DAO What?

Let me clearly state the non intent of hurting feelings or a perception of personal attacks.

Where is the disconnect? What is being missed here?

This convenient silence seems to be a goto when deemed hard to defend. My posts aside and the cherry picking of assumptions frequently employed to avoid dealing with the directly asked questions or the other tactic that I love, I don’t understand. The DAO is being suffocated, the point being Pastaghost as do others go out of their way to provide detail and sound points to have it just ignored. If your attention span, stress, or ineptitude to engage on topics that impact the DAO is such a burden, maybe owning or calling yourself a leader of a governance token with the utility of governance isn’t the right fit.

If apples to apples, stable spending is the utmost priority as it is made out to be on a daily basis, why the silence on select topics? Regardless of capacity issues or need, why is this being passed over?

I am in support of the job that the operations workstream does and in continuing those efforts, but why is there dead silence on the pay raise for a workstream leader when in dire and tough times. The explanation that someone is owed and others are getting it, that is the reason? Really? I have intentionally sat back as this plays out and it looks like it will slip in, while not one of the normal voices that we are overspending or optimally doing so has said a word (great way to show solidarity). I have to say this silence says more than you think, remember this is a public organization. The real unconscionable perspective (Operations team aside) is that people are being removed from a means of living outside of just one workstream and being asked to sacrifice income or make changes but we can’t talk about raises. Whole workstreams are being threatened but no worries an individual’s need to be included in the top tier of DAO expense is justified.

Options still exist to maintain and even increase capacity while mitigating spend, why is there a refusal to address?

Why is there an engineering renewal that doesn’t even include the public assurance of stable offset, or even the acknowledgement of a need to do so?

Where are the voices that pounced on Globalization or Marketing when they had +20% reductions and large percentages of FOX contributions verse stable spend, and still dug deeper for these loud voices. Not even a question for others? Are we afraid that some might throw a tantrum and storm off, or used veiled (not threats just facts) as a means to further leverage position?

Hey Neverwas,

I appreciate your (and others) repeated effort to talk about these issues openly. I think it shows a level of maturity some of the other community members seem to be lacking. Your motivation might be a subjective one but that doesn’t take away from the validity of your points.

Unfortunately you’re in a minority as long as you’re unwilling to confirm the majority’s biases. I get it though they have way more to lose than to engage in an endless fight that can be easily swept under the rug by just keeping silent. Hoping they could wait this out, ignore the issues and maybe avoid being in the same situation in a couple of months is a valid strategy albeit a short-sighted one.

I’d love to hear a proper discussion about why those that are supposed to be motivated by the long-term success of the project mostly opt for short-term profit taking in the form of stables, why this project’s been treating its talent as a liability to dispose of and why the most important issues are repeatedly discussed behind the scenes and communicated to the rest of the community after a decision has already been made. I guess that last one explains quite well why the former ones won’t be discussed properly.

I think it all comes down to a failure to take responsibility and a lack of leadership. No leadership, no responsibility. No responsibility, no way to lose income. Sooner or later we all have to take responsibility though. Until then I guess we’ll have to enjoy the view. Get your popcorn ready. The next elimination round is just around the corner.

Thanks disposable Fox for your reply,

As stated on my motivations, I have always looked to what a DAO and a transformation from a traditional organization could represent in respect to a broader global and future mindset. I don’t frequently look at the token as a monetary shill or means to extract immediate value. As the first attempting this, I would have thought more care and attention would be shared towards being an industry leader and working to build a pathway for others.

Unfortunate that people can’t get out of the way of their own personal desires but that is a frequent shallow downfall. It is sad to see contributors attracted to this project and who have left other roles in the hopes of doing something great within this DAO and making legitimate contributions, be so easily dismissed out of short sighted self preservation and some kind of moral highness, from what entitlement? You deserve this more?

The lack of professional maturity is very evident for those willing to look, and I am not talking about the, public facing so sorry, thank you for your effort, hope to work with you again social sympathy. But since this is falling on deaf ears, and of coarse we are doing the best we can to save those stables, so that the last standing can what inherit a treasury, lol sure good luck with that. This is open source people do you really believe that you dictate the totality of future possibility? What you did have is a community and the ability to build off of that, a name and a means to mold that into a powerful tool.

No worries though that all of the voices speaking out (for the most part) feel the need to be anonymous, not using their community names, I get it, but wow not a peep.

Thanks for giving voice to the concerns discussed in this post during the last gov call, Neverwas.

It’s hard to believe someone in the stage chat considered anon posts to be immature. I think we should consider people’s opinions based on the merit of their message and the validity of their points instead of taking shortcuts and considering any opinion valid just because it’s posted by a known figure. Not to mention the fact that this industry puts a lot of emphasis on security and privacy which shouldn’t be disregarded just because we’re on a public forum. As you pointed out correctly not everyone can afford to contribute for free. Contributors will be forced to go anonymous as long as they feel left out of the vital discussion. It makes no sense to speak up openly if we feel like we can get voted out any time. But that’s neither here nor there.

To add to your point I think the worst part about this lack of community feedback is that it’s bad precedent in dealing with tough situations in a certain way. Sending ws leaders the message that it’s ok if you disregard these issues and push them to the side will just keep reinforcing this behavior as other issues keep piling on. I guess that’s what you get when there’s a lack of ownership. Kind of ironic if you think about how this project was founded on being transparent.

Anyways we are probably giving this topic more attention than it deserves. Maybe it’s time to let go. As they say ‘the opposite of love is not hate but indifference.’ Thanks for the discussion.