As you can see with the printscreen of the CN group there is a difference in display, so we can understand that there is a temporal difference between what I and the communities saw during the voting and what printscreen you claimed to be from the same time as the voting or even before. You sent the wrong message across the community on other channels.
I think it’s interesting that you seek validity by citing Snapshot’s other projects for two reasons: 1. There are Snapshot Spaces that do not need any documentation of their own, taking advantage of the common practice that the decision is made by code and must be respected. 2. Even taking this into account the fields are different, between the printscreens we provided and you provided, look more closely.
With this we can interrupt several repetitive arguments for you and conclude that: 1. The documentation is contradictory and confusing and does not address all possibilities; 2. There was indeed a difference in parameters contrary to what you said. 3. This field is new (Refuted). 4. The teams responsible for moderation and administration did not give due importance even with the public discussion of this issue 5. Code is important because of common industry practice and you sought to validate your example against this standard. (Including AAVE which has no terms of service or external page that overlaps the code).
That seems to be a Google translation of the BitDAO snapshot into Mandarin. I don’t see any indication that there is an issue with the way vote threshold was displayed on the English version of the snapshot app. The 1000 is a default text on the settings page of every project I have looked at. The 1000 is placeholder text. It means nothing. Please always refer to Governance Phase 1 documentation for the voting parameters.
Since BIP-15 did not meet quorum, this thread will be archived.
We do not intend to escalate this matter outside of official BitDAO channels, but we do have a duty to fight for the hundreds of people who voted and trusted us with their votes.
they all have similar transaction history, most even funded by the same address. It may work farming the arbitrum and zksync airdrops, but obviously not hitting quorum on a $22m proposal for BitDAO.
The quorum was populated with 1000, not like you are claiming as Snapshot’s “default”. Why did you update the values to 100M contradicting the documentation that states that the parameters are not implemented by code?
The BIP-15 passed according to the provided code and parameters. That’s a fact, if you don’t want to recognize the decision for the code, which is the standard and foundation of the industry, it’s something else and your decision alone. - Not provided by the BitDAO Documentation and the text expressly determines that there is no parameter by code.
The community requested that we slow down the discussion on this topic on telegram, if you lock the topic I will need to reply there.
You can check the history of voters in BitDAO Snapshot. At first, while I was following them, they were old accounts.
We were careful not to disclose the proposals in the public channels of those involved so as not to generate an external decision. But the BitDAO Snapshot is visible in the Snapshot overview panel (anyone has access).
I am not a security expert and if you have done a full or comprehensive review of all BitDAO proposals, I would find it interesting to review. What my team concluded:
We have already checked over 100 random addresses on the list and these profiles have already voted on numerous proposals from other DAOs (Stargate, OP, AAVE and many others) in Snapshot, including older proposals from BitDAO. (PleasrDAO, EduDAO and others).
Unlikely to be an attack otherwise they would be targeted exactly at BitDAO. Attacking multiple DAOs would be very ineffective.
It is worth remembering that BitDAO allows delegation of tokens and these voters have a balance in tokens, so “cheaper” attacks could have already been done and did not happen.
BitDAO Snapshot has 6.6K members. In no profile that we viewed did we find votes for just one specific proposal. Carrying out “attacks” on proposals from different authors also does not demonstrate partiality on the part of a potential attacker. All submitted proposals are notified to users subscribed to different Snapshot channels.
1000 is the sample placeholder value in the Quorum field. Check the settings page of nearly every project on Snapshot. As an example, a website you visit might have a field for Name. In that field they put “John Doe” as an example of the recommended formatting you should use to enter your name. This does not mean your name is now legally (enforced by code) John Doe. Putting your real name in that field and hitting enter does not mean you’ve now updated your name from John to Don.
No, the example placeholder field means nothing. Although I do imagine whoever owns the phone number (555) 555-5555 gets a lot of calls.
Entering parameters into the fields on the settings page on Snapshot has nothing to do with implementing decisions by code. At this point it feels like you are being intentionally critical to keep this thread open after BIP-15 did not reach quorum. Several people in Telegram have requested that the discussion about 1000 be closed because it has been resolved. If you don’t have anything new to add to this discussion, this thread will be archived.
I would like to clarify that, as we have mentioned before, we are not referring to the sample placeholder that you mentioned. It is important to emphasize that you have told untruths to the community by stating that they were new configurations in the BitDAO Snapshot.
Please, no more examples or analogies, but rather concrete facts.
In addition, I would like to make it clear that I have no comments to make about your personal insults or behavioral speculations regarding me or my team again. Due to these insults, we have received personal attacks and even threats. You have agreed with these insults (now you did it directly) and even public requested more personal information from me and my team, which was almost provided. However, the messages you sent was used for threats and damages, which will be reported soon.
