Delegate Suspension: Fractal Visions

So the people submitting these reports are required to KYC with an ID to verify who they say they are ?

Or is google drive the only requirement to submit a report?


The foundation contacts reporters (who must provide contact information but do not need to reveal their identity publicly) and claims must be substantiated with evidence. There were 6 files uploaded documenting all claims filed. They were not included in the suspension proposal to protect the identity of the reporter.


No OP user should have to fear for their identity being released by a delegate. Some of us are in countries where this can cause more issues than just taxes and it’s very dangerous to allow that type of behavior.


All of the information that I shared was publicly available on Twitter, including the picture of the person and their name…

Also I want to make it clear that the account appeared as a fake or alternate account.
Which joined twitter in 2014 and has only made 63 tweets since…

You can probably understand why I was and still am uncertain about that account’s authenticity.

I do not see any regular posts or anything indicating anything other than it being an alt account.

So the question was whether the account was real or just a cover up.

Many of the accounts I encounter on a daily basis are spam or fake accounts.


Updated proposal to clarify:

  • This report is unrelated to L2DAO or the receipt of any grant funding.
  • A “Yes” vote indicates that you believe a severe violation of the code of conduct has occurred and the delegate should be suspended.
1 Like

Support OAYC’s proposal, Optimism ecosystem should be a place that people respect each others. not insult like this

1 Like

Ooof this is a tough one.

I don’t think that doxxing is okay. In fact this should never be done. But if it’s all publically verifiable information it’s not really doxxing. On the other hand it can be seen as harassment…?

In any case since the foundation has not shared the evidence with us we can’t really vote on this. I don’t think it’s fair to vote on suspending someone without having a chance to study the evidence.

To that end I will abstain from this vote.


I almost missed this post ^^^

Was the Foundation @lavande provided with this information about the public identity?
What right of response/reply did @FractalVisions have before this became public?
Was there a mediation/conflict resolution process?
Is it common practice for support nerds to be frontline in identifying scams?
What routine communications do we have in place that reiterate CoC (i.e community calls &meeting agenda’s template)
What training do the frontline crew have in regard to CoC
What opportunities do frontline crew have to regularly discuss/question CoC?

I am sorry to the person who has reported here, but sans evidence, I have only questions about how the process works for both sides. There is a saying in our line of business “don’t trust, verify”

I also worry that IF the ONLY issue the foundation identified here is doxxing to have included references to other serious violations, such as racial discrimination, is irrelevant and effectively compounds the perceived seriousness of the breach.

Was evidence provided of age and racial discrimination?

Is it possible to hear directly from the person who reported the breach?
Would they care to share their real projects, work to date and successes? Typically with defamation of character should come a right of reply, which could be posted elsewhere in the forum.

EDIT: Can @system advise exactly what types of private/personal information was shared?
Are we talking about someone’s physical address (real risk to person), private email (real risk of harassment), a Twitter ID (public ID), Photo (public domain) or other types of personal info? I ask this because I see that the public profiles were shared with @FractalVisions and the fact that he did not hunt them out is a mitigating factor for me


I share this opinion. It is what I have commented today in the SEELatam and Optimismo Español government call. There was no right to defense and “the adaptation of the commoner’s report” is modified by a third party, in this case it seems to be a member of the optimism foundation that we do not know and we do not know what role he plays. There is a lack of context!

I do not justify at all what @FractalVisions did, but it is not a fair way to proceed and to be so non-transparent.


Very well said, by lee0007.

I have little insight into what has actually occurred in this case, but the issues raised by Lee point to flaws in the reporting, conciliation, information dissemination, and suspension processes, that has resulted in a lack of procedural fairness being offered to Fractal Visions.

Further, delegates are being asked to pass judgement in the Vote without the full information that could reasonably allow a high-impact decision like this to be confidently made.


Agree that intentional doxxing is very harmful and can cause a lot of distress for the person being doxxed even if everything is available in the public domain, but abstaining from the vote as not enough information has been provided (understandable circumstances)

Given circumstances - in cases like this,
One suggestion would be to share said documentation/evidence with independent delegates or trusted members of the community who can vouch for it, or some kind of workaround which could minimize the blind trust delegates have to put on the foundation

1 Like

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.


