I can’t deny that @thephilosopher brought a lot of lessons to my trajectory inside DAOs, I learned a lot of things, we exchanged a lot of experiences and I met a lot of exceptional people inside Near Protocol.
But it doesn’t justify his suspicious attitudes of corruption, his actions that are not consistent with decentralization and his behavior with Dao members (including me).
I could summarize it all in one simple paragraph
What makes a person be Council of 4 DAOs, submit project for renting his own land within all DAOs and most of it always being approved by two people.
Philosopher says he is part of a decentralized community with centralized practices.
Here’s some reflection
Let’s get to the facts:
1. List item “But as soon as I left the council, in the first meeting, with around 4 people from the 16 members from Gambiarra DAO at that time, Dazo - one of these 4 people - brought a proposal to enlarge the period for people to be council from 3 to 6 months, and Isa on telegram suggested that we also voted a 6 month reelection period. As soon as I saw that, I made another proposal for that period to be 3 months, as we had agreed before, and I added a possibility of reelection, because Dazo already told me that he was interested in continuing in the council. Both proposals failed in astrodao (Six month: https://app.astrodao.com/dao/gambiarra-dao.sputnik-dao.near/proposals/gambiarra-dao.sputnik-dao.near-81 Three months: https://app.astrodao.com/dao/gambiarra-dao.sputnik-dao.near/proposals/gambiarra-dao.sputnik-dao.near-82), but that was a first red flag for me. There were 2 more red flags that made me leave Gambiarra, and I will talk about them now.”
I did express interest in increasing the council period from 3 to 6 months because our DAO is formed by new enthusiastic members and because we are learning and dedicating ourselves more and more to grow together. The reason given was that 3 months would be too short to develop the functions because we would all have to learn, and as soon as a council got some practice it would have to leave for the entrance of a new council, and so this cycle would repeat with the new councils. At first it was a conversation within the telegram group (deleted by Philosopher) and then we took it to Astro for approval, because all members agreed with the reason. Philosopher then showed up with a proposal on Astro without communicating anyone, requesting a 3-month period of council, which was already our current policy at that time. You can check the links of the 6 months poll created by me and with votes from most of the DAO and another poll created by Philosopher without the consent of the members and voted only by him and Beco. We let it expire for the reason that we would take the subject again to our weekly meeting, because as he himself says in the text above that this had only been discussed between 4 members in a Dao of 16 members.
2. List item “About the second red flag: Gambiarra has a marketing team that submits projects to the Marketing DAO, in order to get resources to Gambiarra Marketing activities. So far so good. But someone from the Design Guild (that Isa wrongly called Mktdao) offered us to make an entire design project for our Guild. I told this person that I imagined that we would love it and I was invited to the Design Guild discord. When I brought the news to Gambiarra DAO, the marketing team was not happy and told me they already are a marketing team and they don’t need the Design Guild. I told them that the Design Guild would not be a competitor and that, if we do not like it, we could not use the products that they would be going to produce. I also told them that the Design Guild receives from NEAR to do this job, so we would not have to pay anything nor stop paying our marketing team (that has other functions beyond design). Gambiarra’s marketing team refused help from the Design Guild. I could not see a good reason to not use the free help offered by the Design Guild. That was the second red flag.”
This subject about marketing had already been commented in another moment within the telegram group (deleted by Philosopher) and in the first conversation Philosopher even demonstrated to have understood, but after days he returned with the same subject, but this time it seemed not to conform with our opinions already decided on this subject.
Our decision was not to refuse, on the contrary, we were happy that this service exists within the community to help those who still don’t have a design job ready. In our case we already had a monthly demand ready, everything was aligned and scheduled, our Marketing team already works with monthly planning and accepting this work would change our social media schedule and would still take away from those who need it. We already had a project being paid for this so it didn’t make sense at that moment.
Our Marketing team even got upset with the way Philosopher spoke to the members, because he was not satisfied that we already had an opinion about this matter. Our friend Natasha, a member of the team, felt bad about this at the time.
3. List item “The third red flag happened with Mintbase. Maria, from Mintbase, offered us a channel on Mintbase discord channel. She even made a poll to know if we want the channel, and that poll had only positive votes, no vote against it. Then, again, Gambiarra marketing team spoke against the channel, and I had to remember that a channel in a server like Mintbase is marketing for us, a place to shill etc. Again, I could not understand the resistance of the marketing team to join forces with others that want to help.”
