# Deploy DAO DAO and Polytone on Osmosis **URL:** \ **Category:** DApps / Tooling\ **Tags:** passed\ **Created:** [July 5, 2023, 10:05am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/deploy-dao-dao-and-polytone-on-osmosis/51 "2023-07-05T10:05:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![faddat](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/faddat/32/2098_2.png) [@faddat](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/faddat)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 12:43pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/deploy-dao-dao-and-polytone-on-osmosis/51/2 "2023-07-05T12:43:13Z")
## note 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. > [@Daodao](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/daodao/58/1): > > Earlier today I posted a whole bunch of long-winded commentary in the DAODAO governance proposal topic, And I think it might have been too long winded, so here are the stipulations that I would like to see added: Contract code and front end code licensed to osmosis in perpetuity for the use of any osmosis project Explanation of the role of the DAO token in the operation of DAODAO on osmosis Information about the DAO token My long-winded post contained a lot of negatives that I believ… 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? > **[DAO DAO](https://daodao.zone/dao/juno1gpwekludv6vu8pkpnp2hwwf7f84a7mcvgm9t2cvp92hvpxk07kdq8z4xj2/proposals/A14)** > > Create a DAO to manage your community, protocol, or entire blockchain in just a few clicks. We support multisig, token-based, and NFT-based DAOs that can be as simple or complex as you want. Set up SubDAOs, manage interchain assets, and interact with... How about this one? > **[DAO DAO](https://daodao.zone/dao/juno1gpwekludv6vu8pkpnp2hwwf7f84a7mcvgm9t2cvp92hvpxk07kdq8z4xj2/proposals/A18)** > > Create a DAO to manage your community, protocol, or entire blockchain in just a few clicks. We support multisig, token-based, and NFT-based DAOs that can be as simple or complex as you want. Set up SubDAOs, manage interchain assets, and interact with... 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: > **[DAO DAO](https://daodao.zone/dao/juno1j6glql3xmrcnga0gytecsucq3kd88jexxamxg3yn2xnqhunyvflqr7lxx3/proposals/A21)** > > Create a DAO to manage your community, protocol, or entire blockchain in just a few clicks. We support multisig, token-based, and NFT-based DAOs that can be as simple or complex as you want. Set up SubDAOs, manage interchain assets, and interact with... 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: > **[Contributors to CosmosContracts/juno](https://github.com/CosmosContracts/juno/graphs/contributors?from=2022-09-01&to=2023-07-05&type=c)** > > Open Source Platform for Interoperable Smart Contracts - Contributors to CosmosContracts/juno We’re forced to deal with claims like this: [https://twitter.com/gadikian/status/1676542807388073985](https://twitter.com/gadikian/status/1676542807388073985) 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.** > **[Mintscan](https://www.mintscan.io/juno/proposals/64)** > > Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks. 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: > **[DAO DAO](https://daodao.zone/dao/juno1j6glql3xmrcnga0gytecsucq3kd88jexxamxg3yn2xnqhunyvflqr7lxx3/proposals/A9)** > > Create a DAO to manage your community, protocol, or entire blockchain in just a few clicks. We support multisig, token-based, and NFT-based DAOs that can be as simple or complex as you want. Set up SubDAOs, manage interchain assets, and interact with... Now, it seems to me that maybe core-1 is trying to fix this: > **[DAO DAO](https://daodao.zone/dao/juno1j6glql3xmrcnga0gytecsucq3kd88jexxamxg3yn2xnqhunyvflqr7lxx3/proposals/A17)** > > Create a DAO to manage your community, protocol, or entire blockchain in just a few clicks. We support multisig, token-based, and NFT-based DAOs that can be as simple or complex as you want. Set up SubDAOs, manage interchain assets, and interact with... But numerous core-1 members are voting to remain in flagrant violation of Juno proposal 64. > **[DAO DAO](https://daodao.zone/dao/juno1j6glql3xmrcnga0gytecsucq3kd88jexxamxg3yn2xnqhunyvflqr7lxx3/proposals/A22)** > > Create a DAO to manage your community, protocol, or entire blockchain in just a few clicks. We support multisig, token-based, and NFT-based DAOs that can be as simple or complex as you want. Set up SubDAOs, manage interchain assets, and interact with... 