As I mentioned before, the current Teragon proposal was not accepted by the majority of the community before it went onchain. This is why I don’t view it as a legitimate proposal despite Teragon being a legitimate team with a value-add proposal.
Additionally, the fact that the proposal only covers the technical and strategic integration without mentioning business continuity concerning incentivizing both lenders and borrowers to engage with these structured products would leave the DAO, especially in its transitory state, in further limbo.
That being said, it is a subjective view as others might believe the proposal gained sufficient feedback and economic backing due to its ability to convince large TRU token holders to vote in its favor.
This is why, we should quantify community sentiment by requiring a forum quorum of 15 members voting and a majority vote (+51%) before a forum proposal goes on-chain. Otherwise, we leave it to the current situation of subjectively evaluating community sentiment. In the future, these governance mechanisms, including transferring the canceller keys away from potentially biased service providers to the Directors, will occur.
For now, if the cancellors believe that the vote is removing significant amount of TRU from the treasury without alignment from the community, and is worthy of being canceled, then that’s for the current holders to decide.
If:
it still passes, the Directors and the current operators still aligned with the TrueFi vision will work with Teragon to see the best steps forward.
it doesn’t, the community should revisit Teragon’s original proposal and redraft it before it goes onchain again.
This is a point that I think you absolutely mean well and trying to find a balance on the cancellor function usage, but I’ve been re-thinking this. The fact that you mentioned that VOTING on the forum site would be your metric, I just recalled something (good thing I went for night-time pee):
I was really disturbed by @StrategoHoldings somewhat cryptic but clear message on the Wallfacer 2.5 thread:
I really hate to air Telegram chats in public, but this one between Wallfacer and our Independent Board - really disturbed me enough to show this here - that is light of Stratego’s comments:
I find it disingenuous to attempt to manipulate the independent board to create a proposal and then Wallfacer put it up on Tally (to falsely think this was the board’s approved proposal).
So, are these votes real? Is even this proposal real, or was this a similar collusion behind the scenes?
I think Teragon has suffered enough of attacks and colluded efforts to undermine them.
I think community members like @StrategoHoldings shouldn’t be put to this.
I don’t think the board member like you, @vandynathan should be put to this.
Why is this all done to overturn a fair vote? A vote to change things for the better? A vote that has revealed the True Final Hearts and Incentives of actors here?
I think given the muck, the only fair way forward is to let Teragon have a chance as no series of discourse has been legitimate.
I ask Archblock instead to refrain from voting and allow Teragon to help the DAO Voters, the majority of them who have voted with their holdings.
I would like to redirect to the merit of the proposal.
I am a little bit concerned the answer of "why did teragon not deliver previously and how will we ensure value for truefi " was “it was not my job/responsibility.” In all honestly, this alone disqualifies the proposal.
We cannot have fragmented work groups with no management or coordination. Coordination failure in DAOs is standard and the biggest weak point. Yet, in a DAO this small it is more comical than acceptable.
If Teragon wants an executive salary and to be paid for their IP, they need to take accountability for the performance of all aspects of the product and be compensated for the IP only after performance. The same for @WallfacerLabs. No more cash grabs by anyone. Clear terms, risk adjusted, market calibrated. Pigs eat, hogs get slaughtered. Wallfacer just got Slaughtered, and Teragon in its own way.
Please just clean up your deals to be fair, and get them in line or just walk on, please.
The only reason i asked was due to the seriousness of the accusations made in the messages.
In fact, I think you have a duty to voice the concerns you disclosed to me on the forum, @ryan.rodenbaugh.
You definitely swayed my vote and left me doubting everything I thought I knew about my investment in TrueFi. Now, I’m not sure what is true and what isn’t.
As an investor, I demand you voice your accusations on the forum.
The following addition to this message only came after Ryan privately messaged me saying he could not remember what he said.
“And if you cannot remember, ill have no choice but to refresh your memory with the screenshots”
So let’s be clear that you’ve gone from asking consent to threatening our conversation after I did not consent in the span of 2 hours? Since you deleted the conversation, I DM’d you asking you to tell me what you’re referencing so that I can answer you. Very likely, I will be happy to say whatever it is in my own words.
