It has long been a part of cosmos lore that AiB has the atoms of a bunch of early contributors. Those atoms are being spent right now to sue another contributor, Grace Yu.
This proposal requests that AiB settle their debts of atoms with contributors. This proposal will be in draft for two weeks, giving contributors ample time
This has been a quietly whispered issue for a very long time. If former AiB team members do not lay claim here, Gaia shall declare these matters permanently settled.
The precise style of the proposal is yet to be known, but it is likely to be one by one to allow each claimant to make their claim separately instead of forcing the matter to be decided all at once.
Update:
Stuff just got much more confusing. Here is Bucky’s payment by AIB:
There was an implicit social contract that those ATOMs would be used to reward the developers of the open source code. At the time, all the core developers of the Cosmos software held either stock or stock options in All in Bits.
When Jae forced the contributors to Cosmos out that social contract was violated. The lawsuit against Grace expands the breach.
As CEO, Jae is responsible for this breech of social contract. I think the harm of slashing AiB outweighs the benefits but the community should pressure Jae to fulfill his obligation to those he promised a share in AiB’s profits rather than spending Atoms on lawsuits and private projects.
I agree with you about slashing, it’s not the right path. With that said, let’s not whisper things behind closed doors, let’s just take care of this. I don’t know who is owed what or what AiB reasoning is here.
Like yourself, I am opposed to making arbitrary state modifications, or even state modifications at the request of governance. This can only ever be a request, but I do think it’s the right thing to do.
@jacobgadikian Maybe it would be wise to first let prop #791 and #793 run their coarse, then take a week or so after that to let things cool down and only then, if appropriate, come with a next hub prop.
It is waaay more effective to have a communication strategy/planning so that the Atom/Cosmos community doesn’t get a whole bunch of somewhat related but different things as a massive wave over them. Ppl are getting very tired and will see and vote that as spam, not on contents but on sheer volume of overwhelming proposals and discussions most Cosmos/Atom holders dont even want to be involved in anyway. It could harm a solid YES vote for prop #793.
My advise: if you want to be effective, take things one step at a time. Too much all at once will harm every seperate point you want to get across.
Oh yeah I’m not going to put this on the chain right now. I don’t really have a slightest clue what happened here. Just Bucky mentioned it in an interview the other day.
What do you think I should do with this proposal? Nothing? I don’t really know. Thank you.
What I would do is what I said => let prop #791 and #793 run their coarse (around 7 May), then take a week or so after that to let things cool down. In this time you can investigate what exactly has happened/ what the agreements were/ which devs and contributors/ how much atom exactly there is involved etc.
Then when you have complete picture see if this prop is the most effective way to act or maybe other ways more effective. Also important to see who is with you to make a joint statement/prop. Then after that (around 15 May) you can, if prop is most effective way to go, renew this draft with new info/ joint statement or make statement to close the draft if it is not.
summery: for now, let #791 and #793 run their coarse, do homework on this issue, week or so after #791/#793 see if/how you want to continue with this draft.
