I have always been and still focusing on pushing yam forward its development, strategy and stability, and giving strong support to those aligned, so please make what you want of the following.
Seeing recently too much double faced activity going on, with a fair amount of selectivity, people forcing people to do specific things yet being ok for others on doing whatever they like, requesting something and coming against it later on, supporting something agreed on then later opposing it, pushing for working together and later skipping it, pointing fingers at someone doing something they ddnt like yet they are doing the exact same, bypassing governance based on their context, and more.
Thats preventing the protocol from any advancements and breaking the spirit of what yam was built on, positivity, collaboration, good ethics and vibes.
In august there was a lengthy back and forth on transparency reports, about when it should be submitted to be eligible for compensation, almost no one of the people discussing it know what the context of the topic is about. Which was simply “the report poster not to give the developer a hard time delaying deploying the onchain”. The conversation went on all random ideas and timings previously discussed to make things work better, almost all were pointing out “this is how it should work, no its like that” has nothing to do with the actual topic.
Spending time and arguing on something without knowing the basis of its structure isnt useful, negativity all over the place, we missed first vote and went opening arguments on the next, time wasting, specially for me whos supposed to move on with onchain the soonest everyone gets their reports ready. The solution of the conversation was to propose it making it a yip for contributors to follow even (while it can just be terms to be followed), govops discussed posting then snapshot it after few adjustments, the decision of a simplified version was to be posted which i said yes to making, Ross went ahead and skipped all planned actions posting on the forums something that he only wanted to push forward ignoring what we have went through on the plans. Is this what you @feddas was previously asking for to “work together” (1) i dont see that. And with the rush of Ross to post such over complicated yip that we are in no need for, he made a mistake in there “submitted between the 1st and the 5th”, by that, means the 4th midnight utc was the last day to post any report for eligibility of inclusion (2).
So i suppose almost all who were actively arguing on that topic have missed to submit their reports, since they submitted on the 5th and not in between (before the 4th ends).
I see you complain to when one should work with another @feddas, i believe you red whats in the govops chat from the actions happening to the insulting behavior, yet i saw no comments from you on these, i valued your words when you said “we should all work together” as i push hard on that. Would that be negligence or selectivity?, otherwise why even bother speaking about it only some of the time. Well it turns out worse, you insult others on the chats bringing toxicity into where it should never be brought at.
You force people to follow made up terms to your liking @feddas, but when it comes to actions you happen to break countless ratified rules, and its for no one to comment on. Happens for you to be above governance.
In previous meetings we had, we spoke about the comps proposals are coming to an end and so people should start thinking on whats next. Good for me, im listening to someone i supposed responsible (@feddas) and have requested and recommended to finish whats of more importance with adjustments for things to be more stable, then moving into other things that i see exciting, and, i thought this individual isnt gaming the efforts of others down the drain. But was it really good for me? i think not, should have stopped my development work, focused on writing a redundant proposal of the ideas that were already mentioned about and spoken of (and actually did so later in the month). Should have also gotten fud into the equation, since it looks like you can suddenly have flipped thoughts.
Youre against what youre requesting @feddas, i was surprised of your comment ddnt think for a second that there will be any issues with you on this kind of stuff. Specially when i actually did what youve requested for numerous times now, your priority work, proposal posts, etc.
Yet i see you dont have any issues with “other work” of some contributors comps, or also other “not on the new model” contributors comps. Overriding bluntly what governance in your context should look like. Also fascinating.
When you put so much work and efforts into something and you get this in return @jpgs.eth, it isnt what you look forward for. Here since you have been around in the talks alongside feddas to policing people with how their reports arent clear enough, happens for yours to be unclear.
- Is that related to your vote towards my development and priorities work? (i recall your ignorance on this)
- Was that related to what feddas and i are doing on the treasury rebalancing? (i recall feddas and i doing this)
- Do you mean the compensation terms thats been discussed over discord chats, meetings, and ross and i have posted about? (i recall ross and i did that)
And it looks like you just copy pasted everything from your original proposal to your report from here to here and from here to here. Didnt know thats the purpose of the transparency reports, werent it to explain clearly, transparently for the token holders what you did for people to understand, im completely failing to recognize that, as it doesnt explain anything other than a copy/paste of sections from the proposal, while missing to do the actual work properly. Thats no accountability by the individual that is supposed to correctly hold people accountable. You arent accountable, and failing to hold other people accountable. It goes against your promise.
The lack of communication, delays for you to answer messages and missing multiple meetings, isnt a good image specially for a newly assigned contributor even while i welcomed you with warmth into the team, you havent been up to the level and worth of your promises.
I thank you still, for what you have given of good work and efforts so far, for me its more about working with you for the benefit of yam, instead of cancelling your ambitions or ideas, still looking forward to the cooperation.
In favor of what @jpgs.eth has been voted on to do, as long as its actually being done, for us to have further support in checking whats of value add in terms of contributors contributions. Ive voted “For” on it because i support that it takes off from the overload that we might have between govops and other work, something less to worry about, also jpgs seemed a nice individual to have around. Even supported what he posted recently assuming its actually in support of the benefits of yam and all token holders. With hopes for this path to lead us into further success. But in the same time i found myself pondering after reading few of your last posts, some contradiction going on.