I am not sure which of the forum’s policies we are violating by responding to other users and to you here. On Telegram, you use media, but users like myself cannot do the same.
It is interesting to observe that you are now following the popular will, although this did not occur during or after the real vote took place. I would like to know if social networks have authority or manage the BitDAO now.
What are you referring to then? Please provide a link or a screengrab.
I’ve never said that these are new configurations in snapshot. I don’t know when Snapshot put the placeholder text of 1000 in the Quorum field. But anyone can see its there on the settings page of every snapshot page.
?
I’ve only communicated with you in public. I’ll leave it to those to the community to determine whether I have ever acted inappropriately or untoward.
You haven’t violated any forum policies. I will archive this thread because that is what we do when voting on a BIP has completed. For example, voting on BIP-17 ended yesterday, and I archived the discussion. I left this one open because you requested it, but I can’t leave it open forever.
It’s not always easy, because I do have opinions as a community member myself, but I try to remain as neutral as possible while facilitating discussions and moderating channels. Case in point, normally this thread would be archived, but I left it open at your request. Many others have requested that this discussion about vote threshold be closed, as you noted above that “the community requested that we slow down the discussion on this topic on telegram”. I’ll leave this thread open so you can follow up on your proposal, but I’m not going to comment on the vote threshold issue anymore. It is resolved in my opinion. If others in the community or from your team want to discuss it, you can do that here.
I provided the printscreen, detailed explanation and offered to make this explanation through a call - denied by you - I also made myself available to explain this to the compliance team - also denied - So I do not agree with the decision only based on analogies and examples.
When I say “you”, I mean you and the others BitDAO Core representatives.
You agreed with users calling me a scammer and just called me obtuse in the previous post.
You don’t need to leave it open forever, just until we conclude an ongoing discussion, but I appreciate that my request was accepted earlier.
I am not denying your rights as a member of the community, but it is not correct for you to be an administrator or a member only when it suits you, when you are in the exercise of your position you should not respond as a member even more to the channels where you have privileges and influences that others do not (for example, sending media).
If you’re on vacation or something, another teammate of yours should have been leading this complex situation.
Thank you for keeping the topic open and allowing us to have a civil and constructive conversation here.
Dear jorantan96 ,
I’m not just defending only a personal or group position, but the nearly 200 votes that cast a set of rules on governance. If this is recognized or we reach an amicable agreement, I will defend all BitDAO with the same determination.
This version of events as they happened is not accurate. If anyone has questions about all this, it can be reviewed in the public chats. Most importantly, the printscreen posted above doesn’t show what you say it shows. Anyone can review for themselves though, and discuss here. I don’t have anything to add.
Vacation part is increasingly true, although I disagree that it is a complex situation and it’s not up to any teammate or any one person to lead the discussion for you. It’s really between you and the community. I’ve tried my best to facilitate this discussion with you but I’ve not made much progress. I’ll leave it to you and the community.
Apparently the best solution found was the suggestion to resubmit the proposal (BIP-15), Continent DAO will do its best to implement the necessary changes in this process based on feedback from the community in general and BitDAO Core. What we have already identified as a priority:
Better explanation of the operation of Wi-Fi: We understand that the name “Free” confuses readers, leading them to believe that there was no profit or sustainability of the program, contrary to the facts. So we’re working with more information to improve that understanding.
Team details: We are providing more details about teams, developers and their roles within Continent DAO.
Explanation of technicalities: We are adding texts that explain more technical terms more clearly for the understanding of the proposal.
We added correlated sources and news: We improved the general context of the proposal.
We added a FAQ: Answering the most frequent questions.
Some important quotes:
The proposal involves tranches and has a reload of these tranches.
Continent DAO is bringing a highly regarded team of developers to work together on the development of Continent’s products and integrations, as well as future collaborations with the Mantle Network and $BIT.
We will preserve some internal information as an extra security measure, we reserve BitDAO Core to review this information if necessary.
Thanks Don for your proposal and continued support for BitDAO.
The post below is a personal opinion and will align with my vote on BIP-15.1
Summary Feedback
Has potential
Adoption of users and institutional partners in Latin America region
Issues
Proposal size is too large, tranche 1 is too large
Unable to identify significant and direct outcomes for $BIT
Ideas for a restructured proposal
Latin America region adoption of $BIT products such as Mantle .
General Commentary
Dynamic Strategy
Crypto is a rapidly changing landscape of industry specific narratives and hypotheses, and the impact of traditional economy macro factors. It is best to critically assess our own performance and those of crypto industry peers. With new data points, previously approved initiatives may not be the template for future ones.
Increase Priority: $BIT products
When BitDAO was launched in 2021, the original strategy was to grow the treasury via direct investments, and the creation of BitDAO-like entities (sub-DAOs / autonomous entities) and investments. This strategy has had questionable impact on driving outcomes for $BIT, and there have been calls by the $BIT community and stakeholders to develop $BIT core products to drive adoption. The most performant DAOs (Lido, Aave, Uni) have been centered around underlying core products which have large addressable markets and longevity.
