Proposal for Tech Infusion, Support, and Expansion of TrueFi Products

[kaimi]

Leaving you with a quote from TrueFi original founder:

@rafaelcosman

Based on a review of the circumstances, this proposal appears to me to be both faulty and potentially adversarial, and so would be subject to cancellation.

[StrategoHoldings]

While In this particular case, the proposal was ultimately “reverted” due to the following self-admission after the proposal was found to be both “faulty and potentially adversarial”

@han

Due to an incorrect timestamp parameter, our proposal was rendered invalid

I completely agree with the following statement: It is imperative to ensure that all new proposals from any potential development teams are well-informed.

@Sh4un

It has become evident that there needs to be clearly defined procedures and rules on what constitutes a legitimate proposal, why and when a proposal can be overturned by the “Canceller Authority” and transparency regarding the parties and their actions entrusted with this duty.

[kaimi]

@StrategoHoldings

While In this particular case, the canceller multi-sig was ultimately used due to the following self-admission.

what self-admission? and canceller was not used.

[rafaelcosman]

@kaimi

canceller was not used

Confirmed - canceller was not used.

[StrategoHoldings]

Apologies, proposal failed. Its 1am here

I took the following “usage of the canceller would in my opinion be appropriate in this case” as the Canceller was used.

@rafaelcosman

Specifically, there appear to be significant irregularities around how this proposal was made, and usage of the canceller would in my opinion be appropriate in this case.

I missed this

@rafaelcosman

Based on a review of the circumstances, this proposal appears to me to be both faulty and potentially adversarial, and so would be subject to cancellation.

[kaimi]

No, it was not cancelled.

It failed due to mistake by Terragon team - that they did not know about - until they were told.

[StrategoHoldings]

Thank you for keeping things on point

[Sanctus]

Sigh. All that conflict for naught.

[convexeuler]

It’s not for naught my dude. Canceller was initiated and would have been used if not for the Teragon self goal.

• Cancellers showed their hands - will cancel if they don’t like a vote.
• Teragon shot itself in the foot by rushing
• WF & Cicada are out to drain the treasury
• Treasury ruggers trying hard to drive narrative so the graft can continue

@StrategoHoldings & @SkyH seem to be the voice of reason so far.

[kaimi]

^^

Joined on July 3rd. Accuses long-time contributors who have been involved since the beginning. Supports dishonest board member that was publicly called out.

[convexeuler]

ah yes, only incumbent ruggers are allowed to opine

[ryan.rodenbaugh]

@convexeuler

• WF & Cicada are out to drain the treasury

Let me state this upfront so that comments from Wallfacer people in the future can hopefully be understood from a different perspective:

Wallfacer Labs has NO intention of making another large funding proposal to TrueFi. For all intents and purposes, we are DONE as a major contributor to the protocol and are content with this outcome.

At the same time, I’ve worked on TrueFi since Day 0, before it even had a name or was what it is today. Myself and many people who work at Wallfacer have a deep sense of loyalty and care for the protocol. I imagine the same is true for people like Raf (TrueFi’s original founder) who—even though he has stepped away from the day-to-day operations of the protocol—felt the need to get reactivated as a result of Teragon’s proposal.

Contrary to all of Teragon team’s lazy ad hominem attacks, there is no conspiracy to cancel their proposal so that Wallfacer can make a new one. None of our pushback to the Teragon proposal was due to us intending to make another core contributor proposal of our own.

As it stands today, the only exception is IF WE ARE ASKED, we will happily serve the DAO and take on a significantly smaller, stopgap proposal so that existing managers can continue their work uninterrupted and we can hand over all of our knowledge and know-how to a new team, along the lines of what Foundation Director Nathan proposed below.

TrueFi & Wallfacer Labs: Chapter 2.5

Thanks for the calculations and comments @Sanctus. I think this framing is the same reason why we are having this conversation in the first place. Transparency. Currently, the community’s main gripe is the lack of disclosure on individual compensation, and from utilising public information, the current compensation is not proportional or at the market rate. But without competition, the DAO doesn’t have much choice but to pay. The process of the Foundation taking on more responsibilities will he…

Our pushback to the Teragon proposal was due to the fact that is not was not of value to the DAO,

You even said “I voted yes for cancel fwiw”

MALICIOUS GOVERNANCE ATTACK: A Call to Action to Stop the Attack *OPINE IN THE NEXT 42 HOURS*

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. I voted yes for cancel fwiw

@convexeuler

@SkyH seem to be the voice of reason so far.

MALICIOUS GOVERNANCE ATTACK: A Call to Action to Stop the Attack *OPINE IN THE NEXT 42 HOURS*

This is not a surprise since Bastion incubated Teragon. The Bastion team has been trying to get TrueFi to use Teragon since at least February of 2023. [image] Since we’re speaking about conflict’s of interest… [CleanShot 2024-07-14 at 20.19.16] [CleanShot 2024-07-14 at 20.19.31] There has been a lot of back and forth so maybe I missed this earlier, but has no one disclosed this already?

A board director with undisclosed connections to the group making a proposal cannot be considered a “voice of reason.” This violates a fundamental principle of governance, as any basic course on board directorship would emphasize.

@convexeuler

ah yes, only incumbent ruggers are allowed to opine

While I’m not explicitly advocating for this, I believe other forums (I think Gitcoin) have implemented reputation-based systems for weighing in on important decisions. It’s actually impossible to have a serious conversation when most perspectives come from brand new accounts with zero reputation. This doesn’t mean you need to have been a forum member for as long as myself or others, but some proof of reputation from another forum or even a Twitter account would be productive. For all we know, you might work at Bastion, you might work for a competitor (and are trying to create chaos), or you might be a 100% well-intentioned person—we simply can’t tell. Tools like a Gitcoin passport are useful in situations like this.