I am absolutely done with your manipulation tatics!
Im not “threatening”, “doxing” or “being rude”
Im giving you a chance to voice your “educated suspicios” you voiced privately on Telegram, but instead you dance around it taking zero responsibility.
You then privately messaged me 42mins ago here on the forum asking me to refresh your memory by asking me what you said. I then replied “no more private messages”
I then update my message after your private message;
Now you come onto the forum with accusations of me threatening you because i said i need to refresh your memory with screenshots.
You know precisely what im referring to Ryan, enough with your BS.
You voiced certain concerns that i need to find the facts to. And the only way for this is to happen is if you can voice them directly to the people you are making accusations towards to give them a chance to respond.
To be honest, your actions are completely baffling to me Ryan, almost to the point where i feel you may have an accountability behavioural issue.
You my friend are not good for Truefi from a business standpoint. Your team may be great but you are not the guy for Truefi to be propelled forward
Stratego, that is all you needed to say. I don’t understand where the frustration is coming from. I think you think I’m trying to play some big game and manipulate, but the reality is that I often just say what I’m thinking at most times. Sometimes, it’s wrong.
In this case, I’m not DM’ing you to try and have some secret conversation, I just did not know what you were referencing given that we had been going back and forth over the span of a few weeks.
Also, from the time we first spoke about this in late June to now my thinking has also evolved a lot.
If you had said, “Hey Ryan, when we spoke privately you shared some “educated suspicions” about who voted against your proposal and what the motive may have been”, I would have come here and said that yes, I believed that Bastion was the large voter against our proposal. Bastion (Masa) was one of the few people who has both the balance sheet to purchase so many TRU tokens and was one of the few people who spoke with us about specific concerns. At the same time though, I was back then very confused about why they would do that or what their motive may have been.
Given everything that followed, specifically the Teragon proposal, I feel more strongly in this suspicion today. If that is not the case then I genuinely have no idea who voted against us and who voted for Teragon.
That said, for Wallfacer’s purposes or Teragon’s purposes it does not particularly matter right now.
Wallfacer has no plans to make another funding proposal. This is not me doing some kind of negotiating tactic. No, we are not planning to make another funding request of TrueFi.
The only exception, is what I said to Nathan above in the screenshot Masa shared. We would be glad to do a stopgap set of work if/when a new team is selected to help them get up to speed fully and utilize everything TrueFi has. In the case of Teragon, I don’t expect them to make another onchain proposal any time soon, and I am looking forward to the competitive process that others have suggested!
I don’t have much else to say at this point for now. If new information comes to light, I will be happy to share it so that all people can make an educated decision.
From when we initially spoke to now, I have not gone much deeper on this topic. The only other new information that has come to light is Teragon’s proposal which clearly had Masa’s support.
At the time of rejection, I also thought Archblock (or more likely people from Archblock) might have voted against us as there are not that many large token holders who had historically been involved in governance. However, after the first few days following the rejection, I changed my mind on this and I do not believe this to be true. I don’t belive Archblock or their team has any intention of re-engaging in the day to day of TrueFi.
Since this delegate chooses to remain anonymous, I have no choice but to speculate and after weeks to think about this – and assuming that the wallets that voted against us and for Teragon were all the same person – my only remaining guess is Bastion/Masa.
Yes I saw that and I think the response from AdL gave a more detailed version of what they are / would be willing to do. Summarizing what I saw as the key points:
AB build an institutional platform on top of TrueFi, however the platform does not need to be sitting on top of TrueFi but could use other, similar infrastructures as well.
Archblock is here to help out if needed and will continue utilizing TrueFi as long as it makes business sense
in the meantime AB continues to build other web3 systems and products.
That said, none of this includes day-to-day protocol dev work, BD, support, etc. which is what Wallfacer did and what a new team should do.
I agree with this. Needs to reach sufficient community traction and interest before going to Snapshot.
Secondly, while I do believe that competition is good and we want open bidding, definitely could use a talk with potential applicants because this is, at the end of the day, larger than just technical contractors. There very much is a holistic factor to consider.
