Alleged breach of the trust deed

Unveiling the Cryptohondos Controversy

Disclaimer: Before we begin, I want to clarify that this post is not born out of any dissatisfaction regarding my potential grantor position. This information, along with the evidence presented, has been shared internally with Reverie and the dYdX Foundation prior to the commencement of the selection process.

This topic will be an in-depth exploration divided into two insightful parts.


Allegations have emerged, surrounding Alexios for concealing his ownership of the Cryptohondos project while serving as a trustee in the DGP grants multisig wallet. This post unveils several concerns, seeming inaccurate information, potential conflicts of interest, and actions that upon this initial investigation I perceive to be potentially not in line with the grants program.

Part 1: The Allegations

In this section, we delve into the description of the allegations that have come to light, highlighting the intricacies that need to be explored more deeply to ensure a fair and level playing field for all members involved in line with the ethos of the community.

Part 2: Presentation of the Findings

Turning our attention to the second part, we’ll meticulously present the concrete findings that substantiates the claims made in Part 1.

As observed on Discord today, I raised some concerns surrounding @Alexios. Given his prominent role within the Cryptohondos project whereby he also holds a trustee position in the DGP grants multisig wallet, he is privy to very sensitive information, of which some seems to have been withheld.

Part 1: The Allegations

Historical Background and Key Details

To understand the importance of the situation, let’s journey back to 2022, during the sixth round of the DGP grant program. Funding was allocated to two distinct projects:

  1. dYdX Grant: Grants Community Manager (Greece) - A 10k grant was bestowed upon Alexios as the Grants Community Manager for Greece.

  2. dYdX Grant: Newsletter, Twitter Campaigns, Education Content in Greek - A substantial 20k grant was awarded to a project dubbed Cryptohondos.

Here’s a snippet from Alexios’ grant:

While these grants were intended to function independently, they were expected to collaborate. Each grantee was required to undergo an interview process with Reverie, the overseeing body. The process of interview and selection was rigorous, but concerning matters related to Cryptohondos, Alexios seemingly provided inaccurate information.

An interesting note: during the ambassador program, user MoMo flagged @carlbergman regarding Cryptohondos’ use of content that did not seem authentic on their website. Though Carl assured action, the opportunity to catch potential issues was missed.

Exposing the Concerns

With the passage of time, Alexios garnered Reverie’s trust, actively participating in screening grant applications. Eventually, he was offered a position within the grants multisig. His inclusion came after the approval of the DGP 1.5 program. Below is the transaction adding Alexios to the multisig: Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details

On December 1, 2022, a transfer of 9015 dydx tokens (equivalent to around $16,700 USD) occurred. The tokens were moved from the grant program wallet to the address 0xD4AaF399649F90a9878a8A147A2486D209593eC1, a wallet tied to Cryptohondos.

Looking Ahead

When Reverie announced an offer to extend the grant program and hire an additional grantor to assist Alexios, I, as a prospective candidate for the position, embarked on a journey to understand the experiences of previous grants. It was during this endeavor that I uncovered the relationship between Alexios and Cryptohondos. Next I shall meticulously present the overwhelming evidence that strives to solidify the connection between Alexios and Cryptohondos.

Part 2: The Findings

Disclaimer: Before we delve into the findings, it’s essential to note that I am not associated with any three-letter agency, and I do not have access to confidential materials. All evidence presented here has been sourced exclusively from open and publicly available information. Independent verification of these facts is encouraged.

1. Domain Name Connection

The domain name was registered precisely at the moment when the grant for the Cryptohondos project was approved on March 14, 2022.

2. Onchain Wallet Linkage
In this segment of the evidence, we establish a connection between Alexios’ wallets and the Cryptohondos wallet. Although seemingly mundane, this connection is crucial.

Finding Accounts Allegedly Controlled by Alexios:

(0x13F) main account frequently interacts with 0x8Ae wallet

(0x8Ae) funded 0x833.

0xc78 funded (0x8Ae).

(0xc78) sent ETH to 0x833 and 0x696.

(0x696) sent tokens to (0x13F).

(0x833) sent multiple transactions to (0x696).

Binance Account Connections


(0x13F) main account engaged in 4 transactions with 0x30F Binance deposit.

