- as you should know there is currently a proposal to move to a weighted voting systems from wrappers, to specifically address concentration of votes of wrappers. Our aip should be up by monday
- this is not gang street war. We are not here to “end orb”. We are here to have community vote on this matter, as good practice in the crypto governance industry advocate. Immutbl saying “We have no intention to continue working as an SP for Balancer after July 31” does not guarantee nor ratify what is going to happen neither tomorrow nor in 2 months nor in 6 months.
- yes, the maxis involved in the governance’s tasks are all aligned on this. They also can or cannot post on this to testify. But to be honest, it feels like discussion is really falling in the “messenger over message” fallacy above mentioned. Again.
1 Like
There is no budget for Orb past the end of July without a Year 2 funding BIP passed by governance, which Orb has stated they will not apply for, and governance could very easily reject if they did.
The message was already delivered loud and clear. Now the governance process being put forward, with the specification as it stands, is creating far too much risk and personal stress on people for no good reason.
I’ve said my part, thank you for taking the time to come here and speak for yourself. I encourage the other Aura Council members to use their own voices more often.
Do you expect people to show up for work on June 1st without knowing if they’ll be paid for the month of June?
8 Likes
@auramaxi you dont seem to take Balancer governance very seriously which makes me angry as a holder of veBAL. the amount of power aura wields over balancer governanc e without regard for real consequences is really frustrating. you guys are a clown show. all that time you spent attacking others should have been spent getting your own shit together and making more productive polished proposals. you keep posting vague half baked nonsense and then trying to rush it to a vote
and clearly you didnt write all of it yourself, you had plenty of help and still failed miserably to do anything useful.
youre tone deaf to the whole discussion happening about giving some stability to valued talent. no SP has to get approved each month for funding not knowing if they are about to lose their jobs. if they post a budget thats egreigous we have time to objecta nd even propose a vote to stop it if it comes to that. if you guys can be more pro-balancer than anti-orb it would help you make beneficial contributions.
4 Likes
I suggest we tone down the rhetoric here. This is governance. We are collectively working through governance. This proposal has now been pending for 9 days and has 44 comments. To label this as a rush ignores the facts and the process that have actually unfolded. Nor is anyone attacking anyone else here (aside from a few burner account exceptions).
This proposal has prompted a healthy dialogue. The process, along with the bigger picture of everything that has unfolded over the last 10 months, has provided anyone paying attention with substantial learning experience in terms of how we can all can do better.
The main benefits are the healthy discussion and dialogue this BIP has produced, along with the voluntary undertakings, additional disclosures, and other follow-on proposals, RFCs, and updates that this proposal prompted after it went live on May 8. (See BIP-301, this proposal, the RFC from the Integrations team, reconciliation of invoices paid by OpCo to Orb, Orb BAL inventory breakdown, and Orb updated Q2 budget forecast).
There remain difficult and nuanced issues and questions to be worked through and answered, but the loose ends don’t take away from the fact that things are now moving in the right direction.
The main concern now being expressed is if Orb’s detailed budget projection for June cannot, for whatever reason, be produced in time for governance approval for funding by next month, then there are serious real life consequences that people will experience. I get that. I think most of the people participating here get that AND want to avoid that situation.
At this point, it makes the most sense to me to avoid those consequences by not taking this proposal to a vote. Instead, we give the process more time to breathe by allowing it to continue to unfold, with monitoring, and continue to engage in healthy dialogue while collectively solving these difficult and nuanced problems. We should allow more answers to be given to the various outstanding questions (the current ones are all in the comments of the links above), allow follow-on questions to be made and answers to be provided, and continue to collectively work towards a peaceful, practical, and productive transition.
