cOSSmos

corruption resistant

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

It's About MONEY
AADAO’s announcement to sunset today is surprising.
Yesterday, they said they'd defer the decision to 01/25. Anyway clarity is good. But their reason is bogus.

The primary drivers influencing their decision stem from lack of legit purpose and unrealistic compensation expectations. It's about money.

Mandate Challenges: AADAO has failed to define a concrete, actionable purpose. The current mandate of "value accrual for ATOM" is both abstract and ineffective; w/ subjective interpretations of value, ambiguous ROI metrics, and untenable links bw DAO activities and $ATOM price impact. From pilot, they set themselves up for failure by pumping you on their ability to pump your bags. Ngmi

Attempts to pivot mandate have been paralyzed by uncertainty due to lack of vision as to what the hub needs and leadership shortcomings writ large.

Recruitment and Bonuses: Contributors were recruited under premature and half baked bonus assurances -- the execution of half baked was challenged bc their convoluted scheme to utilize public resources was ripe w COIs; lacked LOGIC and approval from the community (missing KPIs). This misrepresentation created dumb expectations that evidently proved unfeasible. That's on DAO leadership and the contributors who conflate possibility with an irresponsible promise.

And w/o "bonuses" -- they can't obscure their actual/possible comp behind relatively low-ish salaries...bc oversight insists salaries must be shared. Cue: "you're obstructing ops efficiency!"

BC Bonus is Non-Viable Compensation Tool:
Obviously, w/o objectively clear mandate or measurable KPIs, contributors struggle w defining individual and team success. So the team decided to relinquish their bonuses, returning the balance of 88k bonus $ATOM to cp.

Who stays, who goes is fundamentally about how much one gets paid. The non-viability of bonuses for the current year, or in prospective renewal translates into disinterest.

Salary Increase: With bonuses off the table, the only way to bump up comp is through salary increases. On 10/31, salary increases (27% on average) for eight contributors went into effect. Initially, contributors sought an average increase of 36%, and the increases were proposed w/o consistent or defensible logic (recurring issue). The increases also exceeded the comp tiers established via hub gov. Due to oversight guidance, the in-demand increases were modified to stay w/in 865 pay parameters -- but the discussions were unreasonably challenging.

AADAO also opposed oversight’s insistence that planned increases should be disclosed transparently to community. No bueno. Sounds like fr commitment to transparency.

After 5.5 months, I can say the pattern of org behavior leans towards information withholding.

Conclusion:
Blaming oversight is weak and disappointing.
Despite recent salary bump, the majority still believe their pay is inadequate for keep.

There's a real disconnect between what they want versus what they can get. Hence "sunset".

Still room for a new team to step up with a revised mandate. Just know, unlikely pay can be more than what contributors get now. For updated comp #s, see 👇
#Cosmos

Full post about this:
https://t.co/MutaF1uY4n

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

Trump will win the popular vote and the electoral vote.

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

Disable LSM.

AiB finds that:
- "Majority of LSM code written by North Korean agents"
- "Alarmingly, the same North Korean developers who had contributed the majority of the original code were tasked with addressing the findings raised by the audit."
- 'LSM is not a standalone module but rather a series of modifications and extensions built on top of the existing Cosmos staking modules. The term “module” is more of a conceptual shorthand, used to describe the liquid staking features added to the core Cosmos SDK staking functionality. Consequently, any vulnerability in Iqlusion’s LSM that impacts these core modules could potentially put all staked ATOM at risk, as liquid staking interacts directly with staked assets."

The ICF also bears responsibility here for lack of oversight wrt to development it funds.

https://t.co/Qty4hEcG0t

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

Who let the dogs out?

I value community engagement and research, but it's crucial to maintain high standards of accuracy in our discussions. For a while now, I've observed a concerning pattern with Ray Raspberry's contributions to our community dialogue.

While his efforts to investigate and share findings may be well-intentioned, his track record shows a consistent lack of diligence and attention to detail.

The problematic pattern lies in how he mixes facts with speculation, facts with fiction, facts with accusations. This cocktail of good information with bad takes generates confusion, misinformation, and more frankly -- hate.

What's particularly troubling is that his inaccuracies often seem conveniently positioned to enable attacks on individuals. Moreover, when presented with evidence that challenges his hypotheses, Ray ignores or responds negatively to corrections and alternative viewpoints provided. This behavior is not conducive to productive discourse or accurate information sharing.

