Good morning, first of all I would like to say that I agree with @Isa_Danoninho , in her placements, Rodrigo acted in bad faith with me.
The gambiarra marketing team, started its work in a voluntary and free way, when we wrote the first marketing proposal, by mistake we linked the marketing dao, and we didn’t know that it was possible to ask a vertical marketing dao.
Rodrigo, who was the oldest council member, had not explained to us that marketing dao existed. So much so that he suggested we split a payment of 500usd, because it was the maximum that could be paid.
We split it between 3 people, and we did it willingly, because the idea was to contribute to the collective.
We were questioned that the amount was so low.
About Gambiarra’s Marketing, before leaving Rodrigo suggested again that everyone accept a proposal for free marketing for dao, and we said that this would devalue the work of people who are in Dao, because after all if we are already working why accept more, where would we use so much material? What materials could we not produce ourselves?
I asked him to send me what extra materials he wanted us to make and he never said, he refused to say because he didn’t even know.
I felt publicly humiliated in front of him.
I felt publicly humiliated in front of colleagues, for having been accused of isolating the gambit.
Besides, colleagues had already said that it would be good to value us because we started working for free, and we are always available.
We make a point to send even the days, detailed post numbers if needed, and we always divulge dao’s projects, showing the work of Dao, the support of Near and Mintbase, just look at our layouts all have the logos, and copywrithing is always very well done.
Council @gushlewis was coerced by Rodrigo to go against the Dao’s own marketing, and he refused because he knows that our work has been well done.
We had metacoin sales, all organic.
