Team is aware and we’re monitoring the thread. We plan on discussing it on more detail ASAP. It’s not going ignored.
Team is aware and we’re monitoring the thread. We plan on discussing it on more detail ASAP. It’s not going ignored.
Thank you sir for the prompt respond.
There is a lot of information to tease out here and as moderators, we are doing our best to do so with full integrity and care. This is developing into a complex situation with many layers and it would be irresponsible to jump to conclusions or make quick decisions. We will be keeping all our communication around this complaint community-oriented to maintain transparency so no direct messages to moderators will be accepted around this at this time.
We are identifying the main issues within all this information and are working on how to move forward currently and should have clear steps within 2 days.
We ask that everyone please pause any further accusations or rebuttals and only post if you have clear evidential information to add.
Thank you again,
The Creatives DAO Community Moderators
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:
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)
I want to record here how many DAOs Philosopher was a council member in the month of March alone, this will make it easier to see how many proposed payments were approved on his behalf. Payment of salaries as council and rent of his land approved by only two members (him and one other member).
You can notice that the votes are usually always at the same time, proving the testimonies of the members saying that he sent the link and asked to vote right after
I want to say that this is not about questioning his labor rights, but about the amount of participations in several DAOs with the same position.
It is worth remembering that even with all this accumulation of assets he chose not to contribute with his DAO in the partnership of his land, while in another DAO he offered to partner for free by building the whole building on his own land. We can already see his agility in having already approved this proposal at Astro
We ask for an investigation of the facts and question if this concentration of power is allowed within the decentralized ecosystem
We thank you for your attention and we are at your disposal for any questioning or contribution.
I come here again to answer some specific points raised by Dazo. In order to not repeat myself, I will talk only about what was not talked about before. Points 1, 2, 3 were already answered before. The italics here are all quotes from Dazo.
“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.” - Dazo
First of all, I would like to make it clear that I’ve never hidden my intention of renting my cryptovoxels lands for DAOs. I made a post in the forum exhibiting my lands for rent, how much I ask for each one of them, and which lands are already rented. And I’ve also never hidden my role as a metaverse entrepreneur. I made a public announcement about this.
In respect to how much I earn inside the DAOs, each person earns according to what the person does. I was a council member of some DAOs, and I did a really good job as a council member for them. Gambiarra only exists because I created it and taught almost everyone how the ecosystem works, how funding works, inside Gambiarra and outside Gambiarra. Beyond that, it is weird that projects could cost 500 usd, but the rent could not. It was said here that we should use market prices to establish how much we will receive, and if you go to Cryptovoxels, you will see that my rent is at a very discounted price. Marlus, at the beginning, tried to charge 1 eth (around 3,000 usd in eth at the time) from Ghini, for a period of one month or less to the Feminu Exhibition, but as Gambiarra did not have these resources, he decided to make it for free, because of the importance of the exhibition.
About point 4, I already talked about this, but we should take into consideration that when I received the near for council work, near was dropping and the amount of near that Dazo is talking was equivalent to less than 500 usd. Concerning this point, I also want to apologize for taking this matter to the public group. I shouldn’t, but I ask you, Dazo, to consider also that I received less than 500 usd in NEAR and I returned 250 usd in DAI. So I did not understand why you were asking me to return more than 250 usd. If near were cheaper and that amount of near was equivalent to less than 250 usd, would you complain about me sending 250 DAI? I think not. Beyond that, that amount of dai could be used to pay for half of a 500 usd project in a stable coin.
About item 5, I always agreed that you had an important concern, but I was afraid because of responsibility reasons (I hope that you understand my reasons, just like I understand your reasons), as I explained since the beginning. I am very glad that Ghini told me that you found a way to change the seed phrase and that you are going to do it, so I do not have to worry anymore. Including, I ask you to do it, please.
About 6, it was explained before. The problem was not just Isa to be council (at that time, I thought that this was the main problem, but I realized that being a member also gives us voting power), mainly in Gambiarra, because the council at Gambiarra only votes 24h hours after the members. So to be in Gambiarra, even as a member, is to have a vote in the council of the Creatives. To be in Metaverse DAO even as a member would give her double vote, which would be against decentralization. And again, I told Isa she would keep building her project (Gus and Rafaela know that, because we talked about it and agreed with it, although Gus was always against removing Isa from members - but, as I said before, not every decision a DAO takes is unanimous), that she was building way before she entered as a member in the Metaverse DAO.
But again, concerning the CFC to vote NO on the Gambiarra entering the Creatives, please forgive me. I cannot change what I did, but I can commit to do better in the future.
