[READY] [GF: Phase 1] Revert Finance Compoundor

Hi squad – please keep the conversation focused on the merits of the proposal at hand. This isn’t the forum to re-hash a past partnership.

If you have any questions please feel free to DM me.

3 Likes

A grant applicant’s personal history and prior actions are relevant to the proposal’s merits.

This proposal is not asking for funding for a DAO. It’s funding going directly to revertfinance.eth. The same account that was used to steal funding we provided him. @mariorz has complete control over that account and any crypto that touches it. If I recall, a proposal by Byte Masons was strongly reconsidered after @lefterisjp released a statement saying the team had conducted themselves unprofessionally in the past. If @mariorz was a representative a DAO or organization he had no control over, that would be different.

@mariorz first response to this accusation was a lie.

Nevertheless they insisted in giving us a grant of 8,200 VISR (at current gamma price, the total is about 500 USD

The grant was $10,000. He then later admitted to dumping the tokens out of spite multiple times.

And definitely did not want to have any more dealings with them. I dumped those tokens and good riddance.

And again those grant tokens were never sold and were just deposited and left in their vault, all while the token price was crashing.

What I was thinking of when dumping their airdropped tokens was that I did not look forward to having any more interactions with that team/project. (so much for that)

Instead of providing an explanation, @mariorz has attempted to discredit us personally and professionally. There is no explanation besides he took a grant with the stipulation that no work would be done, which is absurd, and refuted by our screenshots.

This proposal is asking for over $300,000+ to be handed over to him unilaterally. If any delegate is considering approving this, I strongly would recommend that any funds be put on a multi-sig with OPLabs team access. That’s the bare minimum of due diligence that should be done for someone who has admitted in plain English to stealing a protocol’s funds.

Nor is it fair to the other applicants, as their character and past actions were absolutely taken into consideration when evaluating their grants.

As I have explained above, there was no agreement for any services to be rendered. It is a lie that any of the screenshots show an agreement of receiving this grant as payment for the servIce. They approached me, asked about us integrating their protocol, I said we would along with other protocols following our own roadmap and not at that time. They insisted on giving the grant “with no strings attached”. More so, I just took that grant and deposited into their own vault and left it there. So it is ridiculous to say that there was intention to profit from it, more so when during that period the price of that token grant was in free fall. I honestly did not care to use these funds, and they would not have, then or now, made any material difference to our team’s runway.

More than 6 months later, after they had already accused me of “frontrunning” and “stealing” an article I researched and wrote alone, they airdrop me (and all vault depositors) a new token which I immediately dumped. At no moment did they indicate they wanted any of these tokens they airdropped themselves back, or that they were payment for anything.

It should be evident to anyone who does a background check on the gamma team the dishonest way in which they operate. They have already received a grant approval for over a million dollars, in no part of that proposal do they explain that they are a team that rebranded after three consecutive “hacks” under circumstances that are only explained by extreme negligence or worse.

  1. Private key was compromised, they blamed an auditor https://twitter.com/ChrisBlec/status/1407073749199958026

  2. Basic mistake of trusting a dex spot price, called it an arb
    https://twitter.com/Mudit__Gupta/status/1464657487081005060

  3. Contract jus trusted msg.sender, they rebranded https://twitter.com/storming0x/status/1473321779250802693

In none of these incidents do they ever take responsibility, and instead end up with a rebrand and proceed to pivot to ask for money from DAOS without disclosing their very relevant and problematic history.

Here they have used an obvious sockpuppet, and their own accounts (which btw nothing wrong with being anonymous, but while they use names like “Brian”, they seem to be anons with no seeming background, and twitter accounts created in 2021), to falsely accuse and malign me.

I’ve worked in this Industry since 2016.
For anyone that wants to look into my background,

For any delegates, more than happy to provide references of folks in the industry I have actually worked with and collaborated over years.

I honestly did not care to use these funds, and they would not have, then or now, made any material difference to our team’s runway

The Blockchain says you received $10,000 in tokens, then you dumped it for $5,494 in tokens, then you moved it to Coinbase. You put that money in your own pocket.

Clearly you did care to use those funds, for yourself. That’s all on chain.

That is theft.

You are intentionally misleading.

  1. The grant tokens were just deposited and left in your own vault. Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Etherscan
  2. The tokens you airdropped 6 months later were sold for 5k, the withdrawls you link are for 10k. This public account linked has had then and now more money than that. Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Etherscan

I’ve already replied to your false accusations here multiple times. And at no point had you requested any of these tokens back or that you expected a delivery of any service rendered for the grant.

Hi @bobby ,

Apologies for what seems to be re-hashing a past partnership. I had responded with my comments above mainly for two reasons

  1. @mariorz mentioned us first by name both on Twitter and on this forum in a derogatory light, to which we were forced to respond and clarify with evidence.

  2. To reveal that in a prior grant context, he had never fulfilled his end of the bargain and acted dishonestly.

Again, we never asked to be dragged in here, but his constant mentioning of our name forced us to respond. All our past security issues are out of scope for the relevance of how @mariorz 's personal history and prior action affect his own proposal’s merits.

To keep the dialogue relevant, he 100% did receive a grant from us for an integration that he promised us would take place. Those services never took place, and he never returned the grant funds.

The context of our grant program can be found here: Introducing Gamma: An organization dedicated to funding ‘Active LP’ strategies and research | by Visor Finance | Visor Finance | Medium

If anyone would like to go into any details on us, our security incidents in the past, or our interactions with @mariorz please ask, and I will be happy to do so.

Thank you,

Brian

1 Like

The grant tokens were just deposited and left in your own vault

This is getting absurd. You had custody of the funds and then moved them into our staking platform to accrue rewards. You could do whatever you wanted with them at that point.

the tokens you airdropped 6 months later were sold for 5k,

Yes, we know you dumped the grant tokens.

the withdrawals you link are for 10k.


