This proposal, labeled “Immediate Restoration of AIP-121 Transparency Reports,” is an informational remedial suggestion aimed at promptly reinstating the necessary transparency reporting mandated by AIP-121. The reporting process has been discontinued since November and needs immediate redress.
The primary driver behind this proposal is to serve as a first warning before initiating formal proceedings for malpractice and/or failure to meet predefined obligations. This proposal aims to alert token holders of the non-compliance with reporting requirements and to underscore the potential repercussions, which could include tiered consequences and investigations into all responsible parties.
The importance of transparency reporting as stipulated in AIP-121 cannot be overemphasized. This proposal underscores the significance of such reporting for the seamless and accountable operation of the DAO. It further emphasizes that any alternative “transparency options” being proposed by those charged with the reporting duty are deemed inferior, stressing that there should be no delay or presentation of alternative proposals with extended implementation times.
The action plan for this proposal includes:
Issue a formal request for immediate reinstatement of the AIP-121 transparency reports
Alert token holders of the failure in compliance with reporting requirements
Forewarn of potential future consequences including tiered penalties and possible investigation into administrators, stewards, secretary, and other responsible parties
Reiterate that any alternative “transparency options” are inferior and insist on the immediate and consistent delivery of the transparency report based on the previously used template
The timeline calls for immediate action. Upon the approval of this proposal, all responsible parties are expected to immediately resume transparency reporting in compliance with AIP-121.
No additional costs are associated with this proposal. It calls for adherence to previously established processes and procedures, thereby not incurring any extra expenditure.
Thank you for your input on this @0xamplify. Unfortunately requests for updates on this have been delayed, even brushed off at times, and there are even instances where alternatives are being presented that promote products instead of proper monthly reporting through PDF documents.
At this point, I’m unsure how else to move forward other than through this proposal. Hopefully reporting for treasury spend and stewards and thank ape and more are available before it goes to vote. Being told to privately message special council or other administrators has become troublesome.
Thank you. It’s end of Q2 and this stuff has been shut off for a long time. Responsible parties have become unresponsive. This is step one towards disciplinary measures after months of inaction.
This is highly concerning. Can you elaborate on who you are in contact with responsible for these Foundation reports that is brushing you off? This behavior is unacceptable from a DAO representative, employee, contractor, or contributor.
I would again implore you to specify who is not being responsive to your requests. I am deeply concerned with any behavior that creates an environment where DAO members feel uncomfortable asking questions or requesting clarification from our Foundation, Working Groups, or Administrators.
I agree it’s concerning. As I have an active grant agreement, I have to approach this situation in a serious way, and am unable to share private conversations, however there are some public examples over the last 2 months of both special council being asked about it, as well as responses made in the WG0 discord, all of them expressing delays, or “in 2 weeks,” or “coming soon,” without further explanation.
These concerns have been expressed by me and a few others over the last quarter. Including when I requested the budget spend for stewards from you. At this point, a breach of trust exists that requires me to use official AIP channels like this, versus having simple direct conversations with those involved. It’s very unfortunate that even you are implicated and bear fair responsibility for these delays. Not good.
Thanks for your time. Vulkans transparency tuesday tweets are inadequate and unacceptable. If there are still problems with the administrative transition, we’ll discuss if the stewards paid to do those roles are responsible for that problem too. I’m pretty fed up with all these delays. Thank you again.
There is no proper oversight or auditing of the Foundation.
Self-reporting is as transparent as those self-reporting and their self-made methodologies.
“Oversight” appears only once on the Foundation site, not in relation to anything financial. “Audit” appears zero times. Yet we have a Treasury Working Group up for vote soon that in part has vaguely made references to investing which is typically code for losing money.
My candidacy for Special Council is entirely based on moving TRUE transparency initiatives forward - including proper 3rd party audits with risks and ethical concerns spelled out in plain language and available to all token holders at all times - just like public companies have to do.
Speaking of which, we need to address not only existing gaping holes by these processes but fast-approaching ones given many in the US gov’t and the SEC itself is openly at war with crypto and our premium brand makes an highly desirable, fat, easy target for them… so we need to front-run that because “LOL Idk” or “muh Caymans!” won’t cut it.