The Cosmos ecosystem deserves better leadership.
But it also deserves better community watchdogs.
Ray is not a watchdog.
He's an attack dog.
Beware of dog.
$woof

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

The @ATOMAccelerator contributors voted unanimously to end the tenure of its General Manager and Co-founder, Youssef Amrani.
This happened because the Oversight bells tolled 🔔

And for the first time in the 6-year history of the #Cosmos Hub, there is now real and resounding accountability being actualized within organizations that receive $ATOM funding from the community pool.

Although an overdue precedent, this is a powerful signal. Wake up to the new era of responsible stewardship.

Integrity is an accelerator.
https://t.co/1vsrk5RPUn

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

I'm compelled to share an AADAO StratComm call inadvertently recorded by https://t.co/FDu1KmE2pN and sent to my inbox last Friday. This disclosure is made with disbelief, disappointment, great reluctance and sadness.

Background:
On 9/11, AADAO placed me, Patricia Mizuki (Controller), and Youssef Amrani (GM) on "Operational Freeze".
AADAO claimed this was necessary to "evaluate the accusations made by each party, and then come to a consensus for moving forward."

The core team committed to conducting an unbiased assessment of both Oversight's review and Youssef's account of events. They pledged to produce a comprehensive Summary/Master Report, which would include key "testimonies" supporting their conclusions (leading to eventual resolutions).

The Reality:
The recording reveals that AADAO's process for creating their Master Report is far from the impartial assessment they promised. Instead, it exposes a prejudiced and malicious approach that undermines the hard work and dedication of Oversight and other DAO members who remain uninvolved in this vulgarity. It becomes clear that the "operational freeze" implemented on 9/11 was not a genuine attempt at fair evaluation, but rather a calculated move to buy time.

This time was then used to coordinate a concerted effort to discredit Oversight, with a particular focus on using manufactured statements/testimonies targeting Pati. This revelation starkly contrasts with AADAO's public commitment to fairness and transparency, highlighting a troubling pattern of disconnect between their stated intentions and actual actions.

Why This Matters:
Pati's professional reputation is at stake. As an accounting and auditing professional, her name and reputation is her most valuable asset.

The constant regression to unqualified personal attacks as a method of organizational defense is absolutely unacceptable.
And these attacks unfairly damage the integrity of steadfast professionals who help us uphold accountability in our space.

My Attempts at Resolution:
I reached out to two AADAO contributors yesterday, seeking a discreet resolution.
My goal was to address the evident misconduct quietly, avoiding additional controversy.
Regrettably, this approach was unsuccessful.

Why I'm Sharing This Now:
The persistent and escalating attacks against Pati leave me no choice.

It's crucial that the community understands the nature of AADAO's "narrative" is wholly unethical and predetermined.

Recommendations on how we move forward:
1. Immediate GM termination
2. Lift 'operational freeze' on Oversight
3. Migrate AADAO to Cosmos Hub
4. Establish AADAO Oversight SubDAO by 9/25
5. Investigate misconduct of other members; especially other members of AADAO leadership

Read more here: https://t.co/mmNWQwlZD9

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

According to Youssef Amrani, AADAO General Manager (GM), he asserts that his base salary ($14.5K USDC per month), total possible compensation structure (base salary + retention bonus + performance bonus), and his proposed methodology for team and individual bonus allocations utilizing 100,000 ATOM (distributed as 70% performance, 20% retention, 10% StratComm) were all approved by governance through Proposal 865.

This claim can be heard in the provided audio from AADAO's August 30th Strategy Committee meeting.

However, the Oversight Committee strongly disagrees with Youssef's interpretation that the total possible compensation structure for himself and the team had been completely "approved" by governance.

A critical issue for Oversight is that the "Performance and Retention Bonus Protocol" document, which details the bonus distribution and usage, was not directly linked in the text of Proposal 865. Limited surveys conducted by me with voters and validators indicate that:

1. They voted in favor of the *potential* use of 100,000 $ATOM bonus pool, contingent on the team deserving bonuses.
2. They understood the use of the bonus was dependent on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) shared with and approved by the community.
3. Many were unaware of the Performance & Retention Bonus Protocol document when voting in favor of the proposal.

To clarify what was actually approved by those who voted 'Yes' on Proposal 865, we are seeking community input on these critical questions:

1. Was it explicitly clear that the 100,000 $ATOM bonus allocation for "Performance and Retention Protocol" could be used to supplement monthly salaries?

2. Is it appropriate to use the bonus pool for contributor performance that merely "meets expectations," (average/unexceptional performance) or should it be reserved for performance that "exceeds expectations" or better?