(0xc78) deposited to 0x30F Binance Deposit.

(0x696) sent 3 transactions to the same Binance Deposit (0x30F) as (0xc78).

0x833 made 2 deposits to Binance deposit 0x30F. The first deposit was from account (0x13F). But will be back to this a little later

Huobi and FTX Connections


0x696, and 0x833 all deposited to the same Huobi Deposit (0x8cF).


0x833 and 0x8Ae used the same FTX deposit (0x9C1).

Wallet Summary
Here is the list of wallets allegedly controled by Alexios

  1. main 0x13Fb07C0e9B5d63Ec38AE1Fa9221c3c911193646
  2. (0xc78) 0xc7813581Fd04f879240E905d1f9fE26Df39119d4
  3. (0x833) 0x833741fb87b6D2eeCD3923b405915C49c0A16B13
  4. (0x696) 0x6963Bd7fA7085B2aB14e42C9Edd12a82c164e90B
  5. (0x8Ae) 0x8Ae7A1a3bCc3A21821D085F8651c091027423b77
  6. (0xD21) 0xD219586EbB67c6aC8aAC55e4e1F161292dDeaC68
  7. (0xe35) 0xe35905c22AeeEAb8F7A09Dc2f434BA789552c7b5
  8. ** Binance Account Deposit: 0x30FD8337462b7984970F8A3c7d8fAadbA79EA2D2**

Cryptohondos (0xD4AaF399649F90a9878a8A147A2486D209593eC1):

18k in 2 transactions from the main wallet to Cryptohondos.

sent 14.453k from (0xD21).

Account Connections:

Direct Transactions

Direct transactions between Alexios’ accounts and Cryptohondos look like this:

3. Binance Deposit and Twitter Connections

Cryptohondos Twitter Account:

Tweet Link

A deposit to Binance account on January 9, 2021, by the Cryptohondos suggests the person behind Cryptohondos. This is the first deposit to Binance account

Ethereum Transaction Details

Additionally, “Cryptohondos” wallet have never deposited to Binance.

SaTT Token Connection

Tweet Link

Rare SaTT tokens in Alexios’ Main wallet, coinciding with the tweet content, strengthen the connection.
There are only 108 holders of this token and Alexios Main wallet is one of them

Binance Deposits

These deposits from wallets to Binance corroborate connections:

Withdrawals from Binance to Cryptohondos wallet:

Notably, these sums are almost identical, with a mere 10-minute difference.

Indirect Proofs

  1. All accounts and Cryptohondos account received payments from the Ethermine pool.
  2. Snapshot votes indicate synchronized actions between Alexios Main and Cryptohondos in key votes.

Ops DAO 2.0 vote

Alexios Thu Jun 01 2023 20:05:01 GMT+0000 Yes
Cryptohondos Thu Jun 01 2023 20:07:40 GMT+0000 Yes

DRC - Shifting from LP rewards toward market maker rebatesDRC - Shifting from LP rewards toward market maker rebates

Alexios Wed Jul 19 2023 15:49:35 GMT+0000 Yes
CryptoHondos Wed Jul 19 2023 15:54:46 GMT+0000 Yes


Thank you for reading through my extensive findings. Following this detailed analysis, I will leave it up to the reader to formulate his own opinion on the connection between Alexios and Cryptohondos.

Please appreciate that countless hours have gone into gathering and presenting this evidence, that ultimately is intended to be of benefit to the community as a whole.


Posting my thoughts here as a fellow community member and not in my role as an Enforcer of DOT.

Naturally, I have no involvement in the DGP as I am solely the Enforcer of DOT.

I’ll keep it brief but go straight to the point. The above is quite worrying. It is evidence of one of two things and here’s to hoping it’s the latter not the former:

  1. It’s either a complete lack of oversight by the Enforcer in respect of the Enforcer’s duties to screen for Trustee conflicts of interest and suspicious transactions (together with the Enforcer’s duties re. the DGP to also screen potential grantees and make sure there is no Trustee involvement or COIs re. those potential grantees); or {This is a breach of the Trust Deed on the Enforcer-side}

  2. It’s a breach by the Trustee to not disclose the Conflict of Interest (which in this case, is as conflicted as you can get in light of the evidence - which in my opinion is conclusive especially in light of the fact that Alexios even has ownership rights over the cryptohondos domain - indicating that the Trustee actually posed as a potential grantee), which then leads to the Trustee profiting off-of his position as a Trustee and abusing of his position {naturally, this is a direct breach of the Trust Deed and merits the removal of the Trustee}.

