Sad to see @lightclient badge removed but think it sets a strong precedent that what the Foundation says goes (for now).
I know this isnāt very ādecentralizedā but feels like the only way to meaningfully navigate the system as these rounds get larger and larger.
Also have tremendous respect for @lightclient for being strong in their opinion and do think it is a net negative for them to not be a badgeholder moving forward.
It would be nice to issue a temporary suspension or allow them to return as a badgeholder in RPGF 5.
This voting turnout is extremely impressive and I fully support anyone who did not vote having their badge removed.
Optimistic that the next round of badge holders can include more creator-focused stewards to ensure RetroPGF is being publicized properly within rising ecosystems like consumer apps and creator platforms.
To clarify for @polynya and @coopahtroopa, this was a temporary, not permanent, suspension.
@wmitsuda The term eligible is used above as the badgeholder distribution mechanism will change over time and will eventually be determined via governance; the suspension is only applicable to the next round.
This is my opinion and has nothing to do with the Grants Council, GovNerds, ACC, or any other group I belong to.
The code of conduct has a difference between Temporal Suspension and Suspension.
āTemporal Suspensionā In the citizen house could mean you wonāt be able to participate in the next RFG vote. While I get temporal suspension in the Token House is 1 month. As a token house delegate, you miss a lot of votes, but given that the most important thing for Citizens (badgeholders) is to be able to participate in RPGF I believe āmissing the next RFGā sounds enough for a temporal suspension. With no loss of the badge
āSuspensionā is a ārepeated violationā and this is when you should lose your badge.
Agree with a few here, if you ask about the rules and then you break them then no matter who you are you get temporarily suspended and I support the Foundationās decision.
Iām also inclined to say this is not a temporal suspension but rather a full suspension since they asked about the rules and got many confirmations about not doing it. There is no repetitiveness of the violation but the repetitiveness of warnings before the violation could constitute a full suspension.
Guys, actual lawyer here with law degree and with some years in practice.
First of all - itās not even clear if the people doing the removal (who were they?) had the right to remove, what due process they followed and what evidence they took into account.
Also, there is a standard for conflicts of interest across most common law jurisdictions - and 0.88% does not constitute a threshold. If there was a law to be followed, it would
What I do find interesting is that I canāt seem to find the Optimism Foundations Cayman Islands Charter - which would need to be validly filed - for disputes of this nature - the Cayman Foundation Company Act of 2017 provides under Article 11(1) that these dsiputes must be settled as provided under the charter, specifically:
Dispute resolution
11. (1) A foundation companyās constitution may provide for the resolution of
disputes, differences or difficulties (each an āissueā) with or among its
directors, officers, interested persons or beneficiaries (to the extent
beneficiaries have any rights) concerning the foundation company or its
operations or affairs, or the duties, powers or rights of persons under the
constitution, by arbitration or by any other lawful method.
(2) A resolution arrived at by agreement between the parties to an issue or under
subsection (1) may not be set aside unless vitiated by fraud or bad faith.
Letās get the charter and figure out what we were supposed to doā¦those are the rights that @lightclient are entitled to
Also, the legal standards that we speak of will be British and Common law standards - Cayman Islands are a dependent British Overseas Territory, final court of appeal is privy council.
fwiw i deeply respect the motivation behind the move hereāespecially considering the now exhaustively discussed room for improvement in distributions by verticalāand broadly agree with peopleās statements that 1. guidelines are prob not fully baked in language or intent, 2. there are many degrees of stakeholdership which generally makes this hard, and 3. weāve gotta protect incentives to disclose conflicts
that said, itās also pretty easy just not to vote for a project youāre clearly affiliated with or are a principal member of. if thereās no conflict of interest for voting for a protocol you actively work for on the basis of 'not enough ownership" you can take that logic some pretty weird places
like i suspect that if i started using all of my energy not to benefit optimism but to start rent-seeking on Velodromeās behalf people would correctly sense there is a problem ā and yet I donāt think I meet the ownership thresholds thrown around above
not to get too specific but for the sake of completeness, SEC uses more criteria than just ownership to establish insidership ā certain roles like directors or officers would be like that too. my guess is that insidership in decentralized orgs probably ought to fall along those lines.
acting to benefit yourself or your affiliates is violating trust in your ability to meet whatās p much your sole responsibility as a badgeholder so i disagree that rule breaks of this nature should be temporary (while acknowledging that all badgeholdership matters functionally are atm)
but i agree here with @postpolar and others hat Iād love to have more builder representation among the badgeholders, not less ā and thatās really the key thing making me want a heavyweight like @lightclient back sooner rather than later. On the other hand, to be honest Iām pretty annoyed that lightclient felt the need to put their (and our) representation at risk by this vote, which, in addition to being a clear, deliberate rules break, was just kind of a waste of a high-context builderās vote. a 100% protest vote for protocol guild is just bad form from a builder on a massive vote like RPGF3 was, regardless of whether the rules say you āshould notā vs ācannotā vote for your own org
if people care about process, a possibly correct way to handle this would be something like a badgeholder vote to keep it from being a precedent-setting mulligan unilaterally made by the Foundation. but iām not really a process person so not sure whether thatās valid or desirable
Code of Conduct is an important document and need to be abided. Rules are to maintain basic decorum and discipline, it also is important to have a fair repercussion in case of violation. If there are changes it should be discussed but should not be done whilst in judgement.