3. Did you interpret a "YES" vote on Proposal 865 as approving all policies within linked documents, such as the "AADAO Performance and Retention Bonus Protocol"?

4. In your opinion, does passing a proposal implicitly ratify all linked documents and their contents, or should such ratifications be more explicit? Additionally, how do we determine if document linkage is sufficient, and where should these links be presented?

We urge community members to join us in the Forum and respond to these questions.

Your input is crucial in understanding the true scope of what was approved through Proposal 865.

For reference, the Performance and Retention Bonus Protocol can be found at the provided link:  https://t.co/3T5hl4azqz

Forum conversation: https://t.co/qZk5d1oVPP

AADAO Historic Compensation & Bonus Distribution: https://t.co/DNDIYfKlrR

#Cosmos #AADAO

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

Alert: AADAO Oversight Concerns Re GM Misconduct/Mismanagement

Patricia Mizuki, AADAO's Financial Controller, has issued an important statement addressing several critical issues:

1. Explanation of Oversight's decision to withhold approval for the proposed bonus methodology.

2. Analysis of why the proposed methodology is laden with conflicts of interest, potentially amounting to self-dealing.

3. Details on why the GM Youssef Amrani's actions to pressure approval of the proposed methodology are considered misconduct and mismanagement.

4. A comprehensive rebuttal to GM Youssef Amrani's accusations that Oversight lacks integrity in publishing our special report.

5. Evidence provided to support Oversight's analysis leading to the publication of the special report; and supporting materials that challenge GM's wild counter claims that our special report is motivated by malice and retaliation.

Please refer to Patricia Mizuki's post on the #Cosmos Hub Forum here:
https://t.co/pkdwTCjgaI

The complete rebuttal with receipts can be accessed here:
https://t.co/D159rGbTZY

$ATOM

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

AADAO GM Youssef Amrani's recent posts on the #Cosmos Hub Forum reveal a concerning pattern of logical fallacies, including straw man arguments, whataboutisms, false equivalences, and outright lies.

His latest forum post today continues this trend, with more unfounded accusations and distortions of the truth.

For example, he claims that I breached "confidentiality and social rules" by encouraging the Controller to share the team's full compensation structure. He implies this was done subversively and maliciously.

It was not.

It was done openly. Politely. And I even had his agreement.

These allegations, like all of Youssef's allegations against Oversight, are false and can be easily disproven.

I have receipts. Audio receipts.

To set the record straight, I'm providing concrete evidence in the form of an audio excerpt from AADAO's August 29th Biweekly meeting.

This recording clearly demonstrates that Youssef himself encouraged and agreed with Oversight sharing all relevant documents to facilitate informed team wide discussions wrt to his proposed bonus methodology.

The provided audio will directly contradict his claims in forum.

I'm sharing this to deter Youssef from leaning on deceit as a defense. It's a problem.

His accusations regarding Oversight's handling of his misconduct and mismanagement are equally unfounded. All relevant calls pertaining to these matters have been recorded by me, and the conversations on record can easily refute a variety of his allegations against Oversight members.

It's important to clarify that there was no breach of confidentiality. Contributor compensation data is publicly available on the blockchain and forms AADAO's mandatory public reporting obligation to the community.

The audio excerpt from the Aug 29th, which I've linked below, serves as a starting point for Oversight's direct challenge to Youssef's tactical deception.

I urge all community members to listen and draw their own conclusions about the veracity of Youssef's claims versus the reality of how things were discussed, and why certain documents were shared.

Please also be informed that AADAO's Financial Controller, Patrica Mizuki will be posting a full response to Youssef's 9/11 post later today.

Audio excerpt link:
https://t.co/AMXfyCF016

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

I heard no one reads.

So, I'll be doing an AMA on AADAO's Special Report via video chat on Telegram.

Times: Tonight, 09/13, 11:30pm EST
09/14, 12:30PM EST

Join
https://t.co/ofbMwO10T5

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

Incompetence is when you pay a Senior Oversight Member throughout the entire pilot year despite frequent reports of that member doing nothing.

Incompetence is when you reduce the Senior Oversight Member's salary twice, and the contributor is still non performant.

Incompetence is when you keep the zero contributor on payroll bc it's not your money, and what you fear more is scrutiny from the community.

Incompetence is when you can't design SMART KPIs for your team, despite having 9 months to do so.

Incompetence is when you push a bonus scheme designed to allocate $ATOM for mid or unexceptional performance.