It could also be a mix of the two - Enforcer did not screen + Trustee did not disclose.

Screenshot 2023-08-18 at 09.58.11

Screenshot 2023-08-18 at 09.58.59

Screenshot 2023-08-18 at 10.00.00

In my personal opinion, the above merits a removal of the Trustee in question in accordance with the provisions above (which emanate from the Trust Deed signed by the Trustee in question). In addition, the Trustee (in accordance with the above - specifically 13.1 (b), should return the funds received which have emanated from his wilful misconduct).

dYdX should always be committed to upholding the highest standards in whatever it does and its ethos has thus far reflected this approach. Should this be allowed to stand, we risk these positions not being taken seriously and further abused in the future which, (as has happened in the past in the legal structures of other protocols), will undoubtedly lead to insurmountable reputational damage and reflect very negatively on the ecosystem as a whole.

Lest we forget, when you are a Trustee you are bound to act in accordance with the Trust Deed. You have rights, but you also have obligations at law.

I have no doubt that the new Enforcer @Cliff will be taking this very seriously given his diligent character.

I look forward to hearing Alexios’ side of the story as this is also important. However, given the evidence above, I highly doubt there is a valid explanation for this all which would dispute (in any way shape or form) the evidence above - considering there is quite a bit of hard evidence here. Nonetheless, as I said, I look forward to his explanation.

Kind regards,


I’d like to address the accusations that have been attached to my name so that the community has a clear understanding of my relationship with Cryptohondos.

Cryptohondos received approval for their grant on 03/14/2022. At the time I wasn’t part of the trustee team. I was elected as a Trustee on 07/16/2022. Clearly there was no fraud committed there no matter what my relationship with Cryptohondos was/is.

Did I make use of my trustee authorities to approve the transaction?
Yes, I did. I approved the transaction batch initiated by the DGP lead in December that included the second payment to CryptoHondos. But still like previously mentioned the grant had been approved in March.

What is my relationship with CryptoHondos?
We were business associates to the degree that allowed me to have access to their domain information, and social media profiles such as Twitter etc. Back in 2022 I provided marketing, SEO services to them, which by the way preceded their application of a grant with dYdX. I improved their content writing with the intent to enhance reader’s comprehension and promote the site’s overall performance.

Was that a paid job?
Yes it was as I provided them with my services and I did so independently from my role as a Greek community manager. This was all with the intention of improving CryptoHondos and the marketing of dYdX.

Why are there almost simultaneous voting on behalf of myself and Cryptohondos for various matters that have to do with dYdX?
That is because I insisted that the Greek community be involved and take an active role in all dYdX matters and so I asked CryptoHondos to take action and vote. Nothing more, nothing less. Being a client of mine, the one Greek member that I had access to and was able to communicate with, I wanted to make sure that they would be as involved in the project as possible. Even if that meant calling them asking them to do it on the spot after I had finished with my voting.

What’s with the funds being transferred from my wallet to theirs?
I sent my own assets to CryptoHondos team for them to trade on the dYdX platform to the best of their abilities because I thought that they were pretty damn good at it. Is that a crime? I don’t think so.

I’m not hiding anything and I always use my real name

Hey @Alexios ,

Thanks a lot for giving your side of the story here - helps a lot!

Some questions from my end on matters i find curious and just pointing out some stuff from my pov (this will be my last comment on this thread as this will cover your side of the story too):

1. “Yes, I did. I approved the transaction batch initiated by the DGP lead in December that included the second payment to CryptoHondos. But still like previously mentioned the grant had been approved in March.”

(The Trust deed makes reference to transactions, not grant approvals. Hence, if you approved this transaction without disclosing your conflict of interest - irrelevant of when the grant was approved - you breached the trust deed and thus, your legal obligation as a Trustee. However, if this was disclosed - and here I would suggest providing time-stamped evidence of this disclosure to debunk this - then still, you should not have signed off on the transaction as conflicted trustees cannot do so. So, yet again, nonetheless you breached the trust deed here).