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: > **[Google Docs: Sign-in](https://accounts.google.com/v3/signin/identifier?continue=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1N9hUQgQz5O8OBlSPhhTQ50JUDnOlJQzCOuPa0PX-n2c%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&dsh=S403177770%3A1764262883901798&followup=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1N9hUQgQz5O8OBlSPhhTQ50JUDnOlJQzCOuPa0PX-n2c%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&ifkv=ARESoU2ACfyYx6YEF8AYITMRPJSlP3hmPy7F2QAjcnpH346ixPaky6AhCprcj_SF1v1ny102z8P4<mpl=docs&osid=1&passive=1209600&service=wise&flowName=GlifWebSignIn&flowEntry=ServiceLogin)** > > Access Google Docs with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use). Resignation: > > > Hey guys, > > I wish I could say that it's been a good run, but numerous recent e…vents have fully convinced me that Juno and I / Notional are no longer a good fit for one another. > > I think that I can leave the org myself, I'm going to work on that now. > > I'd like to be clear that while the straw that broke the camels back was knowing full well that I'm one of the longest term contributors here and that I'm not being compensated in any way for work on Juno, and getting this: > > https://github.com/CosmosContracts/juno/pull/707 > > \Screenshot 2023-06-22 at 5 26 57 AM > > I do understand fully that's how leadership is going here at Juno right now but it's my opinion that contributors shouldn't be treated in that manner. > > Had this been the first time, I'd not worry about it. > > Please don't delete this or anything, I would like the reasons for my / Notional's departure as unpaid contributors to be known. > > > > > Notional has received no payment from Juno since fall of 22. The proposal to suspend payments to contributors did not pass, you can find it here: > > https://daodao.zone/dao/juno1gpwekludv6vu8pkpnp2hwwf7f84a7mcvgm9t2cvp92hvpxk07kdq8z4xj2/proposals/A18 > > It was verbally communicated to me and my team members repeatedly that this would change when best in contracts were put in place, and most certainly our team does not mind accepting vested payments. > > That never happened. > > So the governance of this governance chain is off the rails. As far as I understand it, core 1 is also acting in open contravention of proposal 64, which prohibited core one from funding proprietary software in any form. > > > I'm a mere unpaid contributor here, and it's been made clear that the folks shaping junos future, feel I'm a net loss to the work, and are encouraging the cosmos community to "ask questions about how notional is funded". > > And that's fine and people can ask and I answer too and I believe it's absolutely possible to say hey you mistook that guy's name their names are really similar, without a long string of four letter words and such. > > Core 1 members are very clear. > > https://twitter.com/max\_maxsolo/status/1668220253883465731 > > Max is a member of the core one DAO, and was recently vested 400,000 Juno. > > I still wish the project well, and wish everyone at Juno all the best in their endeavors. > > Despite my desire to exit the scene quietly, max persists: > > https://twitter.com/gadikian/status/1672125879277989888 > > Now what max saying is that the fear of an anonymous individual, who falsely is accusing notional of sabotaging another chain and cosmos, with the content of a pull request that I made to Juno in August 2022, means that notional is a negative to the cosmos ecosystem. I disagree, and fervently. > > Here's my PR to Juno with the same code: > > \* https://github.com/CosmosContracts/juno/pull/207 > > Here's the neutron teams collection of two of my PRs into a draft: > > \* https://github.com/neutron-org/neutron/pull/262 > > Here's the PR that was labeled as sabotage: > > \* https://github.com/neutron-org/neutron/pull/239 > > Here's what the scared anon said: > > !\[20230623\_162651\](https://github.com/CosmosContracts/juno/assets/7142025/a64780e4-2b71-4680-9535-08dd61407304) > > And here's the reason for leaving: there is absolutely no reason to do unpaid work for a project where one of the core team members, in this case, Max, feels that the "fear" of an anonymous individual distributing blatantly inaccurate information about code changes to anybody working on Juno knows full well were very important to keeping Juno up to date because of the harmful effects of both 'cosmoscmd' and 'spm' justifies labeling my organization as a net negative to cosmos. > > But that is what happened, end of story. > > Juno: > > \* Doesn't follow global governance (prop 64) wrt daodao and wynd > \* doesn't value its contributors > \* has core team members commenting on software while not remotely aware of the context of that software ### 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. ![Screenshot_20230706-012159](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/osmosis1/original/1X/55f7fe9dec88a016e5b7f7e8993948ec4bc68116.jpeg) Osmosis software should always put osmosis first. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/deploy-dao-dao-and-polytone-on-osmosis/51)._