For clarity, the budget spend for WG0 Stewards you requested was provided to you multiple times. This information is all transparent and on chain. The WG0 multisig was deployed at wgzero.eth, where you could see all of our expenditures, and the final transaction returning our unspent budget to the Foundation.
The Administrators will continue to do their best to satisfy the requirements set forth in AIP-121, (and all AIPs) as mandated by the token holders.
With respect, let’s not go so far as to cast shade on one of the few initiatives to offer some - and more importantly promote the value and conversation about - reporting and transparency.
@Vulkan is doing what he can. If he can and will do even more, that’s great. “Unacceptable” seems a bit much?
Not seeking a semantics battle here. It’s in the spirit that if the few who seem to even care about and understand the importance of this are effectively in-fighting it won’t go anywhere or engage / promote awareness.
Thank you @br00no. Having worked with vulkan and others who do care for a long time, I have found that these small posts are being considered adequate, as if important reporting is being done. Additionally, I’m seeing multiple “power user” individuals tought transparency problems and new tool as being a solution. It’s difficult for me to entertain the idea of more DAO tooling to fix problems, or even @Waabam proposal that says itll fix transparency and create a dashboard. They all bear responsibility for this lapse, and maybe even benefit from it by getting to promote new upcoming “tools.” Its concerning. Thank you.
Thanks for the support @br00no . Yes, my Transparency Reports and other projects I’ve been working on are not intended to replace the Transparency Report from AIP-121, but instead offer a way to begin looking deeper into the AIP process in ways we have not really done in the past.
From what I understand, the reports mentioned in AIP-121 deal with the funding side of things, which the DAO Administrator handles.
My reports are more from the community side to better understand where AIPs are at in the process, track AIP milestones to see if work listed in AIPs is being completed, and share these updates with the community.
This is just the start; it’s only been about a month of work. I don’t consider these as the final forms and hope to like you said start the discussion around these topics and build from there.
These reports were previously done by the former Administrator. The last few months have been a transition period to a new Administrator, and the transfer of all of their duties is taking some time. Especially because the former Administrator’s proposal to renew their contract was voted down by the DAO and there was no official process in place to transfer information and responsibilities to someone new in that scenario.
Lets not go too far down a conspiracy rabbit hole. Transparency reports, for the time since our new admin has been onboarded, have been created in detail. It is just taking a bit longer for them to put together the reports for the 4 months prior to them being fully onboarded.
Rest assured the full reports are coming soon and will resume a regular cadence.
Understood. I have become increasingly frustrated by the focus on working groups & twitter spaces, where these individuals were getting paid, even extended, while my own grant was shut off for months. It seems silly when they hype that progress has been made, or that new tooling is needed. I blame the stewards because they were responsible for the transition, yet they would get on spaces behaving so positively. It is difficult for me to get past this. It continues still.
I’m not aware of any grant payments for you that have been delayed due to the Admin transition. However, I would encourage you to re-read the Timeline expectations in AIP-66 if this is the grant that you are referencing.
This is my frustration with you. It was turned off for nearly 3 months. There’s blockchain receipts. You all didn’t take care of business, and these type of responses continue to anger and frustrate me. I am very aware of 66 and yes it was shut off during the transition. From my understanding there are still transitional problems. This makes me angry. You were responsible for this right? Who is responsible for the harm that caused? This can continue to escalate.
Hey! Thanks for chiming in AA. I think there’s a big difference between proper reporting and screenshots of a chart with 6 lines. I hope that no working group in the future is ever held to that low of a level for reporting. It’s easy to poke holes in and say “you didn’t spend any money on legal?” I believe your reporting is missing line items.
Thanks again, but I must insist that this and general performance during Q1 & Q2 are woefully inadequate, and reassert that the above proposal is the first step towards remediation. It can continue to escalate to real audits and tiered consequences. Please review the proposal above and share any feedback you may have on how best to remedy the ongoing reporting situation.