Hi everyone, good to see the engagement on this thread. We’d like to clarify our role in the Code of Conduct process.

As outlined in the Code of Conduct, the Foundation plays a purely administrative role in this process and does not adjudicate whether violations have occurred. When a report is filed through the reporting forms linked in the Code of Conduct, we verify the following:

  1. That a specific violation of the Code of Conduct has been properly identified (i.e. Violation #10a); and
  2. That sufficient evidence to prove a plausible violation has been provided such that someone (i.e. the Token House) can make a judgment as to whether the violation occurred.

If a submitted report meets the above two criteria, it will move forward and follow the enforcement process outlined in the Code of Conduct.

To address concerns expressed about this specific instance:

  • Reporting process

    • The violation was reported using the process outlined in the Code of Conduct; it was not reported to the support NERDs. The Foundation only reviews reports that are reported using the appropriate reporting form linked in the Code of Conduct.
  • Specific violation

    • The severe violation that has been reported is doxxing and this vote pertains to that specific violation of the Code of Conduct. We included the full report text, as authored by the reporter, edited as minimally as possible for understandability. This includes references to other violations, which we have not edited out, to limit active involvement on our part.
    • As we outlined in the proposal, the violation that is up for vote relates to doxxing. You do not need to consider any other violations.
  • Evidence

    • As outlined in the proposal, the reporter included sufficient evidence to prove a plausible violation, including 6 files documenting the doxxing (full pictures of the reporter’s face) as well as screenshots of conversations substantiating the doxxing. In cases such as doxxing, the Foundation does not make public the evidence that was submitted without the reporter’s consent in order to protect their privacy. The definitions of doxxing that we use can be found here: Guidance on Severe Violations.
  • Notice

    • Fractal Visions was privately given notice in advance of the proposal being posted. They were told that a report had been filed and a proposal for their suspension would go to a vote.
    • Fractal Visions had and continues to have the opportunity to respond in the relevant forum post.
    • We do not run a mediation or conflict resolution process, as that goes beyond our role as neutral administrator. We are open to suggestions for adjusting or better establishing a notice period and public response norms.
  • Please remember that the suspension is temporary and lasts for a period of three months. Additionally, voting is not mandatory. Any delegates that do not feel they have sufficient information or are uncomfortable voting on this proposal may abstain.

We welcome suggestions for alternative methods of enforcing the Code of Conduct that reduce or eliminate the Foundation’s role in the process while also minimizing governance overhead. The Foundation is not an arbiter and does not adjudicate whether violations occurred, and given that we are moving towards decentralization, we don’t believe the Foundation should temporarily implement and administer an onerous governance process around adjudication.


Yes, I think that first it would be to investigate well and then make a vote if the project should be punished as such. I think that he carried out an analysis before doing what he did, I think that he should have an opportunity to defend himself. since fractal visions has shown in its path that it has always supported many projects, you know we are all human and can make mistakes, I think that it should be given a new opportunity since the community has always shown support for its project, nothing more to say, I hope this is resolved as it is fair thanks

1 Like

Fractal Vision did make certain mistakes, in my opinion. And above he wrote about it and apologized (read the very beginning of this proposal)
But I think this punishment is not quite justified, under the conditions that we see that have developed and misunderstanding

1 Like

I understand that if rules have been violated, there should be consequences, especially in sensitive areas such as identity. However, I’d like to emphasize two points:

First, there is a climate of distrust surrounding potential Sybil attacks, malicious actors,etc. which may lead to mistakes like the one fractalvision might have made. We need to consider whether there is a suitable mechanism for escalating these suspicions so that we can avoid this kind of situations.

Second, I hope that after the banned period, fractalvision will become an active member of the community again. I believe that we need more people like him for their valuable contributions.


We are back in full swing now and more optimistic than ever !!!

This mishap is not going to keep us down.
We feel that the process could be much better when it comes to the foreseeable future of the governance.

Hopefully :pray: everyone has learned a valuable lesson. I know we have!


I’m really glad to see you guys back.

1 Like