Mantle is envisaged to be one of these $BIT core products. Mantle is an Ethereum layer-2 network built with modular architecture delivering low fees and high security. Mantle provides a protocol to attract mass users and dApp adoption, and better outcomes for marketing and growth activities. Note: that initial development of Mantle has been bootstrapped by Bybit, with the next phase being a DAO proposal and budget cycles for expanded development and go-to-market activities.
It is not recommended to pursue swaps and investments that do not have additional strategic outcomes for $BIT, due to the following reasons: 1) has little impact on $BIT token holders other than passively observing investment returns; 2) DAOs have less flexibility to negotiate competitive deals compared to specialized VCs; 3) DAOs have fewer options for post-investment legal and governance involvement once funds have been transferred (see FTT swap situation).
Increased Priority: Discipline in Resource Spend
As we head into a bear market, capital is becoming more valuable, and discipline in resource spend is a core topic among all organizations. For BitDAO this also means increased discipline and hurdle rate for new initiatives, scaling with size of the initiative. Key questions include:
what advantages justifies funding a project that use a separate token and for building a separate community instead of one that uses $BIT token and mainly focused on building a BitDAO community?
what is a reasonable sized first tranche? how do we measure outcomes or adjust before approving subsequent tranches?
how do we increase BitDAO oversight and governance power (direct or representative), to manage outcomes and necessary pivots?
Thanks @cateatpeanut for your valuable feedback. The voting proposal has been deleted and will be re-sent after this weekend to avoid conflicts with holidays.
Replying to your comments:
Proposal size is too large, tranche 1 is too large
Do you think the first tranche should be $2M USD? This is the most recent value of accepted proposals (BIP-17). However, as investments are made on demand, we can adjust the value of the first tranche. Therefore, we propose a new definition: Proposal of $10M USD and first tranche of $2M USD. More explanations about this amount below.
Unable to identify significant and direct outcomes for $BIT
The initial idea of creating a proprietary token has been discontinued and we will now use $BIT as the native token. Some ways to identify the use and metrics that will directly benefit $BIT and Mantle Network are:
Total accounts
Monthly active wallets
Active developers
Projects
Transactions
External funding
Used Gas and Gas Fee
New Contracts and Active Contracts
We will detail these success metrics in different scenarios to have a clear direction of what we should achieve.
Ideas for a restructured proposal
We agree and have already included some of them in the proposal. The intention of exploring more uses for $BIT with utility NFTs and DeFi was already part of the initial project, and the expansion of the use of the Mantle Network is also a priority for us. Therefore, when we mention stablecoins, CBDCs, tokenization and others in the proposal, the intention is to do so through the Mantle Network. - We will clarify this in the proposal.
Regarding your general observations:
Dynamic strategy: Now with your comment we understand better. As the Continent DAO proposal has been in existence for over 12 months and we have carried out several restructurings, we understand that the same thing can happen with BitDAO.
Increased priority: We agree with this priority and the use of $BIT and the Mantle Network are our main priorities. Our plans include developments already on Testnet scheduled for 2023.
Decreased priority: swaps and investments: We also agree with that. Our decision to have our own token, then discontinue it and use $BIT as the main token was a previous move to adapt to this guideline.
Increased priority: discipline in resource spend:
We completely agree, the change of plans to discontinue a proprietary token (CONT) to use the $BIT token was conceived with this same vision.
We believe that the first tranche should be sufficient for initial structuring and the other tranches should be used for strategic expansions. The results we want to demonstrate will not be dependent on the new tranches and therefore we will demonstrate the results with the first tranche. Based on this, we believe we should focus on the main market of our strategy, Brazil, and after conquering that market, expand to other locations in Latin America. Our studies point to a total of $10M USD for a wide dominance in Brazil. Considering these factors, we believe the first tranche of $2M USD is adequate.
In addition to direct or representative supervision, a choice that can also help us with controls and supervision is the development of legal structures that are shared with other members of BitDAO Core or the option of defining a third party of mutual trust to carry out the necessary verifications, for example, a highly reputable accounting firm.
According to the new feedback, we have added the following features to the Continent DAO proposal:
• Reduced resource request and tranches by -54.55% in total (on page 3).
• Added our duties in the development of the BitDAO and Mantle Network community (on page 10).
• Successful partnership evaluation guidelines (on page 12 and 13).
• Emphasized the use of the $BIT and Mantle Network tokens in all our initiatives (on page 8).
• Updated this topic with the latest information.
Link to updated proposal:
We would like to remind readers to refer to the latest version of the proposal mentioned above. Previous versions are still available online, but they are outdated.