This day seemed a foggy day, all subjects in the group Gambiarra - Mintbase were leaving sparks, it seemed that everyone was exhausted that day, but no one was disrespectful to anyone, were just divergent opinions being discussed on a not very good day, but in the end everyone apologized and we continue our relations normally. On this day one of the issues in question was to have a Gambiarra tab within the Mintbase Discord and that was where several different opinions came up (because it was in a group with more than 100 people) that caused this stress and where I believe to have been the end point for the Philosopher within Gambiarra, because he was unhappy. After that I called @marianeu on inbox and told her that I would take the subject proposal to our weekly DAO meeting and that after the meeting I would give her an answer about our decision to have a Gambiarra tab inside Mintbase discord and vice versa. I also suggested that depending on the subject of Gambiarra and Mintbase, it could be discussed first among us from DAO and then we would take it to the larger group of over 100 people. After the DAO meeting all members found important the proposal for exchange and support and the next day I have already passed to Maria our approval to set up a Gambiarra Shill in Mintbase’s Discord.
4. List item " In this time, March 17th, I had already received my payout for council work. But when Dazo asked me to return half of the resources paid, I gave the treasury back 250 DAI, given the council payment is 500 usd, as requested in our funding proposal ([APPROVED] Gambiarra DAO Funding for March 2022). Dazo argued that I was paid in near and that I should give near back to the treasury, and given the near high, it would be more than 250 usd in near that I would have to pay. So I did not accept it. He argued that we had a conversion rate to pay people, and that is right. We made a conversion rate, in order for us to have how to pay people when near drops. And this conversion rate is being used by Dazo to make me pay more than what is due. As this is a debateful issue, I prefer to listen to the moderators’ opinions concerning this matter."
Gambiarra DAO agreed among members that the treasury balance would be kept in Near and payments would be made in Near at the conversion of the date of receipt of funds. So this account gave 48.12 Near for each payment to the councils and since he returned half, I just reminded him that half of 48.12 would be 24.06. He returned 250 Dai. On March 26, Near was on average U$13.00 so it would be approximately 19 Near. But when I tried to explain politely he questioned my morality, said that I was taking advantage of him and exposed me in a disrespectful way in the Gambiarra group with more than 100 people hurting my reputation among the members. What would the members think of me from that moment on?
I ask …
5. List item " Now about the wallets. I made a post in the forum about it here: [INFORMATION] Giving the seed phrase from the wallets to Gambiarra DAO. But our problem is that Gambiarra DAO is worried that I will die or disappear and the wallet will become inaccessible, and I am worried that I will always know the seed phrase of this wallet (or at least it will always be possible to say that I know the seed phrase) and could then always be held accountable for anything that happens in these wallets. So we are in a problem that I don’t know how to solve. I really want to pass the wallets to them, but there is this responsibility issue that I don’t know how to solve. I suggested to use a bot to send them the resources as soon as they get to the wallet, but they refused this option. If the moderators have already passed through some situation like ours, I ask you to help us to get out of the conflict."
Gambiarra owns the wallet, this request for the wallet’s ownership has been requested since his departure. We have in this wallet royalties from almost 100 artists and we already have artists with more than 100 minted works. Our preoccupation is in relation to a precaution, because a fact that cannot be denied is that all of us will leave this plan one day, we just don’t know the day, but this hypothesis cannot be discarded. (5 LIST ITEM RESOLVED)
6. List item “Now about the problem of incompatibility between being in the Gambiarra council and in the Metaverse DAO, I talked to Isa the same thing that @tabear told me: that we should preserve decentralization and we should not have a member of DAO in 2 or more DAOs in the Creatives council. So, the same way I left Gambiarra DAO to stay only in the Metaverse DAO, I told Isa that she could not be in 2 DAOs in the Creatives council, and that she must choose between being a council of Gambiarra or being a member of Metaverse DAO. I told her that by being a member of Metaverse DAO she has voting power, and that by being council on Gambiarra DAO too. I also told her I could not decide for Metaverse DAO and that I would take this to the council. She said she had to accept the council job from Gambiarra because of the resources that were double the amount she receives by producing the parties, and I assured her that even if she were not a member from Metaverse DAO anymore, she could keep building her parties and her project. She said she was ok, if the council thus decided. In the end, she ended up not being council from Gambiarra, but she was a member, so she would have voting power in both DAOs, which defeats decentralization. And defeats it in an interesting way, because at Gambiarra the members vote before the council, so the members can decide any matter without the council. So when we decided that Isa must not be a member anymore, we were protecting decentralization. And, as we told her she could keep building her parties, I simply do not understand how I was harming her.”