About point 7, it is not fair with me, because I never asked you to APPROVE the CFCs (I had no reason to ask you that; the people that were in the class just took any of the CFCs that were in the Creatives); I just asked you to VOTE. You could give a like or an unlike, as you wished, but my main intent was for you to learn how to do this: how to make CFCs, how to go to the link of the Creatives, how to click the link to go to the forum, and how to vote, because it is not simple to vote; for example, if Gambiarra was the last vote from a CFC, you would have to change gas to 200, something I would have a hard time to explain to you, so I would like you to vote before Gambiarra was the last to vote. Of course, explaining that for people that are just learning to make a CFC is hard, and I was leaving Gambiarra that day, so I wanted to give as much information as I could and let you all ready to be active in the Creatives council. Up to now, you hadn’t created and voted in any CFC from the Creatives. You just voted in one that was created by someone outside Gambiarra. I have also to remember here that it was not my job to teach you how to make all these things, but I did even though.
I think it is not appropriate for this forum to debate points of view and situations that could generate many interpretations and that are completely subjective, as manipulation. What you call manipulation, I call to give reasons and to try to convince. You are autonomous beings that voted for almost everything that you are complaining about. You voted on my salary, you voted on the rent, you voted for me to leave the council. You all did it. Of course, I gave you reasons and I tried to convince you, as much as everybody tries to convince other people to vote for their projects. And this passage from February to March, I was in the hospital, so I was worried that I would not have resources (because I could have cancer), so I was insisting on my rent. That is true. But I did not try to manipulate anyone.
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? - Dazo
Let me answer that: by working. In every DAO I was/am a council member, I really work there. You can ask the Writers Guild, for example, how happy they were to have me as council there. I built their funding proposal as fast as I could, submitted it, tried to read every project submitted to the Guild and gave opinions and asked for adjustments. Such as I did with Gambiarra and the other DAOs I participated in. And I have to remember again that Isa was not harmed by not being in the group Members from Metaverse DAO. She was making her project before being a member and she would be keeping building it even if not a member, as Metaverse DAO had already decided.
Let me quote Dazo again:
When he is not a member he suggests free land as a form of partnership to gain more territory. 1 - - Dazo
I know you want to interpret my actions as I was a villain or evil or something like that, but please I ask you to think of me as a normal person. I don’t want to gain more territory, I am not a general or something like that. I offered free land, because the land I offered was rented to Metaverse DAO, and it would be interesting for us to have the culinary show in our parcel. Beyond that, we were already talking inside Metaverse DAO about receiving at least 1 person or DAO per month for free in our parcel. This would be good for us and for people that are just beginning. Metaverse DAO did it for Gambiarra DAO too, given we hosted Mintbase Sunday for free, a project from Gambiarra DAO. And beyond that, I learn from my mistakes. I am watching you criticizing the way I deal with my virtual lands, so I am trying to be better.
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). - Dazo
You voted for the rent, every person on Astro. And it was not me who rejected 1,000 usd projects, but the DAO, and you were one of the councils, together with me, who downvoted one of the 1,000 usd projects, as you can remember here: https://app.astrodao.com/dao/gambiarra-dao.sputnik-dao.near/proposals/gambiarra-dao.sputnik-dao.near-53
Why are there so many votes in favor and just our two votes against it? Because voting began before we decided that there were no resources to pay for all the projects. When we saw the amount of projects we had, we had to downvote the 1,000 usd projects. And we did. Now, the project from Isa was a building project. How could we maintain Isa’s project without the rent? So I do not understand how we would maintain Isa’s project without the rent. This would be only possible if I take a non rented land of mine and give it for free to Gambiarra. I saw no reason to give my land for free, because I have other projects to build on my lands that are not rented. But for my already rented lands, it is way different. As I said, Gambiarra made some exhibitions for free on Metaverse DAO; we never charged them, because it was a property rented for Metaverse DAO, and it was important to Metaverse DAO to have these exhibitions. So when you say that I am trying to gain territory by giving a land for free, you did not make the difference between a land that is rented to a DAO and a land that is not rented. I will not rent my land for free to any DAO, because DAOs have funding capabilities, but I already rented my land for free to people. Gambiarra DAO Gallery, on Cryptovoxels, before being rented to Gambiarra, was a place that some Brazilian artists were using for free. And the lands that are already rented to DAOs, the DAOs have freedom to do whatever they want, including sublocating for free or not, with the resources going to the DAO.
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. - Dazo
This point was already explained before, and we know why I left the council: because I couldn’t be at Gambiarra and Metaverse DAO at the same time, and both being in the Creatives. In fact, I could, but I shouldn’t, because of morality and decentralization. You accepted that and all the council members voted in my request to leave: https://app.astrodao.com/dao/gambiarra-dao.sputnik-dao.near/proposals/gambiarra-dao.sputnik-dao.near-76
Again I would like to bring to this conversation what must be our main intention here: to solve the conflict. I am trying the best I can, by returning the wallets, giving you the store, giving you the telegram group, being softer with virtual lands, and committing myself to vote yes on Gambiarra’s approved funding. I don’t know what else I could do for us to leave this behind and continue our work.
I wish us all a good path, and, again, sorry for my mistakes.
