[Community Discussion] How are anonymous community members beneficial to the governance forum?

Greetings Near Forum Community Members!

I’d love to get everyone’s take on the value of having anonymous community members playing an active role in moderation, gatekeeping or discussions in the forum and the legitimacy of their views and decision making powers.

From my experience, the majority of community mods, proposal creators and in general the people of the forum are not anonymous and can usually be verified through their participation in community calls or their socials. In fact I’ve met a number of them in person!

I understand the need for some people to remain anonymous, but in the spirit of transparency, specifically on the forum, having members of the community in particular positions remain anonymous poses a number of questions.

What benefit is it to the community that a gatekeeper/mod is anonymous?

How should community members respond to anonymous members questioning their proposals?

I’m going to keep this short, just to get feedback from the broader community about this.



Tagging @creativesdao-council @marketingdao-council for more reach


I think the moderators @creativesdao-council and @marketingdao-council should do something about this… Some of this anonymous are just joined the forum days and ago or weeks ago and they are questioning other community members proposals in different direction that the moderator will not even question while reviewing the proposal… Sometimes if not always this anonymous questions comes like a personal attack… Please the community needs to do something about it… Thanks


In spirit of transparency can you show how much money Dao Records and affiliated DAOs ( included your mom - Ina DAO, Gemini DAO) received in 2021, 2022 and how many new active wallets (people) and projected were onboarded in Near Ecosystem ? Thanks !


I think I share same view with u. I totally agree with you


important discussion.
I would like to make a distinction:

  • imho people can remain anonymous, as I think they have the right to
  • the way the forum, social media and the near wallet (identity and financials) work means people can be anonymous and still have credibility.

Having said that: while I think whistleblowers play an important role in democracy, most fake accounts in here are using anonymity to be able to escape responsibility and question users in a way that shows, most of the time, they do not understand why and how things came to be, and are therefore unable to really help progress things.

Imho users should not feel pressured to respond to each and everyone of these fake accounts, and should focus on those that present relevant and rigorous questions, plus making sure they keep in lign with the gatekeepers of each vertical/section.


You write good words. Some do not understand the significance of the word anonymous user, as they themselves use social networks and nicknames that do not correspond to their identity cards. Pushing new people on the forum away from the life of the ecosystem can have a bad effect. On the contrary, we should attract new users, new ideas. I understand their concerns and anxiety. They work with each other for a long time and sometimes turn a blind eye to some shortcomings. New users see errors or a more correct solution. In fact, those who are outraged by new users simply do not want to admit their mistakes and are afraid of losing their place.
Good day.
Thx :blush:


I totally agree with your thoughts, people can remain anonymous no doubt but in the spirit of transparency accepting to represent the voices and ideas of creatives means you have to show face so people can identify with whoever is representing them,
it also builds more trust .


In a web3 or blockchain, being anonymous is not a bad thing. For the sake of transparency, you can’t be a representative of the community or a particular group as anon.


It’s a very fine line and some anonymous are crossing the line, imho.


Thanks for starting this discussion Vandal

This is a sensitive topic that we’ve been dealing with since the early days.

I think that a huge distinction needs to be made:

  • Are people using anonymity to cause chaos, bully, harass, etc. Behaviour that is clearly in breach of community guidelines and destroy more value than it creates?
  • Or are people using anonymity or pseudonymity to raise sensitive topics that are relevant to the healthy development of an ecosystem?

While I have been a strong advocate of keeping the governance forum welcoming and civilised, I also have to acknowledge that there are some anonymous accounts that are doing a great public service.

It is clear to me from the responses that they may be anonymous but they are actually very deep and I am intrigued to hear what they have to say.

Another key distinction to make:

Who are the people upset about this anonymous accounts? Are they the targets of accountability?

Fun fact; the most disruptive anonymous account last year today is one of my closest working colleagues and critical to the functioning of the ecosystem. He has selectively revealed his identity when necessary, and to this day remains largely pseudonymous. Extra brownie points if you can guess who he is…


IMHO, being anonymous is another way people can reveal their fears without being questioned or harassed in rl. To me, Many anonymous accounts are so because they no longer want to hide their voices under the influence of friendship and fail to reveal the unpleasant actions taken by people they know directly as that may lead to escalation of disputes.

To some extent their fears are real, the accusations they point at are not falsified, many of them unveil some actions that needs to be corrected. Many of them speak facts, and that’s a proof that most are core people around the ecosystem who can no longer hold unto fraudulent actions exhibited by those they work with, they use the medium of anonymity to express themselves maybe for fears of not equally being exposed by their counterpart “maybe”.