The big issue here was about undermining a DAO member, just like what happened at the Metaverse DAO’s “VoteReject” CFC against our joining the Creatives Council.
That’s where you get the lies … Philosopher would be concerned about decentralization, claimed to have removed Isa because she had become Council of Gambiarra DAO (his main reason for the “Removed Member to Role”).
@Isa_Danoninho was not Council of the Gambiarra and that was the argument he used to remove her and at the same time still created a “VOTEREJECT” CFC trying to prevent our approval in Creatives.
Contradictory; if Philosopher was still trying to reject our entry into the Creatives council why did he already remove Isa?
If you look at Isa’s dismissal you can see that it happened even before the Gambit was approved at Creatives.
- Isa Removed 03/25/22
- Approval of Gambiarra to Creatives council 03/29/22
How can he argue that he removed her defending decentralization before he even knew the outcome of the CFC of Gambiarra’s entry to Creatives? He claimed that it was because she became council on Gambiarra and this practice is not morally correct.
Isa was removed arbitrarily because @gushlewis the ex-Council of Metaverse has already spoken out (report from Gus the ex-member of Metaverse DAO) saying that he was against Philosopher’s attitudes and he didn’t even know about this vote.
Totally unreasonable arguments. How did he take this authoritarian attitude without the consent of all Metaverse DAO members?
This is evidence of total disorganization, the same reason given by the Metaverse DAO itself for our disapproval to join Creatives (Look at the poll comments). This is a practice of centralization of power. You can see that in every DAO where he is council, he takes Juice and together they approve almost everything with only two votes.
7. List item “Contrary to what Isa seems to think, I believe people are autonomous and that we should help them to get knowledge. Before leaving the council, I tried to teach the interested members how to make CFCs (Isa is included in that class), in order for them to know how to do an important part of what is to be a council member from the creatives: to vote by using CFCs. You can see these CFCs in the failed proposals on Gambiarra Astrodao. I taught them, but after I left they did not even vote on the CFCs (https://app.astrodao.com/dao/gambiarra-dao.sputnik-dao.near/proposals?status=failed). I think that I always explained everything to everybody. If you go to our community telegram to see the links, you will see how many explanatory links about NEAR I sent there, how I tried to pass the knowledge I had to everybody. I feel it is unfair to say that I try to manipulate the members.”
Philosopher did teach some members of Gambiarra Dao to create CFCs but it was something very improvised because he simply touched on the subject within the group and those who were online followed along. I found very strange the way he wanted us to create CFCs so quickly and vote approving the CFCs presented by him. I particularly found it strange because I didn’t want to simply vote “yes”, I wanted to understand the process of that CFC, to understand the whole process of a CFC. I’m glad I did the right thing by not voting, because the guidelines were outside the Creatives regulation as commented by @ted.iv inside that poll for example.
This is a clear sign of centralization, as you voted as a council for Creatives by Metaverse Dao and Gambiarra Dao (at this time Gambiarra Dao had joined Creatives and for some unknown reason we left Creatives afterwards), as this is not morally correct and is out of the concept of decentralization. But his explanation for this was that he was teaching us and lecturing us. As I said … he did teach us, but what was the interest behind it?
Here is a printout of the conversation about what he said about sharing knowledge and helping the community, look at how he plays on the emotions of the person.
Philosopher wants to help, but more than this he wants to conquer all the spaces for himself, he wants to win for everything.
Indirectly he wanted to charge for all the things he reports in the 7 List Item. He had taught us and thought that it was fair to use his full council pay even if he left his position in the middle of the month. This proves his change of behavior when speaking to the public and to the community, and the difference when speaking to someone in private.
Another detail … He made a point of requesting 1 Near from our Astro with voting expenses. A person who has 3 council positions and 1 leased land in each DAO that is council totaling 1,000USD per DAO, totaling 3,000.00 USD per month with his DAOS. This converted to our Brazilian Real is equivalent to almost R$15,000.00 per month, the equivalent of almost 12 minimum wages (Salario minimo - the minimum wage of Brazilian families).