Incompetence is when the pressure you exert on the Financial Controller to approve your self interested policies are not effective enough, so wifey has to call the Controller for you.

Misunderstanding of role is when you fancy yourself as a GM/LP of a VC when you're actually managing a mandate that is completely funded by the hub's community pool.

Misunderstanding of role is when you demand Oversight to behave like your Marketing and PR subDAO than as the independent body it is mandated to be as per charter and bylaws.

Malice is when you deliberately mislead community into believing you will use ATOM bonus pool to incentivize exceptional performance. Meanwhile, you're hustling to score potential contributors to accept sub market salaries on the promise ATOM will be $16, and they will get 50% of a performance-based tokens for just showing up to the job.

Malice is more like you, YOUssef Armani.

Oversight's Special Report:
https://t.co/NF45y445tN

AADAO Historic Comp and Bonus Distribution:
https://t.co/GIFrLOtfSs

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

Oversight's Special Report is here:
https://t.co/jP6u4PVZJu

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

Today at 5:30pm EST, AADAO’s Oversight Committee will be publishing a Special Report: Notification Regarding Proposed Bonus Methodology, Alleged Misconduct/Mismanagement Involving the General Manager (GM, Youssef Amrani), and Governance Concerns

The report will be posted to Cosmos Hub Forum, here: https://t.co/06VrUfYfbS

The forthcoming report consists of the following sections:

I. Executive Summary

1. Formally notify the Cosmos Hub community of significant concerns regarding AADAO's proposed bonus methodology and framework.
2. Alert the community to recent events that have substantially compromised the Oversight Committee's ability to perform its duties effectively.

These developments have precipitated serious concerns about AADAO's governance practices, financial management protocols, and executive operations integrity.

II. Background

Proposal 865 allocated 100,000 ATOM for a performance and retention-based bonus program. The proposal passed without clearly defined methodology or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the bonus distribution.

III. Oversight Decision to Withhold Approval

The Oversight Committee has withheld approval for the proposed bonus methodology due to:

1. Inappropriate application of bonuses as variable compensation tools.
2. Disproportionate favoring of senior roles.
3. Ineffective incentivization for performance.
4. Lack of objectivity and specificity in KPIs.
5. GM’s refusal to share individual contributor performance-based KPIs with the community

IV. 2024 Team Compensation Concerns

The proposed methodology disproportionately renders benefits for the GM's total possible compensation. Assuming a daily $ATOM average of $8.66 from 01/01/24 - 08/29/24, the GM's total monthly compensation in 2024 is $19,938 (base salary plus monthly retention bonuses), which represents a 86% increase from his 2023 monthly compensation of $10,700.

The proposed methodology also potentially exacerbates existing compensation disparities, particularly disadvantaging and/or disincentivizing new hires with less competitive salaries.

V. Community Input Request

The Oversight Committee seeks community clarity on:

1. The scope of approval granted by Proposal 865.
2. The appropriateness of the proposed bonus methodology.
3. The use of bonus ATOM for performance that "meets expectations" rather than "exceeds expectations".

VI. Alleged Misconduct Involving the General Manager

Serious allegations have been raised, including:

1. Excessive and potentially abusive compensation for the GM.
2. Intimidation and inappropriate behavior towards the Financial Controller.
3. Improper involvement of non-DAO personnel in financial matters.

VII. GM's Interference with Oversight

The GM has ordered a "cease and desist" of my initiated review relating to allegations of his misconduct/mismanagement.

VIII. GM's Proposal for External Investigation

The GM has proposed engaging an external investigator/ombudsman, raises the following concerns:

1. Obvious conflicts of interest involved in making such a proposal.
2. Cost implications to support the proposed investigation are substantial and ambiguous -- who will pay? Is this an appropriate DAO outlay?
3. Possible circumvention of established and active oversight mechanisms.

IX. Conclusion

The Oversight Committee urges community restraint in judgment while seeking input on the raised concerns. We caution against premature calls for AADAO's dissolution and reaffirm our commitment to transparency and accountability.

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

In advance, I want to ask everyone for their _temperance_ in reading a formal notification from AADAO Oversight. Will be published tomorrow.