You took the $5,494 you stole, combined it with other USDC, moved it to Coinbase, and paid yourself.

that you expected delivery of any service rendered for the grant.

That’s where we are at. You’re claiming the money was free and that you didn’t have to do anything. Don’t you understand why it’s a little concerning that you’re asking for $300,000 in OP to be deposited into your account revertfinance.eth? :saluting_face:

I did not apply to any grant program of yours. You approached me. I did not agree to render any paid for service for the grant, you insisted on giving a no strings attached grant and ostensibly a relationship of collaboration going forward.

I deposited the grant tokens into your vault out of respect, I still had at that point, and with no intentions of using them. Looking at it now it would have been ridiculous to care about your vault yield when your token price was crashing for the following months. Those tokens remain there.

If you actually thought the tokens were a payment for some service undelivered you could have asked me to return them, which I would have immediately done. You bring this up now, when this grant was in june 2021, and make these false accusations, only after I warn on Twitter that you are a rebrand of a protocol that was “hacked” 3 times under alarming and suspicious circumstances and should probably shut down at this point.

giphy

@Dicaso please, in the future refrain from this kind of participation.

  1. It doesn’t help
  2. It adds nothing

To keep the debate even more relevant and free of Drama can you explicitly point to what the issue is, with this specific proposal? This proposal isn’t about building something new and failing with that goal so if people really want to continue this kind of discussion we need to know exactly what the concern is. Are you suggesting @mariorz is going to vanish with this funds?

Without…

I understand this…

But I don’t understand why it matters. I’m not suggesting this is true or false but that there’s plenty of dubious characters out there and they still deliver. If the issue is the character (unethical individual) then you made your point. If the issue is that @mariorz will keep the funds for himself then please back your claims with more facts. We need much more than what you just presented on a “failed collaboration”. This kind of issues happen frequently in “collaborations” (or whatever since I’m not even convinced it was really a collaboration), it’s nothing new or revealing.

1 Like

It is mainly concerning the character and past history of @mariorz , proposer of this proposal. That is all. If everything here is done through multisigs, deterministic smart contracts, etc then I would agree with you that it is less of a concern. But the recipient address is an EOA, and he is more or less in full control of the grant funds if he were to be given them.

I am merely speaking as someone who has worked and dealt with this individual in the past, so take that for what it is worth.

As I mentioned before, the reason for my participation here was twofold: (1) defend against his allegations and claims against us and (2) illustrate as much as possible our working relationship with him where we have given him a grant.

Yes, the main reason was his character. This was much more than a “failed collaboration”. The main facts are that he received grant funds to his EOA, he never performed any services for us, and he admits to selling such funds and transferring the proceeds to his fiat account.

1 Like

Thanks, if you don’t have anything to say about the proposal we can move on. I’m not convinced he did anything wrong and I don’t even know who gives 100% of a dev grant allocation (upfront) without deliveries (unless they are playing games). I don’t need and I don’t want to say more. Let’s move on.

1 Like

Just to address this one point, our grants were between $5k-$15k. And they were to fund research and analytics for active LP management where there just was not enough activity at the time. It was certainly not to play games, but they were risk-adjusted according to size, and we liked what we saw in terms of his webapp.

We ourselves have received grants without deliveries as well such as the Polygon Ecosystem Grant which was similarly sized. Other, incubator type orgs have given similar size grants up front. Its fairly common for grants of that size.

1 Like

I don’t need to explain how grants work but there’s different type of grants (some don’t require early deliveries). The one you use as reference (development, that should be backed with documentation and more) is completely different from the one we are discussing here.

Not to mention that you didn’t even claim @mariorz will vanish with the funds. I don’t see any value in continuing this specific discussion.

1 Like

@Prometheus Believe me, I am trying not to continue this conversation, but you had implied something along the lines that this was not a legitimate grant, so I had to respond.

See here for the full details of our grants program: Introducing Gamma: An organization dedicated to funding ‘Active LP’ strategies and research | by Visor Finance | Visor Finance | Medium

Like I said before, the Polygon Ecosystem Grant for our original launch on Polygon was prior to our launch of our Polygon contracts. This was similarly focused on integrating our smart contracts on the Revert platform.

Edit: @Prometheus happy to take this discussion offline if you would like to know more about this specific grants program. Don’t want to keep taking this further off track. I think more than enough has been said

If you share a medium with a form application but you defend the application with:

I don’t need to imply anything at all. To me this looks more like…

and things didn’t play how you expected. Meanwhile some of you believe this whole thing is worth our time instead of focusing on the current proposal.

1 Like

Yes, we did both reach outs for grants as well as grant applications. The link that I sent was regarding the scope of the grants program. Lets take this offline if you want to know further, but I think enough has been said on this topic.

But what is provable is that he received grant funds, did not provide services, and monetized the tokens. That is all onchain

1 Like

These allegations are becoming unprovable “he said, she said” and are totally irrelevant to the original post which should be the focus.

3 Likes

This is way more valuable. Thanks

2 Likes

Hi @mariorz , Thank you for your proposal and active participation.

This is a solid move and also gives confidence that you are focusing on project rather than team funding.

All LPs will be eligible to join the program, except team wallets which will be excluded

This is where I think there are some scope of improvement, three distribution with 100K each might bring the liquidity but there is nothing to hold them long term.

it would take us a year to distribute the OP

You also mention in this thread that this distribution might last for 1 year, so which one we should consider ? 3 month or one year ?

As per your KPI if you are able to on-board and hold 20M on OP chain, I am happy with number of token requested but it all depends on your distribution plan.

2 Likes