Disclaimer: I write this reply in my personal capacity in light of my personal views, and not in the name of or as a representative of the dYdX Chain team, or any client represented by Axis Advisory.
Hey everyone,
Joseph here (Immutablelawyer), founder and general counsel at Axis Advisory, also a contributor to ArbitrumDAO and a Supervisor of the dYdX Operations Foundation.
For the most part, our team has always taken the decision to omit from contributing to the Cosmos Ecosystem due to the blatant mismanagement of the various initiatives that were spun up over time. These have naturally served as a disincentive for us to allocate time, resources and human capital to this ecosystem. This mismanagement spans various areas including (but not limited to):
- Blatant conflicts of interests w/several initiatives re. their fund deployment;
- Lack of adequate oversight that is to be expected from an ecosystem such as Cosmos;
- Lack of the ability for DAO oversight given the opaque nature that several initiatives (including the ICF) have operated with;
- Mismanagement of contractual relationships and non-disclosure of agreements to the Cosmos Ecosystem (by using Cosmos Ecosystem funds).
- [The list goes on]
The details mentioned above make it seemingly difficult for the Ecosystem to attract new contributors (be it builders, governance participants and even validators). This has naturally resulted in the depletion of the talent pool that the Cosmos Ecosystem once had.
It’s crucial, pivotal even, for the Cosmos Ecosystem to implement mechanisms that ensure proper accountability and transparency across all its initiatives, particularly with the Interchain Foundation (ICF). The lack of transparency and accountability at the ICF, as highlighted in the proposal, has not only led to negative perceptions but has also set a dangerous precedent that could encourage similar behavior in other parts of the ecosystem. This is unacceptable for an ecosystem that prides itself on being supposedly decentralized and community-driven.
In our opinion, the ICF (as a non-profit key stakeholder of this ecosystem) has a fiduciary and ethical duty to uphold the principles of transparency, integrity, and accountability. This duty extends to its financial management, governance practices, and overall decision-making processes. The proposal’s call for a comprehensive audit by the Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (FSAF) is not just a necessary step towards rectifying these issues but also a move to restore trust within the community.
The detailed scope of the proposed audit—ranging from financial management to governance structure and internal controls—highlights the depth of concerns and the need for an independent evaluation.
It’s also important to recognize that the consequences of mismanagement at the ICF go beyond immediate financial or operational concerns. They impact the long-term sustainability and reputation of the entire Cosmos Ecosystem. As we move forward, we must prioritize creating an environment where ethical governance and transparency are non-negotiable standards, not opt-in standards which are optional in nature.
In conclusion, the proposal to declare no confidence in the current leadership of the ICF and to request an audit is a crucial step towards realigning the foundation with its mission and restoring community trust. I strongly support this proposal and urge the community to vote ‘YES’ to ensure that the necessary reforms are implemented, and that the ICF can once again be a trusted steward of the Cosmos Ecosystem.
Personally, I look forward to seeing this implemented. I’ll definitely be keeping abreast with any further updates here.
Regards,
Joseph
Axis Advisory