Though it has not been easy handling such cases here but I’ll suggest that anonymity isn’t a crime, rather they should be corrected and guided on how to air their views without pointing fingers. And for any report, the reporter shouldn’t be afraid of questions as Near Protocol isn’t a personal affair. Qu


All that data is easily viewable on-chain for those who wish to look. I’m not sure in what way INA DAO is affiliated with DAOrecords aside from a Cryptovoxels parcel rental, which is all in proposals on the forum. I also don’t know what Gemini DAO is, pls enlighten me.

As for my contribution to the NEAR ecosystem, well I could list 10s of DAOs that I’ve helped facilitate without funding or financial reward, countless wallets that actually contribute to the ecosystem… I could go on.

Please let me know what you’ve contributed to the ecosystem :slight_smile:


I totally respect anonymity. My question was around the gatekeepers/mods playing a certain role in the ecosystem being anonymous and how their anonymity benefits the community. What are your thoughts on that?


I’m am pretty sure I know who you’re talking about, which in circumstances where other credible members of the community can attest to the validity of the person, I don’t think is much of an issue.

I do think there is a perception problem though, for those who don’t know or are not aware it might be viewed differently. In many ways, when community members who are not anonymous are held accountable how do we hold those who are anonymous accountable when they have access to data, funds, proposal and records and no one is able to verify them? It’s a tricky situation.

In regards to accountability, I believe that the questioning should come from long-standing community members or those active in that role, not from newly created account or random anonymous users who don’t think to engage in a meaningful way. Just my option here.


That doesn’t really answer my question though. I’m talking about gatekeepers and mods as well as those accounts that question proposals who are not in charge of moderation, especially when their line of questioning is rude or not really relevant.

I’m all in favor of anonymity and totally understand the reasons for it. I myself am completely doxed and have no intention of creating an anonymous account to discuss things, argue or whatever else happens on gov forums and in the ecosystem. But that’s just me :slight_smile:


Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character - Martin Luther King Jr.

My Dear Vandal. I’ve been involved with the NEAR ecosystem for a very long time. There is a concerning trend which prompts me to join others in going anonymous:

  • Elitism and Gatekeeping. There are people in the NEAR ecosystem that are enjoying the privileged Status of being an OG. This status seems to open up the coffers to A LOT of funding.
  • Some of these ‘OGs’ are now fighting back so that the standards they are judged by are based on reputation and not on their actions and actual output.
  • The problem with this approach is that new community members don’t feel comfortable calling out ‘old OGs’, so they tend to look the other way or simply rubber stamp whatever these OGs say
  • Worst, other OGs also don’t feel comfortable calling out their peers. At this point we have developed personal and professional relationships. It is not worth it for a true OG to damage that relationship just to call out another OG.
  • If new people are not comfortable raising concerns, or those concerns won’t be taken into account, and OGs won’t either. Then how does anyone’s reputation ever get tarnished?

What is left? Bring back the glorious days of anonymity. Long live the CYPHERPUNKS.

For this to work, we need to have intellectual honesty. If the words have a different meaning based on who utters them, the YOU are the problem.

Your approach is also problematic because even if a new community member revealed their identity, they wouldn’t have the ‘reputation’ or standing to have their words and observations taking into account? It seems wrong to me that you need to be part of the corrupt core to be listened to by the corrupt core.

I’ve taken feedback. I’ll keep it respectful. But I won’t shut up.


How are anonymous accounts Gatekeepers? I am not imposing my authority through a pre-established identity, nor do I have any official decision making power. I am an anon from the community, asking honest questions.

To answer your question - the value that the anon accounts bring is directly proportional to the quality of the questions they ask.

  • Are the questions fair and reasonable? Then they bring value.
  • Are the questions bringing out serious issues that need to be addressed, even if they make some people uncomfortable? Then they bring A LOT of value
  • Are they just sharing offensive memes and spreading conspiracy theories? Probably lower on the value scale.

They should assume that the anon person asking questions is part of the NEAR Core team and grant them the basic decency of responding in a concise and respectful way. No one is beyond questioning.



agree. However, I feel that as long as NF is still involved in the organization of these systems the community should first and foremost engage with it and demand fairness. Going after individuals who abuse influence misses the point, most of the times.


If that would be the case it would be a terrible sign. NF has deployed the verticals with an even more ambiguous structure than they have now…