2. “We were business associates to the degree that allowed me to have access to their domain information, and social media profiles such as Twitter etc. Back in 2022 I provided marketing, SEO services to them, which by the way preceded their application of a grant with dYdX. I improved their content writing with the intent to enhance reader’s comprehension and promote the site’s overall performance.”

(Do you have the services agreement or time-stamped invoices for the abovementioned services that could prove that this is indeed the extent of your involvement with Crypto Hondos? Naturally I assume these are available since they are taxable services and thus a service agreement/invoice would be present. Sidenote: I’m not being pessimistic but quite literally helping you clear your name here).

3. “I sent my own assets to CryptoHondos team for them to trade on the dYdX platform to the best of their abilities because I thought that they were pretty damn good at it. Is that a crime? I don’t think so.”

(To my knowledge - and here I stand to be corrected - CryptoHondos is merely a news site that sometimes also posts its analysis on the market as well (so does cointelegraph for ex.). I was not aware that CryptoHondos deals as a broker/trader/fund manager of sorts for other persons (because if so, it would have necessitated the applicable regulatory license to do so - hence I stand to be corrected here). Do you have the agreement in place for the trading by CryptoHondos on your account? I assume considering that you sent your assets to them for them to trade, you would have signed a service agreement with them stating that (bare minimum) you retain ownership of those funds + are entitled to withdraw at any time no? This is a normal arrangement done by even the smallest trading firms - no one just sends money to people for them to trade with and, potentially lose).

That is all from my end - I’m sure that if you provide the above, you’d have done enough to exonorate yourself from the above accusations.

Again, thankyou for stating your side of the story - i’m glad we have an open space to settle these matters in a very democratic way!

Kind regards,


Was thinking exactly the same thing.

Happy to share some context from my perspective as the Grants lead.

Here’s a quick summary of the events:

  1. The CryptoHondos grant was approved in DGP v1. This was before Alexios was involved with the DGP (before the Trust even existed!). Interviews were conducted and KYC collected from CryptoHondos. Alexios was not included or named in either.

  2. Alexios joined the DGP as Trustee later on with the launch of DGP v1.5. The CryptoHondos grant was still outstanding when he joined. From what I understand, Alexios is no longer actively helping with the project.

  3. Later that year, I finalized the grant after CryptoHondos met their deliverables. The final milestone payment was added to a transaction batch, which was signed by three Trustees - one of which was Alexios.

At no point did Alexios leverage his position as Trustee to influence the decision to recommend, approve, or pay for the Grant. As far as I can tell, he has helped the CryptoHondos team with SEO, Website, and Twitter management. This was done prior to his appointment as Trustee.

With all this in mind, I don’t see any significant conflicts or issues, including in the transaction approval. Given the timeline and context, there’s no reason to assume malicious intent. Instead, I think we can use this to learn and improve – something that’s already in action with the v1.5 extension.

As Grantor, we obviously expect Alexios to disclose all conflicts and not take additional compensation from projects. That should be clear to him, and all Grantors involved.

1 Like

“I think we can use this to learn and improve…” is NOT the answer I was hoping to hear from the lead of the Grants Program regarding an OBVIOUS breach of trust. If anyone has to be stern about what has transpired here, it’s you, Carl. Where is the integrity as the lead of the Grants program? I won’t even go into detail about the OVERWHELMING evidence presented by Vov, and I don’t have to. Just read Alex’s responses and tell me with a straight face that these are not complete and utter lies:

“Even if that meant calling them and asking them to do it on the spot after I had finished voting.” LOL

Sure, Alex describes Cryptohondos as a “business associate” and later mentions that he “calls” them on the spot to vote on proposals after he has voted. WHAT?

“I sent my own assets to the CryptoHondos team for them to trade on the dYdX platform to the best of their abilities because I thought that they were pretty damn good at it.” ???

Of course, who doesn’t send their tokens to a crypto blogger “team” that mainly covers crypto news and has published only ONE article on technical analysis, to trade on their behalf.

