What does the MS have to do with this? @Jengajojo is proposing this, and he’s a member of the Multisig, but AFAIK he’s proposing this as a member of the original project team.
I can’t speak for Jenga’s stance visa vis whether he is appearing as a member of the MS or OP proposal proposer, but i read it as a MS member, because I refuse to believe that someone who brought this idea before our contributors as a proposal champion is also rugging contributors in that role. so i assume he’s rugging in his role as MS signer 
Sounds like the project team should just talk about this amongst themselves?
1 Like
I understand the frustration around @Jengajojo’s suggestion to reconsider or revise the OP distribution because it deviates from what was originally agreed at the time the work was performed. But I also understand Jenga’s motivation to open this for discussion as it highlights an important issue we continue to face as an org. As far as I understand from the budget document, the work was intended to be compensated both by BANK and locked OP, upon its release while there was no expectation of RPGF comp as it didn’t exist yet.
I have a few questions, which I hope will help me understand a bit better:
- If the contributors involved in this effort were expecting to be compensated in OP, why was BANK allocated in the budgets as a form of compensation? At face value this could be considered duplicate comp at least to some extent.
- (Based on any answer for 1.) If BANK was allocated as comp based on the work to be performed, why is it reasonable for contributors of this specific project to expect compensation disproportionate to the efforts of other DAO contributors who had access only to BANK as a form of comp?
- If RPGF was received based on contribution to this project, why shouldn’t it be considered comp for the work completed, even if RPGF wasn’t included in the original budget? Contributors to the project would have otherwise been ineligible for RPGF if it weren’t for their participation in this specific project (as far as I understand).
As Jenga highlights in his post, we are a very different org now as compared to when the work was completed. We’ve identified problematic aspects of our former structure and function, and we’re trying to avoid perpetuating those that don’t serve us as a community. So I think it’s reasonable to at least consider this distro from a few perspectives and any potential revisions that might better serve the org.
1 Like
Dear DAO members,
Am surprised this is on the forum, like what’s the basis for this being on the forum?
Everything about this campaign has been executed, the only thing left is funds distribution, which all relevant parties have waited for 1 year now. And now that it’s ready to be distributed, y’all want to play DAOlitics - unnecessary politics to overcomplicate a simple agreement?
@Jengajojo what’s this?
Has your account been hacked or something?
Is someone without proper context of the several meetings we did to finalize and agree on this campaign including the funds distribution mechanism 1 year ago posting here.
knock knock @Jengajojo is that you, no way it’s you right.
- Major projects involved in the campaign are still live, shipping content and still helping people go Bankless even if they have rebranded.
- I believe all the relevant parties involved in the campaign are present
- From what I have seen, these relevant parties all agree to stick to the original allocation
- If the majority of the relevant parties that executed the campaign have consensus, who are you inviting to come and overturn this @Jengajojo ?
- if the accounting done by @Eren captures the original agreement, I propose we move forward to submit the transaction.
4 Likes
@Jengajojo I don’t see the OP in the Vault. Is the DAOplomats MS ready to claim those funds and forward them?
Are there any tokens within the Vault, voting power for which is now allocated to DAOplomats? What happened to the voting power allocated to DAOstewards, was that reverted back to the Vault MS?
2 Likes
There was a ‘DAOsteward’ named Jo
Whose care for the DAO was all show.
His pursuit of ARB token
Was what left this DAO broken
Now here is the final blow.
4 Likes
In light of the following:
I believe we should distribute funding as was committed to publicly, unless anyone can show cause for any funding to be withheld.
There’s a lot of nuance to this, and I’ll go into it if I’m asked to, but the short of it is this: We gave our word to do it a certain way, and to deviate from that because of supplementary funding later given is to take a step down a path that I do not see as honorable.
Don’t vader this.
2 Likes
3 Likes
lmao i deleted this by accident but i’m sure it said things damn
Oh yay i found it:
Hi Rowan,
I’ll do my best here, but project opinions come from me as champ of BP at the time:
- the budget speaks for itself. Not really sure why we keep focussing on how things were compensated some other way. This is about contributor expectations, not hindsight revisionism. The budget is clear, as were the expectations. I mean, I can speak for BP. We always paid writers and editors in BANK too, as was our policy. It’s not like we were going to say hey, no BANK for you because you may get some OP a year from now.
