I respect strong views and engagement; even heated debate; but what you are doing feels of a much different nature and I would appreciate keeping the tone positive.
Because Weston has now maligned my character in multiple places and stood himself up as a defender of constructive feedback, I hope nobody minds a brief response to discuss his conflicts in doing so.
Here’s Weston, a competitor, unprompted, commenting in response to a governance proposal made by Thales to partner with us:
Without disclosing his conflicts, he made up wild lies about my team, thinking we weren’t there to defend ourselves, and he couldn’t support any of his claims when we confronted him about them, instead continuing to insult us. I didn’t even know at the time he was at Saddle, and now things make a lot more sense.
Here all I did was share inconvenient facts in response to a question. Instead of considering potential means of improving his proposal or offering different sorts of pools that would meet an unmet need on Optimism, more dissembling and unprovoked character attacks.
I mentioned Frax because Weston had made leveraging their partnership with Frax to establish them on Optimism central to his case. Simply put, they’re already here, on Velodrome, on Uniswap, and on Perpetual Protocol (as collateral!).
I will continue to withhold my thoughts about Saddle’s proposal. Out of respect for people’s attention, I’ll do my best not to respond further here.
A final note: I wouldn’t hold myself up as a defender of DeFi and best practices in governance while multiple times trying to convince my VC to abandon her principles and vote for my proposal (much respect, @linda ) as Weston has done here. Shameful.