Delegate Suspension: Fractal Visions

At SEED Latam, we hosted our 11th OP Governance Call, and we decide to vote YES for the Fractal Vision suspension as delegate.

During the call, our collaborators and community members expressed our opinion on the case. We can include it in the following points:

  • First, intentional and deliberate doxxing is BAD even in the circumstances in which this case is presented. We agree that the code of conduct applies.

  • Second, the foundation should look for the means so that the decision can be made with less opacity from the point of view of the delegate/voter.

About evidences

In this case, the defendant has admitted his fault, for which reason it can be considered sufficient. However, as @lee0007 and our contributor pointed out @AxlVaz above, there is not enough information about what the exact accusation regarding doxxing is and how the process was carried out between the different parties. We recognize showing the complete evidence also implies a doxxing by default, but better information about the rest of the case should be provided in a more detailed way (timing, structured comments of the accuser and defendant, etc.).

How to improve the proccess

For these cases of complaints against delegates, the process should be more linear between the accusation, the mediation process and the vote. For specific cases of doxxing, although initially handled by the Foundation, it would be nice if a trusted third party designated by governance could verify this information if it’s impossible to make it public.

About the initial complaint

The complaint of potential fraud shouldn’t be underestimated and we encourage community members to investigate these suspicions, even if it’s not, for the moment, a direct competence of the governance.

Message for the accused

We hope @FractalVisions can learn from their mistakes and come back when the suspension period is over.