- This campaign was scoped in public, and had dozens of DAO contributors. I’d say the majority of active contributors at that time were part of the effort. I don’t understand the problem with compensating people for their effort in alignment with the proposal and their expectations. The simple reason they should be compensated per the terms of the proposal is because their work fulfilled the terms of the proposal. I don’t see disproportionate comp, i see comp in line with the proposal and expectations for the work done.
- RPGF is nebulous. For example, BP did all kinds of things that benefited OP outside of the Intents work (see Crypto Basics Series shipped on Mirror via OP).
The basic facts are folks worked with a particular expectation in mind. The DAO and its world may be different, but that doesn’t change the terms of the bargain made last summer.
3 Likes
FYI Snapshot
1 Like
LOLs + Eye Rolls. Funny but not helpful. I don’t think @Jengajojo ’s proposal comes from lack of love for the DAO, nor is it a personal attack on anyone. It’s simply misguided, and has stirred up some raw emotions.
As for the ARB proposal, it was lead by him but agreed upon by many. I think we can all agree on who really abandoned this DAO in the face of adversity.
3 Likes
I strongly oppose this proposal, as the original intent and terms of compensation were clearly outlined and agreed upon by all parties a year ago. To now suggest overturning that arrangement, just as the funds are available for compensation, is both disappointing and disingenuous. It’s important to be honest—while much may have changed over the past year, the work completed has not, and the original intent must be honored in full. That is my take on this.
4 Likes
Again 100% with Hiro on this. Several contributors worked tirelessly on the OP campaign. It was one of bDAO’s biggest coordinated campaign execution. Many of the contributors who worked on the campaign were official role holders in different Guilds / Departments and were paid role holder compensation in BANK. Nothing to do with this campaign. As @NFThinker has already clarified, RPGF3 has nothing to do with this OP campaign that bDAO. One year later, when the required compensation has been made available to contributors, anything that stops that from happening in the name of wider bDAO altrusim / securing our future etc etc is nothing but obfuscation in the lightest sense and usurping compensation in the strongest sense. @Eren created a clear, transparent accounting framework and distribution, which allocates OP to the bDAO multi-sig (so no one forgot that we have to make a contribution to bDAO) and I have seen the guy revise it multiple times with diligence and care (is anyone compensating him for that effort)? The fact that we have a forum post to discuss whether contributors should be paid for work they have done and a Snapshot required to release compensation that was due for a year is shameful.
4 Likes
Hiho
I love to see all the vibes that we are facing here, event that i truly understand what does Jenga means here, im not agree with his proposal, since we are looking different products and projects.
Talking about NB, that received RPGF3 and also participated in the campaign, we definitely didn’t know that were selected to receive RPGF3, and was a very stressful time and with a lot of controversies and badge holders that discourage the voting process and also the work that we already done. Also all the payments that we received as project, were allocated very different as anyone can see in our proposal for funding, for videos, news, marketing and also IRL events, and for the RPGF3 we allocated, public funding, airdrops and applications that. are trying to be self sustainable. Now, in the case of this campaign we waited the whole year and saw this as a contract and a different product, and our applicant ion for RPGF3 included part of the translated content but we clarify that was part of the intent, but also we made a lot of things for governance and also independent contributors to the forum
So as we speak, we continue learning and all this experiments now give us more experience to the future of funding projects, and the vast majority continues here, and want to shape the DAO for the long ages that are coming.
Im voting yes in disbursement of funds =)
2 Likes
I suspect it has to do with the scope of what happened regarding the arb proposal vs. the scope of the OP proposal.
I get where jenga is coming from because if I remember correctly both proposals caused some blow back.
Jenga had a tough go when it came to the arb proposal, however, probably can’t place that blame solely on him (really, no one should place blame on anyone)
When it comes down to it. If people were promised OP to deliver a project, and there was an agreement on said contract, and they were successful in delivering the project, you can’t renege.
However. If they failed to deliver quality. It can be remembered for next time.
That may not be the case here, but it’s food for thought.
1 Like