I will be posting the notification to Cosmos Hub Forum, and will share relevant link on socials.
#Cosmos $ATOM

[SmartNodes Validator ⚛️ #CosmosEcosystem @nodes_smart]

My partner Cassandra is in a really bad state and we have no one to rely on except our Space Family. We would appreciate any support and if you can donate crypto, here are our wallets

cosmos17gfl500622t6v24jsvtlcnhgt2mddt6qvwegmp

osmo17gfl500622t6v24jsvtlcnhgt2mddt6qy42cdn

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

So many Cosmos TG chats.
But if you're a governance nerd, lemme plug CosmonautHQ chat. Join us here:
https://t.co/ofbMwO10T5

Will be providing updates about 952, AADAO Oversight -- and the #AtomOne team also have a topic channel in there. $ATONE the hub y'all lol

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

All in Bits (AiB), co-creators of the #Cosmos Hub and contributors to core Cosmos infrastructure, issued a formal statement explaining their YES vote for prop #952.

Primary Reasons:

1. Dereliction of Duty: The ICF has failed to fulfill its mandated responsibilities to fund, steward, and advance the Hub, $ATOM and Cosmos ecosystem.

2. Absence of Strategic Vision: Critical lack of clear, long-term strategy for ATOM and Hub, resulting in community confusion, ecosystem stagnation and rudderless ATOM culture.

3. Governance Deficiencies: Rudimentary and self-satisfied governance structures ignoring the obvious innovation opportunity in using distributed ledger tech to forge a new operational/management paradigm. Lack of resourcefulness in using existing on-chain tools to do the transparency, accountability, and mandate effectiveness job/s.

In other words, despite having super substantial endowment resources to evince vision through an established mandate, the ICF's manifest lack of IMPACT is why AIB votes YES #952.

Given such evident deficiencies, AiB extends 952's call to action, inviting the community to discuss what strategic execution can look like.

Ideas that resonate:

a) Strategic Clarity: Development and communication of a coherent growth strategy for Hub, aligned with product goals and industry demands.

b) Experimental Support: Official endorsement of Cosmos Hub forks for innovation purposes. The mandate to support decentralized architectures is aligned w this.

c) Advancement of Blockchain-Based Governance: Implementation of on-chain representations of resources allocation and utilization.

What resonates with me a bit less: (not an objection, but...)

Appointment of more technical leadership to the ICF FC. Imo, what the FC more urgently needs are persons experienced with corporate governance.

ICF leadership has been adversely affected by an overemphasis on technical and or academic expertise in cryptocurrency at the expense of other vital competencies.

The management of not-for-profit purpose foundations require soft skills that are not typically cultivated in technical roles, irrespective of a dev’s engineering achievements.

We need organization change-agents...FC members that can manage people and manage mandates effectively.

I'd like to see a re-established Technical Advisory Board with substantive advisory influence within ICF's governance mechanisms.

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

NWV #952 Hub Validators
No commentary.
Just the numbers.

ICF Delegations to @imperator_co
Cycle 1 $ATOM: 242,588
Cycle 2 $ATOM: 27,814
Cycle 2 $OSMO: 8,770
Cycle 2 $IRIS: 546,8571
Cycle 2 $TIA: 294,117

ICF Delegations to @polka_chu
Cycle 1 $ATOM: 175,202
Cycle 2 $ATOM: 94,340

ICF Delegations to @NodeStake_top
Cycle 2 $ATOM: 100,131
Cycle 2 $TIA: 294,117

ICF Delegations to @DoraFactory
Cycle 2 $ATOM: 333,770
*Total Bonded: 563,640

ICF Delegations to @frensvalidator
Cycle 1 $ATOM: 94,340
Cycle 2 $ATOM: 27,814
*Total Bonded: 461,820

Cycle 1: https://t.co/g0RwgppdH1

Cycle 2: https://t.co/nLltBwHBS6

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

Is Dora Factory PGS affiliated with @DoraHacks?
If so, I'd like to understand why VETO on #952. Voting that way without an explanation is what I expect from a governance hack.
Not DoraHacks.
https://t.co/7b1LXGWGgx

[G. 🎒🕶️ @gyunit_]

LMAO ☠️ 😭
Just validating the grounds for why #952's call to action is valid.

A shrewd and more mature person would have refrained from voting.
Bc that's the proper thing to do.
But he doesn't know restraint.

Ethan Buchman doesn't understand *conflicts".
His decisions are guided by gross self-interest.
And this fact resounds through his dual control of the ICF and Informal Systems.

He's the reason the #Cosmos got decentralization twisted. And why the ICF mandate mutated into the "most relevant tech stack" that keeps Informal paid the most. He's turned this eco into a self-dealing dev industrial complex. And his private company is now the hub's single point of failure.

No confidence in the ICF leadership.
Hard YES to #952.
$ATOM

https://t.co/tGkuPBIgX3