What is being claimed here is beyond ridiculous and undermines the credibility of the DGP!

What is the purpose of the trust agreements if they are not to be followed or taken seriously?

This will stain the program for life unless one of two things happens:

  • Alex can provide CONCRETE evidence that proves or somewhat counters the allegations.
  • Alex is removed from whatever role he’s in and pays back the ill-acquired funds.

Hi everyone,

I would like to ask some question on a few points.
First of all, thank you @Alexios for sharing your perspective on the situation, It’s important to hear all sides of the story. Also, thank you @RealVovochka for the time and effort you have put into this investigation.

My first question is about what @Immutablelawyer wrote.

@Alexios should have disclosed the conflict of interest and not sign the transaction. Since he signed the transaction, he breached the trust, right?

What happened during this time that this issue was flagged but not resolved?

How do we know that Cryptohondos is a real person? What was the KYC process?

These are very concerning issues that was already talked about in previous votes for the DGP proposal. There needs to be an audit to make sure these kinds of issues don’t come up again!

I hope that this all gets resolved.



The responses from @carlbergman and @Alexios are unbelievably insufficient and frankly incompetent what is going on here? I will not even bother picking them apart as they did not give us the respect of an honest answer absolute joke.

Will anything ever change?


It’s pretty clear you are protecting Alexios to protect Reverie as a whole, which I got to hand to you is brilliant if the evidence wasn’t beyond overwhelming. Do you have any comments about the evidence provided or a justification because either way Alexios signed a transaction to himself?

Actually amazing @Alexios you are still trying to claim their separate people. For anyone reading this imagine the lengths they’re going to clear this up these are the people in charge of the DGP.


Hi all,

First, thank you @RealVovochka for taking your effort to thoroughly investigate potential misconduct from a grantor and @Alexios for sharing the story from your side. Also, grateful for seeing response from @carlbergman and other community members as we are all in it to improve what dYdX can do as a DAO going forward. As a relatively new member to the DAO and community, they are all helpful for us to understand the context and situation better.

While I understand the judgement from Carl that there wasn’t malicious intention from Alex and I’d like to believe that’s the case (under the condition that all the information provided by him was correct and appropriately reviewed by the 3rd party like dYdX Foundation since Reverie is very much with the conflict of interests as the lead grantor), I still have the same question that @Immutablelawyer raised and @Ax07 pointed out: regardless of the intention, based on the fact provided, Alex breached the trust deed. Thus, I’d like to see some action to be taken, otherwise, what is the meaning of setting up the Trust and have all related parties sign the contract and be obliged by it?


I must express my profound disappointment in the current state of affairs. It seems that the community here, despite its commitment and expertise, doesn’t receive the respect it rightly deserves. At times, there’s an unfortunate implication that we are taken for granted or even perceived as naive. This sentiment is both undeserved and misplaced.

We’ve had the privilege to connect with some exceptionally talented individuals through this community. Given the collective expertise and dedication we’ve observed, it’s disheartening to see valid feedback and concerns being consistently sidelined. The present situation reveals a significant breach backed by overwhelming evidence, yet it appears those in leadership positions are keen on defending such behaviour.

From our vantage point, there’s a discernible lack of genuine improvement efforts. Save for Cliffton’s appointment as enforcer, the program remains riddled with flaws. We’ve continuously highlighted the issue of grantors for the community bucket. In light of recent events, Alexios’s involvement seems untenable. A more democratic solution would be allowing the endorsed delegates from the community to select three grantors for the community bucket. These grantors would then jointly decide on application approvals and track project completions.

Furthermore, there’s an evident deficiency in transparency and communication. From personal experience, interactions seem either strained or entirely absent. Such an environment is counterproductive for those genuinely committed to contributing. It’s essential to establish a transparent platform that not only facilitates open communication but also offers insights into the grantors’ performance and professionalism.

I strongly believe there’s an urgent need to allocate resources towards researching, gaining consensus, and then building a top-tier platform to address these issues. We’re more than willing to lend our expertise to this initiative.

I know some discussions have been happening behind the scenes, but @carlbergman, I urge you to take a proactive stance. Perhaps it’s time to consider this issue as a potential grant initiative that demands immediate attention.