Youre in the know of the efforts and what im working on, you already knew its in progress as i previously posted and spoke about it few times on the meetings, but then you went against it with your vote, now thats alright everyone is free to do what they like. But i wonder why you havent discussed anything about it not on the meetings, nor have said anything to me to know what youre declining, not sure to see the cooperation here, you just declined. Even while these are the very core of what yam is, then i see youre posting about the longevity of yam, when youre coming against the very base of yam being built and its stability.
If i am in your place and i see someone trying to do these exact listed development points, i would be of support to them, and instead i would have spoken with this individual privately, what their vision is, what mine is, what is the purpose from these, will it help, is it useful, what is not, what can be etc. But not even close, just ignorance and obstruction.
And here while i had backed and trusted you and your promises, im going to be declining to get any comp relating to this core dev work proposal from that report, even if you re propose it on my behalf.
And, whether im getting paid or not, even with you randomly cutting my paychecks, i believe in Yam and will continue the work and efforts to get it to the place and level i previously mentioned about. So feel free to be as selective as you like on contributors and their hard work.
As usual with the confusion youre causing “It was explained to him to split these two items into different forums but never completed.”, that has nothing to do with the proposal, but has something to do with the transparency report which was split into two items upon request but then ignored by the party whos job is to closely follow up through within the time range.
Then we get to the point of the proposal. Usually its completely fine for contributors to submit what they have posted of semi-retroactive proposals E example and Ross example. But for some there are random issues while both retroactive work, was agreed on and exactly the same. For @feddas as seen in the quotes, one happens to be improper (E example) while the other happens to be proper (Ross example). For @jpgs.eth on (Ross example), one day from TD perspective it doesnt satisfy the mandate and wont be supported and on another day “have seen the effort, so wont vote to deny or approve”.
Its frustrating, and shows the nonsense and hypocrisy of individuals that are trying to take over the dao for their benefits. Shame.
While preparing the compensations numbers, @jpgs.eth after reading your comment review on approving one of the contributors report. While i support what this contributor have been contributing to and as well appreciate their efforts as key for the chinese community connection, i dont see where in conjunction to that report was it defined to relate to a grant or proposal work for it to be approved by you (if assuming by the context you want to follow). While you have disapproved my report, was that a different treatment to an exactly same input. I did not expect to see that from you, its a conflict within decision making and selectivity. That also overrides what governance is, to what youve decided it is and should look like.
Same for @feddas, you submitted an onchain proposal without any testing, while youre nitpicking on others actions and work they have done, yet there is no issues if youre the one doing it. Further more claiming that youve had no idea to when a few functions were to be executed, and rushing it, while you should know very well as we have discussed several times on the meetings, to be included in the next onchain transaction. But worse and without any testing, youre hoping to figure out if what youve put in there works after proposing it. And @jpgs.eth votes on it without following the flow of safe tests. Basically both doing what you oppose others on doing.
Trying and signing adding jpgs to the mainnet multisig only because youve decided to @feddas, that shows too much about trust and what type of random initiations youve been up to (as to what have been going recently), without any prior discussion or agreement nor through govops or even community (it suddenly was a good idea to add your friend on the multisig without any consultations or approvals when there are ongoing swaps thats worth significant amount of value in there). And best part of it all when i did my job to defend the dao from the wrongs that youve done, you took that a reason to hypocritically try and remove me, you sign it 1/2, then you put up a snapshot and you get your friend to vote on your snapshot, hes supporting you with the wrong that you keep on doing. And you keep saying youre “protecting yam” or “protecting the treasury” its nothing other than exploitation and obstruction toward yam. You know how things work, you chose not to follow the rules that you police others on following, but worse bypassing and literally exploiting governance. Its hypocritical, i do not nor does anyone appreciate such actions, youre doing huge mistakes its breaking yam.
And recently i was checking the chats and what went through of communication between team members (@feddas, @jpgs.eth) and community members token holders. You @feddas are taking their YIPs changing it to however you see fits your views and pushing it forward. Saying others are malicious, improper and thieves for having different views or trying to work with you, basically youre framing anything to your liking. While youre exploiting the dao, attacking everyone with ban intentions and proposing an unnecessary update on the guardian multisig to make sure that no signer disagree with you to push further wrong actions. I dont have the words to express the revulsion youve shown with your interactions towards token holders and yam.
For months now a lot of selectivity, governance alterations, ongoing fights and a few attacking others, ending up affecting my focuses as well to everyone around. We dont need this, everyone must be working on their own things and collaborating with each other to get to where we really need to get to, when i say i believe in yam and want to get back the value that we originally had on the launch, and surpass it … i really do, but seeing this going on and on is very distracting, impractical, wasting time, and thats in no way alright to continue, its damaging and only leads to failure. Speaking for myself, im going to keep pushing for the prosperity of yam as initially promised.
Hopefully we can get back to a positive and productive environment we once had with common sense, equality, fairness and flexibility.