I ask… how does a Philosopher intellect concentrate so many payments in the decentralized world and at the same time remove members that depend on this work and that are real artists and fight for a space? (example 6 List item)
Council Gambiarra Dao - Terreno locado (Council removido
Council Metaverse Dao - Terreno locado
Council Spiritual Dao - Terreno locado
Council The Philosopher Dao -
When he is not a member he suggests free land as a form of partnership to gain more territory.
8. List item “Isa forgot to tell you that, because of COVID, the Carnival was moved from its original date, at least in Rio de Janeiro. And she also forgot to tell you that I was in the hospital during the entire time of the Carnival. So it is pretty hard to attribute to a person in the hospital, who just made a biopsy to analyse cancer and was taking 7 days of antibiotics in the veins, that was manipulating people. I had no strength even to manipulate myself. Even after returning from hospital, I went to Cryptovoxels to make what I promised. And I went there with Ghini, who was going to be the curator, to know what she would like. She told me that she wanted some floors and glass walls, because she wanted to build internal and external exhibitions. I did just like Ghini asked me. I even put the works in the exhibition on the second floor, but I was waiting for the curator to tell me what she would like more. Ghini was super tired because the Feminu exhibition had just finished and it took a lot of effort from her, and she needed to rest. Unfortunately, before we had a chance to develop the building even more, we had the issues that made me leave Gambiarra.”
About the rent we had a Poll of U$1.000,00 with approval in Astro but for not having resources, Philosopher changed the whole plan and volunteered to do the building service eliminating Isa and Gus from the project, but did not eliminate your rent. He created a new poll in Astro for his Rent and charged me a few times to vote and approve, but I was resistant because I hadn’t seen an outcome in the forum about the 1k project, you can notice how long it took me to make the last approval vote (look at the voting times and dates).
But he assured me that he had talked to Isa and that she was aware of it, and that there would be no problem. There were several conversations with me during the time he was in the hospital where he said in his text that he didn’t even have the strength to manipulate himself, but he was always charging me and even sending me links to his rental votes. Here is a print with dates and video so you can listen to the audio (in Portuguese)
It is worth remembering that Gus also mentions in his text that he talked to him while he was in the hospital
All during the Carnival period, here is a picture to prove it
I want to thank you for the opportunity to clarify the whole truth before the community and show our transparency.
We are working to investigate each fact as clearly as possible and combat bad practices within our ecosystem.
Gambiarra DAO’s entry into Creatives is a natural consequence of a DAO that has had a meteoric rise within the Near ecosystem.
With only 3 months of existence, Gambiarra DAO has managed to accomplish:
MintbaseSunday exhibitions, a high impact social media event organized by Macieira;
Antimetodo, a project that brings classes to our community organized by Blu;
FEMINU (Feminine NFTs Universe) Exhibition, a historical exhibition, featuring 60 artists (cis women, trans women, non-binary women and transvestites) idealized and curated by Ghini, having received around three hundred people at the xyz Museum on the opening day. This project of such greatness that now departs for a new stage, the organization of FEMINU Internacional, having constituted its own DAO that intends to work collaboratively, for example, continuing in partnership with the Gambiarra DAO;
Tutorial videos in Portuguese language to help open Near’s portfolio, set up profile and mintar on the Mintbase platform, which facilitated the onboarding of almost 50 artists, on the occasion of FEMINU, increasing by 50% the number of members of the Gambiarra store in less than 30 days;
- 4Women - a totally volunteer project, with Gambiarra artists, conducted by Macieira, in the Metaverse DAO space;
- We managed to have a marketing team that moved the social networks that even voluntarily did all the promotion of FEMINU;
- We diversified our range of action with the Fernando Pessoa project organized by Carlos;
- We were even invited by Mintbase to have an exclusive tab of our Dao in their discord;
Hard, if not impossible to believe that a disorganized DAO, unable to take on greater responsibilities, could accomplish so much in such a short time. Gambiarra DAO has exceeded all expectations, especially considering its short life span. We are a united, competent, collaborative, participative group that did not fall apart even in its most delicate moment, when its founder and former council Philosopher did not finalize his responsibilities to Gambiarra DAO in mid-March.
I speak on behalf of all Gambiarra Dao members
Dazo - Council Member
(Post edited for tag configuration and high-resolution image adjustment)