9 Likes
We thank everyone for the healthy dialogue. This proposal aimed to set forth an analysis to help all stakeholders determine the future relationship with Balancer DAO, Orb, and its contributors. The community discussions, BIPs, RFCs, proposals, and updates we’ve seen on the forum show that the purpose has been fulfilled. We view this as real progress. We appreciate the RFC posted by integrations and look forward to formalizing its transition plan and the specification of its tasks and deliverables. Given this progress and Orb’s commitment to providing monthly financial updates until it sunsets its current relationship as of July 31st, we agree there is no reason to take this proposal to a vote at this time.
Decentralized governance often requires the expression of competing points of view. While this process may be difficult, particularly when the resolution of these perspectives directly impacts individual stakeholders, we have found it often leads to the best results.
6 Likes
This closure gives Orb and the ecosystem an opportunity to move forward and maximize the next 2.5 months.
I’m encouraged to see the community speak up and prevent the damage that was so close to happening. I also hope community members walk away from this with learnings that lead to more healthy and productive discourse in the future.
This proposal/thread has brought:
- Panic
- Distraction
- Lost productivity
- Community anger
- Flight risk for key talent
- A bad look for Balancer
I hope for Balancer that this does not become the culture moving forward. The reports our team provided in response to this discussion could have just been requested without all of the unnecessary damage that was done.
3 Likes
Respectfully, the forum is littered with unanswered, insufficiently answered, or belatedly answered questions and requests for information. A number of them still exist. I get the selective response approach, but c’mon man.
2 Likes
I tend to agree with @Matt_Alfalfa_or_Span, that this should be more of a lesson for SP’s then for the community, that transparency is important, and at some point there has to be something tangible to show for DAO funds being spent.
I didn’t show up to defend you ser. You ran Orb into the ground, while spending more money than any other SP in the DAO. You started with a team of good people. It’s pretty bad.
You have been paid a lot of money, and ran an org full of good people into the ground in a rather intransparent way. This needed to happen, and it seems like the only way it could have.
This is on you Jeremy. I hope you understand that. I showed up here to defend the integrations team and basic human decency. Not Orb, which is broken. I also stand by a well functioning governance process where the community can raise up and cut out clear fat that is draining the DAO. This was a model in good decentralised governance if you ask me. It’s bound to be a little messy when leadership is so tone deaf. Every escalation had to do with something stupid you wrote.
One thing is clear: While governance has no good way to dictate it, no one thinks that you will do much for the next 2.5 months. At best you would step down and find someone else to wrap things up, this would be better for reducing all of the situations that you created then listed here:
Panic
Distraction
Lost productivity
Community anger
Flight risk for key talent
A bad look for Balancer
It’s your SP though, and how this transition happens is also on you. Please start showing some degree of competence or get out of the way.
Sorry to be so blunt, but your message above is painfully tone deaf.
13 Likes
As always, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I agree with some of your points, but as an Orb contributor, I also agree with many of the points Jeremy raised above. From our perspective, the moment of escalation came when a proposal was posted to this forum to cut the salaries of 8 ecosystem contributors with 3 weeks’ notice. If the intention was to start a public dialogue about Jeremy’s leadership, that seems like quite an extreme way to go about it, no?
The results Jeremy describes are indeed true: this caused over a week’s worth of panic and scrambling among engineering personnel which resulted in very little actual work being done over that span. Not to mention the permanent mark it leaves on many long-term contributors’ impressions of the Balancer ecosystem and the DAO SP model. This was very ugly, and it’s possible to acknowledge that while also acknowledging Orb’s failures.
4 Likes
Hey @rabmarut while generally I agree to all of your points above, I think the sentiment had already been quite clearly expressed by several parties in this discussion. The message from @immutbl reflects his personal need to have the last word in this converstaion, which tbh, was completely unnecessary. In fact, it only served to re-inflame this conversation, reflected by @Tritium’s reaction.
You speak to the abrupt notice that this proposal represented for orb contributors, but one thing I have not seen anyone speak to in this thread is the treatment of the ex-marketing team of orb, your former co-workers. Two of them were given much less than 3 weeks notice for their dismissal. One could even ask themselves, why should an organization be given better terms than they themselves give their own employees.
12 Likes