At the end of the day, the DAO deserves an extended go-shop period. Teragon and their financial backers showed poor form in trying to manipulate the governance process to their own material financial interests.
The irregular perps OI and negative funding rates speak for themselves. We can try to interpret crafted narratives otherwise, but ultimately the facts remain:
1 - Teragon’s proposal clearly had negative tone with a lot of unanswered questions from the community
2 - Timing was rushed across a weekend, with anon wallets juicing the vote last minute
3 - This corresponded with extraordinary perps OI and changes in funding rates
4 - Anon wallets washing ultimate responsibility of who the end financial interest may be, but it was clearly a singularly motivated party(ies) (we have our view, rooted in facts, but are steering clear of ad hominem attacks without knowing for sure)
This will pass and we will build back stronger. Sometimes a foundation needs to torn down a little for a fresh, stronger Foundation.
And although i have my gripes with a certain characters from Wallfacer, i believe in the Wallfacer dev team. I just think they need to be checked with healthy competition and maybe a change of leadership.
I dont believe the “conflict of interest” is regarding one having connections to another dev team but rather the actions/claims made towards another proposal.
And wasn’t the seed financing led by a16z ?
And are these private messages you are sharing @ryan.rodenbaugh ?
@TheSkyHopper Since Bastion incubated Teragon and you’re the founder and investor-partner of Bastion, how much do you benefit from Teragon’s acquisition?
You serve on the board of TrueFi, and you have a duty to token holders. Is this acquisition truly in the best interests of the DAO? Why aren’t you remaining neutral when you have a clear conflict of interest?
Sounds like this could be helped with some governance process design. Open ended voting without defined processes or checks can lead to chaos.
Teragon should just take out the IP fee from their offer (which doesn’t define how and to whom the IP would be transferred) and put in a performance clause instead and put that to a vote.
The main issue is the poor structure – the same issue as the wallfacer proposal.
The products we have developed at Teragon are Teragon’s property. Me and @Sh4un couldn’t help TrueFi with proprietary products with the same time frame nor quality. The value in the deal would not be there without Teragon.
The market has not shown the products or IP to be particularly valuable.
I also did not suggest providing no compensation for the IP. I simply suggested to tie the compensation to specific benchmarks and pay post performance rather than upfront. This helps reasonably mitigate risk for the DAO and put the burden of performance on Teragon, rather than provide a large lump sum payment independent of performance. It is not a good structure.
Paying upfront for IP that has already been deprecated by the authors due to a lack of traction seems a bit unreasonable.
Also, if there is going to be an IP transfer, the documents should already be prepared or a defined process so TRU holders can vote with all the necessary context. Right now, it is a pinkie swear…
That deficiency in and of itself is probably sufficient to negate the proposal and defer until later.
The performance of Teragon, or TrueFi with Teragon’s IP and development muscle is not a product of technology but of strategy+technology+sales+marketing.
We have proven our competency in the former and not the latter. We are proposing our services in the former and not the latter.
I have said in our proposal thread that we are open to some performance based compensation on our technical (development) delivery performance. Nobody pursued it further. Moreover, I don’t think this DAO could offer an objective tech integration performance bonuses i.e. the scope of our proposal, not TVL or token price, which are not under our control or responsibility. The discussions keep asking the same questions answered on the original proposal.
Speaking of our pinky promise on handing the IP, tell me what do you want and I will provide today. There is no way a sold IP and registered company and its entrepreneurs with track records could go on and ignore that sale.
I would like to personally say that i appreciate someone like yourself being a big part of the Truefi Foundation. Having someone like yourself playing such a crucial leadership role for the TrueFi to move onwards and upwards is very much needed.
No, not to my knowledge, unless Wallfacer has been building things without sharing with the community like Trinity.
Teragon’s managed vaults can do what the Index Vaults (beta) are supposed to do, with more flexibility and fund manager involvement. We have used Managed Vaults to offer 2 such investment products on production.
On top of that, as we have shared in our proposal’s first post, there are more use cases of Managed Vaults.
But I’m not doing it to be appreciated. I’m doing it because we need change (like a market maker, I think this can be a good change to have one since Alameda died) and we need change. I don’t want this current status quo to continue.
Honestly, its been painful to watch all other protocols do something meaningful the time Truefi has stagnated relatively. Business wise, I have some ideas, I don’t know if they work out, but we’ve got to start somewhere, and I fully understand we may want to see what is the perfect fit, but we gotta try as things presents itself. But I sure won’t move forward until we move forward from this quagmire.
36 messages here in 36 hours on this thread. Good energy or bad energy, its energy and energy now! Question is how we want to harness it?
I have agreed with @TheSkyHopper that to reduce a potential conflict of interest and ensure a Chinese wall, both myself and @ferengi will solely take over any potential Teragon-TrueFi correspondents moving forward.
Once again, thank you for bringing this forward @Cicada.Partners. The poll created is resoundingly against the Tergaon Proposal going through in its current state.
We cannot have governance work in an unclear way, as this will repel potential bidders and service providers from voting within the DAO on important matters. Therefore, as @Sh4un mentioned each Cancellor should transparently express why they are denying the Proposal.
As of the latest proposal, the Cancellor role has been assigned to a multisig address that includes members from Archblock, Wallfacer, and long-time community members.
TylerEther has initiated the Cancellor vote with an explanation.
One other wallet has also done so, but without an explanation.
It’s required that one more vote, from a community member or Archblock, so that we can revist the Teragon proposal with ample time to discuss its merits and how it may be integrated into the TrueFi vision.
Funny that I see ppl suggesting an unofficial forum vote with pretty much no gatekeeping as a basis for overriding an on-chain DAO vote. Hope ppl have consulted lawyers.
will pass and we will build back stronger. Sometimes a foundation needs to torn down a little for a fresh, stronger Foundation.