Hi everyone! :wave:

I just wanted to share some additional information that I stumbled upon. Please note that the evidence is weaker than what I had posted in the original post (OP), but for the sake of transparency, I’m sharing it so that the community can make an informed decision.

This piece of evidence sheds light on the fact that Alexios was likely behind the content at CH.

Additional Evidence 1:

dYdX Trading Beginner’s Educational Guide – Part 1 | CryptoHondos

  • Article Date: June 8, 2022

I am using the Translate function in my browser.

This guide explains how to start trading on the dydx platform.

The wallet shown in the picture belongs to Alexios. This suggests that he either took this screenshot or CH had access to Alexios’ private keys.

A deposit of exactly 1500 USDC was made from Alexios’ wallet to dydx on May 23, 2022.

Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Etherscan

Additional Evidence 2:

dYdX Trading Beginner’s Educational Guide – Part 2 | CryptoHondos

  • Article Date: June 8, 2022

The screenshot indicates that the author of this guide had an open position of 4595 ADA on the dydx platform. Only the person controlling that account could see these open positions through the dydx interface.

To verify this, visit the L2BEAT dYdX Explorer, a blockchain explorer. By entering Alexios’ main wallet (0x13Fb07C0e9B5d63Ec38AE1Fa9221c3c911193646), you can confirm that a long position of 4595 ADA was open on June 1 at 21:41:27 UTC.

The position was closed five days later.

This confirms that the author of the article was either Alexios or someone who had access to his private keys.

Additional Evidence 3:

What are epochs in the dYdX ecosystem | CryptoHondos

  • Article Date: July 18, 2022 (a few days after Alexios became a trustee)

The account of the article author earned approximately 63 dydx tokens as rewards in Epoch 10. Once again, it was tied to Alexios’ wallet.

Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Etherscan

You can cross-reference the number of rewards for Epoch 10 using this link.

CH’s website features seven articles about DYDX. Among these, three were written by Alexios, and one was plagiarized from the Defiant newsletter. The authorship of the remaining articles is unclear due to their generic nature.

Contrary to Alexios’ claim, his involvement with CH seems to extend beyond his stated scope. His statement implies that he was only engaged with CH prior to the grant, providing marketing and SEO services.

Let’s revisit Carl’s statement:

Questions arise about the specific deliverables CH met to justify the $20k grant. Additionally, based on the provided information, it seems the transaction batch was signed by all five trustees.

Therefore, in the case of a multisig structure involving three out of five trustees, Alexios’ signature for this transaction was unnecessary. Any errors might be attributed to Reverie’s role as an enforcer.

1 Like

By now, there hasn’t been a single piece of evidence presented in this matter to prove that CH is NOT Alexios.

1 Like

– Comments shared in my personal capacity –

Since its inception, the DYDX Grants program has evolved tremendously - look back on history, discussions and iterations. Loads have been fine-tuned over iterations. It is not perfect, and probably never be, yet it evolves and delivers impact as planned.
Congratulations to you all, we shall keep building.

The topic discussed here belongs to Grants DAO to discuss and solve the soonest.

Such conversation and tone don’t make justice to the great works and achievements of dYdX overall.

When friction arises, it is our shared duty to reach out, listen, ask questions, think from first principles and promptly co-build solutions in order to keep our group focused and in delivery mode.

As a community, let’s aim at keeping our public forums welcoming, efficiently debating matters and attractive to many more talents.

While we’re waiting for a decent response from @Alexios , I found some more evidence that Alexios = CH.

Additional Evidence 4

The screenshot is taken from GOGOcoin discord

Cryptohondos claimed GOGOcoin rewards somewhere between 11/04/2022 11:04 UTC and 11:18 UTC. Keep in mind, I have UTC+2 time in my discord. And I have found this transaction:

This is the wallet 0x6963bd7fa7085b2ab14e42c9edd12a82c164e90b marked as Alexios’ (0x696) in OP (open post)

How many more proofs do we need?

@Alexios 0x6963bd7fa7085b2ab14e42c9edd12a82c164e90b is your wallet or CH?

