overemphasis may not present a complete picture of the factual situation.

Generalizations

The content makes generalizations about the values and principles of the Cosmos community, assuming they are universally agreed upon and not open to individual interpretation or disagreement. It is important to recognize the diversity of opinions within the community.

Propaganda-like Characteristics

  1. Emotional Appeal: The proposal emphasizes protecting freedom of speech, expression, and petition. It also highlights the stress and harassment individuals may experience due to baseless legal proceedings. These appeals to emotion could be a manipulation attempt to garner support for the proposal.

  2. Demonizing the Opposition: The proposal paints All in Bits, Inc. (AiB) as an organization that uses unfair practices to suppress open-source development and silence criticism. This portrayal may be an attempt to create a negative image of AiB and rally support for Grace Yu.

  3. Bandwagon Effect: The proposal lists multiple supporters within the Cosmos community, which might imply that the majority already favors the proposal, encouraging others to join the cause.

  4. Simplification: The proposal simplifies complex legal issues by focusing on fundamental rights and open-source principles. This simplification may be an intentional distortion to manipulate the community to sway them to support the content and Grace’s legal cause without fully understanding the entire context of the legal dispute.

1 Like

thank you – Notional enjoys a quality group of delegators

Are you a lawyer? If you are, in which state do you practise?