Hello @thephilosopher thanks for taking the time to explain yourself calmly and with detail
About the following, I did know how to do it. If the participants of this exchange can join in a meeting with me I will explain to you how. Calendly - Fritz Wagner
Hello, @Dazo thanks for sharing good pics and arguments.
I am glad we count on Gambiarra DAO as part of the creatives, and I trust we will find a way to solve this disagreement.
The following could depend:
It is suitable for a member to participate in several different initiatives around the NEAR community. This will help him learn more and connect various projects, guilds, etc. But of course, it is not convenient to have the same person in several positions of power… unless this power is diluted in DAOs with 7+ councils.
So, about decentralization, I invite you and all the creatives to join the Community DAO you can just propose yourself as a member, this is an initiative looking for decentralization in our community.
I see right now we need to solve the wallet private key issue, let’s do that if you find it opportune, one step at a time.
Same I just offer to thephilosopher
I will explain more: You can schedule a call with me (I will invite other moderators), and I can explain how to exchange the key. Schedule Call.
Thank you my friend @FritzWorm for the help and explanations.
It is very good that you have understood my point of view, because that is exactly what I wanted to talk about, it was exactly this questioning about concentrated powers that I wanted to bring to the forum, defending our environment of decentralization.
Each member has the right to grow, to conquer space, to rent land, to work in Daos and to be paid for it. But my question is … how was all this received?
It is exactly as you said, it is not convenient to have the same person in several positions of power for different Daos, unless more members participate in the decisions and votes in Astro, and this did not happen.
It is very simple to find this out, several of these payments were approved by him and one other council, and it was not a diluted approval in more councils.
This movement has been noticed by several members of the Brazilian community and this is creating discomfort for members of Brazilian Daos (including you have been in the telegram group and noticed the amount of indignant members).
I tried the best way to detail the whole situation so that the moderators could ascertain the facts, I did all this on behalf of Gambiarra Dao but I also did it for the entire Brazilian community that were in that group looking for a way to denounce all this.
On other issues thank you for proposing to help us, as you said we are walking step by step and adjusting so that everything is resolved in the best way for everyone.
A great week
Thank you, @FritzWorm. Good morning.
I appreciate a lot your offer, your knowledge, and your observations. I will schedue a call with you and other moderators to understand this seed phrase process better. Concerning the email you told me to enable, this email@example.com is a real email or just an example email? (I did not get whether I should use an email that I have access or an email that only gambiarra has access) And I’ve already passed the seed phrase to Gambiarra. Should I make the changes even though?
Right now, I am a council member of only 2 DAOs that have received funding from the Creatives (both with 3 people), and just 1 of them is part of the Creatives Council. Just to let it clear here that I left some of DAOs I was part because of decentralization and because I wanted to focus in developing my main intentions in the ecosystem.
Again, thank you very much for your moderation.
I wish us all the best.
Hello, I am doing a fast reply, this is an example email, not real, I am going to edit my former reply about it, thanks!
The real email should be received by the gambiarra dao, I will recommend on chain with a poll on their DAO:
Poll description: Email of Gambiarra DAO: firstname.lastname@example.org
@Dazo, if you can, when you have Gambiarra’s email, would you send me here, in order for me to follow these steps suggested by Fritz?
I don’t really understand it either.
@FritzWorm Do I also need to schedule a call with you?
I think the main idea is the following:
(1) Gambiarra makes an email for the dao.
(2) Gambiarra makes a poll on astro saying that this is the email of the dao.
(3) Gambiarra sends me this email adress.
(4) I enter at Gambiarra’s wallets, I enable the email security, putting the email Gambiarra gave me, and then I disable seed phrase security.
(5) Than you can access Gambiarra’s wallets through email, that only you will have the access.
(6) Maybe there will be a next step to generate another seed phrase, but I am not sure about it.
Hey, yes if you want, I will invite @creativesdao-council into the meeting. I will be able to explain more about the wallet key exchange.
@Dazo we should connect on a meeting, it will be not more than 15 minutes for sure. Let me know if you are able or someone from Gambiarra DAO. You can use the calendly I share to schedule the meeting
As soon as I have the meeting with Fritz I will get back to you to adjust all this.
@FritzWorm Is the time I scheduled the meeting Brazil time?
Yes it is, it is your own time what you see.
Thank you too, Dazo. I wish you all the best.
@thephilosopher here I would like to make very clear this comment of yours: “Metaverse DAO also did it for Gambiarra DAO, since we host for free Mintbase Sunday, a Gambiarra DAO project”. As the person responsible for Mintbase Sunday I make it clear that the project was invited to hold its show in the Metaverse DAO building. An invite is different from being free.
In March I held in partnership with @Isa_Danoninho a solo exhibition on the 2nd floor of the building and the 4 Women exhibition on the 3rd floor with the sole purpose of doing events in the house, neither of the two exhibitions received funds to be held.