This post contains a good deal of long-winded commentary to explain a set of stipulations that I would lake to see placed on DAO DAO on osmosis.
For a really really quick summary of those stipulations, please see this post, which I have separated from the detailed and long winded commentary.
Hi, I think that it is time we discussed the reality that code cannot be separated from its authors. I would like to make some very direct claims:
1) DAODAO was used to defraud Notional.
Did this proposal pass?
How about this one?
Obviously, it did not. Nonetheless, it was acted upon by Juno’s core one team, which has funded and incubated DAODAO, and includes a member of DAODAO, Jake Hartnell.
During the time that Notional was funded, we fulfilled all duties as described in a14. When a18 did not pass, but was regardless acted upon, I made the foolhardy decision to continue to contribute to Juno. We had to call Reece, who Notional had hired originally, and tell him that we were no longer able to pay him his agreed upon wage. Jake Hartnell then hired him, and later core-1 hired him.
It all felt, and still feels, extremely sketchy.
It seems that just now, core-1 is making moves to formally cancel the contracts that it agreed to in a14:
Please note that at no time did core-1 fully participate in anything that could be called a negotiation with Notional. We were simply told that no payment of any kind would be made. A18 did not pass.
Further, despite the commit history looking like this:
We’re forced to deal with claims like this:
So this proposal brings me serious concern about the health and vitality of the developer community on Osmosis.
2) DAODAO is funded in contravention of Juno’s Proposal 64.
Juno’s proposal 64 very clearly stipulates that core-1 is not to fund any closed source software. Unless things have suddenly changed (which would of course be a good thing) then this funding:
Now, it seems to me that maybe core-1 is trying to fix this:
But numerous core-1 members are voting to remain in flagrant violation of Juno proposal 64.
A second proposal was submitted to the core-1 dao with slightly different results, but let’s cut to the chase:
Jake Hartntell started DAODAO
Jake Hartnell wrote Juno Proposal 64
DAODAO is in flagrant violation of Juno Proposal 64
Juno’s core one team is the only team in Cosmos that I have ever seen flagrantly violate governance, repeatedly.
For more information on any of these topics, please see Core-1’s sif letter, and Notional’s resignation:
Sif Letter:
Resignation:
Proposal
All DAODAO work should be strictly open source, including the front end. If DAODAO wants to BSLify, that’s their business, however, due to a lack of reliability surrounding DAODAO, I also request that DAODAO be non-exclusively licensed to Osmosis. That is to say, that if DAODAO up and disappears or makes a governance decision that doesn’t pass to stop supporting osmosis, the Osmosis community should have to full and total right to do whatever the heck it wishes to with its daodao deployment, including the front end of that deployment. I don’t have sufficient trust in DAODAO to allow for even a tiny bit of closed-source-anything.
I am willing to negotiate mildly here, but if these terms are not met, will likely veto this proposal, and will encourage others to do the same.
If terms are negotiated here, I would vote yes, because I cannot slight that there’s value in daodao – just at the same time it is in my opinion carrying a very high degree of moral risk, so it is absolutely essential that the Osmosis community have full rights to make any modification to any component of osmosis-daodao for any reason at any time without exception.
osmosis-daodao should be fully devoid of juno branding and value capture mechanisms that lead to juno.
