Alleged breach of the trust deed

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,