I’m reluctant to get into any discussion or debate about details and perspective on how different DAO units allocated the funding they were provided, but I think it’s important to clarify some of the statements being made in response to this post.
@estha000, as the node champion for both Tamil and Malayam, you were only able to request RPGF for one. The Malayam node received RPGF directly, while the Tamil node received RPGF via IMN. According to this RPGF tracker the Malayam node received 6.5K OP and @Jengajojo has confirmed the IMN RPGF was distributed as agreed. If this is not the case, I kindly suggest your reach out to Jenga or Anaphant.
@thinkDecade, I note that your focus is on BA not having received any BANK to support contributors to the OP campaign, as justification for receipt of OP owed. You don’t mention the 15K OP RPGF that BA allocation, which was nearly 3 times more than many of other BanklessDAO-affiliated groups received. I’m not sure if this is an intentional omission but I think it’s important for those reading this thread to be aware of, as the multisig took RPGF allocations into consideration when making the decision.
@homie, I appreciate your intentions to find a common ground and some path forward that satisfies all involved. There has been considerable community debate up to this point and the multisig didn’t make this decision lightly, nor without considering all the information and opinions available.
Dear Rowan, am not sure if you have read through the numerous replies of the claims surrounding the campaign and RPGF. We have consistently made it clear that the Campaign has nothing to do with RPGF3. It’s two completely separate things.
Again, this campaign was a grant for specific work, which was meticulously planned and executed with clear budget allocations. Optimism paid out the Grant for the scope of work that was outlined in the grant proposal.
Dear rowan,
“@Jengajojo has confirmed the IMN RPGF was distributed as agreed”. this is so untrue. I am trying to contact jenga from the beginning of the conversation. i am not able to get a reply. i would challenge to show a proof for what he said. bankless tamil didnt recieve imn rpgf fund. you see, this is exactly the problem. @anafante if you have any idea about this, please help.
chinese node also applied through imn for rpgf round. they got funding through multisig.
now, i would also like to know where exactly the imn rpgf fund went? there was no conversation about this
@Rowan, why does it seem like the multi-sig suggests that the RPGF funds were intended as payment for the Intent Campaign? That perspective feels deeply unfair. These are, in fact, two entirely separate grants that Bankless Africa (Sovereign Frontier) was fortunate enough to secure due to the essential and impactful work we do in onboarding Africans, even from the most remote regions, into the ecosystem. Other groups from different continents have also earned similar recognition. Optimism, as the grant provider, acknowledged and approved our efforts, rewarding us for the value we delivered. Why make it harder for us to sustain our work?
To continue this aspect of the discussion - doesn’t the multisig have a responsibility to know this information?
It’s not about transferring it to a different wallet, it’s about delegation of the tokens in the DAO’s wallet to the DAOplomats “metagovernance” wallet.
If the multisig members have the DAO’s interests front and centre, it should be setting off alarm bells that one signer has an interest in the Vault’s balance that goes beyond the DAO’s longevity. This is, and always has been, an attempt to secure governance power for DAOplomats, as shown by the graph below from https://optimism.curiahub.xyz/delegates/0xc2490d220419acdced68428ac413c8483d08d1ab.
Please, look beyond the irrelevant and misleading ‘already compensated in other ways’ narrative and see that by continuing to refuse to pass on the tokens to the people that earned them, the multisig signers are doing more to jeopardise the future of the DAO than they would by upholding the original agreement and the community’s wishes. Any attempt to retrospectively protect the reputation of the DAO is misguided and will ultimately damage the multisig’s internal reputation and the community’s trust in the entire group.
Edited to add - where is the communication about the votes the DAO’s tokens are being used for and why does the multisig not feel an equal responsibility to protect the DAO’s reputation by insisting that there is community input on all the votes delegated to DAOplomats or DAOstewards across multiple platforms?
Agree. It is going to now make sense for there to be a discussion on the nature some multi sig members conflicts to make sure that everyone truly acts in the best interest of the community.
This is the safe of IMN . No distribution was done. They did delegated that token instead without informing the community.
You said Jenga told tamil node distribution was already done. I don’t know why Jenga give you false information and then delegate it to something that was not part of the rpgf round.
Here is the evidence, proof that no distribution was done.
Please try to get in touch with each node and try to understand the situation