Additional Evidence 5:

Hop Protocol

Few days before the message, Alexios’ Main wallet (0x13f) deposited ~$1500 in ETH to hop protocol ETH liquidity pool.
CH wallet have never interacted with hop protocol

1 Like

I helped CH team with a number of things - including SEO, Marketing, Content. They paid me for my help. All of this was before I joined as Trustee, and none of it was tied to the final milestone and payment of the grant. By the time I joined the DGP, and approved the payment, I did not have a conflict with CryptoHondos.

My last contribution to this site was before July 16, 2022, (the date that I was elected as a trustee).

Anyone involved in media and publishing understands that there’s a specific journey an article takes before it’s published online. In case you’re not familiar, here are the typical steps in this process:

  1. Choose a Topic
  2. Research
  3. Outline
  4. Write
  5. Edit and Revise
  6. Add Visuals
  7. Format
  8. SEO Optimization
  9. Citations
  10. Final Review
  11. Formatting for Specific Platform
  12. Upload Content
  13. Preview
  14. Publish

Having said that, my work was finished and handed over to the content writer at least a week before its final publication on July 18, 2022.


@RealVovochka shared information that isn’t confidential. It wasn’t kept hidden since it wasn’t private to begin with. If I had secrets, I would have concealed them already. Take the domain, for instance. Usually, domain owners are hidden, but here it’s clear. If anything was amiss, I could have easily hidden it for just €14.26/year.

Regarding proofs of evidence, I’m unable to share agreements or invoices due to many reasons such as GDPR, confidentiality, security etc.

Therefore, I apologize for any actions on my behalf that may have caused turbulence for the past two weeks. I feel indeed that the idea of the forum and discord is to create unity and exchange of healthy ideas so that we may evolve and become better. The issue at hand does not promote the above and therefore I have decided to resign and stand down from my position as a grantor. I am very proud that I have met various people while doing this job and I’ll step down knowing that I have done nothing wrong. My stepping down has nothing to do with my ability to carry out my duties as a grantor and everything to do with the constant bullying I have received in the past two weeks by some community “members”. The unhealthy accusations have taken a toll on me.

Hi Alexios, I don’t think providing evidence and asking questions can be considered bullying. Appreciate your answers in this thread to clarify the situation and your honest decision to resign.

Also thank you to everyone on this thread that attempted to bring clarity and transparency to the chain’s DAOs, as a new member of the community it is encouraging to see such enthusiasm to uphold the integrity of the chain and the groups that conform it.


**personal opinion as a community member

Thank you, @Alexios, for your transparency. I believe that you’ve done a great job in your role over the last 12 months as part of the dYdX Grants team and launching the first version of the community cauldron. The outcomes of your efforts are evident, particularly with the early versions of the community cauldron, funding initiatives, such as the state of DYDX finances, workshops in Japan, Korea, Ukraine, Portugal, Vietnam, Trading bots, and Turkish video series. For a detailed impact, one can refer to Alexios’ report: dYdX Grants - Community Cauldron Report #1

It’s disheartening to witness a few community members resorting to personal attacks, bullying, and harassment in these forums and other channels. While it’s essential for the community to seek clarity and accountability, the situation escalated and highlights a significant flaw with the current state of the DAO (which is still young and in its early stages).

Collectively, we need to do a better job of welcoming new members and retaining talent within the dYdX DAO. While transparency and accountability are paramount, we must prioritize constructive discussion and action over finger-pointing. Overall, empowering toxic conversations and individuals is detrimental to the growth, unity, and prosperity of the dYdX community. I encourage the community to think about the values it wants to embrace and the motivation behind this thread before picking a suitable replacement.


You can try to spin the narrative any way you want, regardless Alexios broke the trust agreement and the foundation came in to back DGP again thanks for showing blind loyalty David. I understand you guys have a salary and a token unlock to protect, but this is pretty blatant and shows the impunity the foundation assists DGP in.

The few community members are the only unpaid people in the ecosystem that still leave feedback virtually anywhere (LOL). Did you mean our community we have consistently driven away has dwindled down to a few people who are “toxic” what a coincidence!

@Alexios You didn’t provide a single piece of evidence and are saying you are being bullied? No, you are facing the consequences of your alleged fraudulent activities.