I want to address the recent concerns that have arisen regarding the breach of trust and conflicts of interest within the DGP. The situation involving @Alexios and the CryptoHondos project demands attention and a collective effort to find a solution with transparency and communication in mind. This post is for the discussion on how to approach the matter and also provides some ideas on how to do so.
Breach of the Trust
The allegations of Alexios undisclosed involvement with the CryptoHondos project while serving as a trustee have raised valid concerns about conflicts of interest and transparency. No proof has been brought up to affirm the contrary, and a replacement for the grantor role is needed. This situation, if left unaddressed, could undermine the trust and credibility of the DGP.
Open Debate and Community Involvement
Here’s my proposal: Have another selection process for the Grantor role. Instead of having the current trustees vote, I suggest the community come together and vote for their preferred candidate.
Selection Process for New Grantor:
Interested candidates for the grantor positions can come forward and express their willingness to serve by writing on this post. An AMA session with each candidate, with a predetermined set of questions, will provide the community with the chance to ask questions and gain insights into the candidate’s qualifications, perspectives, and approach to the role.
Following the AMA session, the community can vote to select the new grantor. This vote can be a poll on the forum or a snapshot. This way we can ensure that the decision is taken by the community.
While the current situation is undoubtedly a challenge, it also provides us with an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the dYdX DAOs values and principles. By coming together and actively participating in this debate, we can demonstrate the strength of our community and its ability to overcome obstacles.
I’m eager to hear your thoughts. How can we address this situation in a way that strengthens our community and ensures the long-term growth of dYdX DAO. Let’s have this open debate with the shared goal of creating a fair, transparent, and effective solution.
From the outset, I highlighted these points in the v1.5 proposal. I proposed increasing the community bucket from two to three grantors to ensure a majority decision on applications. I further recommended that these positions be open to everyone without Alexios being automatically included. Additionally, I suggested that the endorsed delegates act as interim electors. Regrettably, these suggestions were ignored.
I’m fully aligned with the emphasis on transparency and community involvement you’ve spotlighted @Ax07. I highlighted these transparency concerns in the v1.5 proposal and suggested interim solutions, yet they also went unheeded.
Beyond this, I see the need for a more comprehensive solution. We require a comprehensive approach that extends beyond just the DGP. We’re not merely offering critiques; we are genuinely interested and ready to help research, design, and bring this vision to life.
Thanks for separately posting this proposal to purely focus on how we can solve an issue to select a member for the Grantor role in the GDP v1.5 extension. It’s increasingly vital to discuss the solution to better serve the needs in the current community and DAO programs.
However, we are hesitant to proceed with the community vote, especially an informal forum or Discord poll as Marc Zeller from ACI, a prominent delegate in the Aave community pointed out in this post that the voting done by community tends to be like “beauty contest”, popularity among the community rather than focusing on their capability and track record. We still believe the selection process should be managed by the knowledgeable parties with context while having the candidates present themselves in front of the community as we did in two AMAs done for the GDP v1.5 extension process.
Possible mitigations that we can think of are 1) to have a few community members be involved in the selection process without voting privilege and responsible for communicating the selection process to the other community members after the fact. 2) to have a (relatively) neutral party like dYdX Foundation be involved and do the similar as suggested in 1).
We also love to hear candid, yet constructive opinions from other community members.