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.
Unfortunately, the last few days have been a lot of work and I have not been able to come here to make comments and observations about everything that has happened. Very sad about all of this. I will not go on since my colleagues have already positioned themselves and I agree with all the comments and suggestions posted here.
My questioning from the beginning was about the gambiarra.near wallet and especially galeriagambiarra.near. By my own choice, I thought it was fair to put a 10% royalty on all my published photos with the goal of helping the collective, always focusing on the community. There were more than 100 photos published.
From the moment the information reached me that @thephilosopher said it would not pass on the wallet, the disappointment was immense. Among so many other issues raised here, having to come to the NEAR Forum to expose all this is unfortunate.
Anyway, I noticed in some comments here that this issue is already in progress to be resolved, so I hope it will be. But from this situation I have learned my lesson. I will never again put royalties to any collective wallet.
I think Macieira that the main lesson we all learned from all of this is that the only real collective wallet a DAO has is the astrodao’s wallet. The main problem is that to use it, we have to learn how to make some different kinds of CFCs.
Concerning the wallets, it is all resolved now. Fritz helped us to know how to change the seed phrase of the previews wallets, in order for only you to have access. As soon as Dazo meets with Fritz, he will be able to make these changes, and everything will be ok.
I have taken much time to read through every comment provided here, rewrite the situation in my own simple terms and deeply think about how to move forward.
To me, these series of events appear to be very complex and hard to decipher as there are vastly different perspectives and experiences intertwined with several different incidents and timelines.
Accusing a community member of manipulation and harm is a serious issue. Being a woman in ANY space, I always desire to stand up and protect my sisters so they may feel comfortable, respected and empowered. Being a human in an imperfect world, I always want to understand all sides of a situation and find solutions for misunderstanding and conflict.
Here are the main issues I see being brought up on this thread:
- The potential that @thephilosopher is using harmful communication to manipulate/control community decisions and/or achieve monetary gain
- Does this go against community guidelines?
- → YES
- We are asking our Portuguese speaking moderators to look at what has been provided. They are taking care to do this thoughtfully and will be reporting back to us.
- After we translate all of the incidents we will decide on what our next steps will be. I personally advocate we take actions of rehabilitation.
- The potential that @thephilosopher & @gushlewis (owner of manutegus.near) added @beetlejuice as a council on Metaverse DAO in violation of any Metaverse DAO policy for adding new council members to the DAO and then @thephilosopher & @beetlejuice together removed @Isa_Danoninho from Metaverse DAO after this violation.
- If there was a violation of any Metaverse DAO policy for adding new council members to the DAO OR removing community members we suggest that the Metaverse DAO community address this internally, perhaps calling for a revote.
- If there is no specific policy made by Metaverse DAO for adding new council members to the DAO OR removing community members and the community feels the actions are fair, then this does not go against any community guidelines. DAO councils are allowed to change and morph, even when it does not make everyone happy.
- To grow from this situation as a community I encourage the Metaverse DAO and every DAO operating within NEAR to contemplate how this type of situation could be avoided. What types of systems/policies can we put in place to ensure all communities are in agreement about shifting council positions?
- @thephilosopher still holding the seed phrases of the Gambiarra DAO Mintbase Store which receive royalties from NFT sales
- This is being resolved currently thanks to the initiation of @FritzWorm and the cooperation of @thephilosopher & @Dazo
- @thephilosopher voting NO against Gambiarra DAO being a council DAO of Creatives
- Does this go against community guidelines?
- → NO; everyone is allowed to vote no
- @thephilosopher explained that there were 3 main reasons he decided to make that vote and even though he felt they were valid, he apologized for voting no because it caused drama and disrupted the community
- This vote was supported by Rafaela @beetlejuice who also apologized for voting no.
- @thephilosopher removing himself from Gambiarra DAO council halfway through March
- Does this go against community guidelines?
- → NO; everyone has the right to leave any DAO when they choose. It is up to them how to do this in manners that maintain relationships.
- It is okay to not be in alignment with a project anymore. We should normalize allowing folks to go when they need to, even if we don’t personally understand.
- @thephilosopher returning 250 DAI (instead of NEAR) which is half of the 500 USD in N to Gambiarra DAO after Dazo requested half of his council payment to be returned due to his early departure from Gambiarra DAO
- Does this go against the community guidelines?
- → NO; there are no guidelines that detail this type of interaction.
- Returning funds is returning funds and exchanging/being fluid with coins is a part of the crypto world. If this is a big concern for Gambiarra after this incident perhaps putting a policy in place for the future would be beneficial.
- Gambiarra DAO’s payment to @thephilosopher for his cryptovoxel land
- Does this go against community guidelines?
- If the payment was out of manipulation or force then this is problematic; we are assessing this by translating the language of all incidents.
- If the payment was done consensually between the Gambiarra community & @thephilosopher I see only miscommunication.
To move forward → we would like to give any other Metaverse DAO or Gambiarra DAO community members the opportunity to give any further accounts on this situation.
We ask that you please keep your accounts respectful, concise, clear and straight to the point. We are not opening space for, nor will we tolerate, escalated attacks or accusations.
We are all in the process of figuring out how to operate in a decentralized way; conflict is inevitable but harm and inappropriate behavior is not. Let’s embody care and move through our conflict with compassion and openness.
A few specific questions:
For @gushlewis → Did you feel forced into voting yes for @beetlejuice to become council?
For Metaverse DAO council & community members:
→ Did @gushlewis & @thephilosopher break any Metaverse DAO community policy by adding @beetlejuice to council?
For any other NEAR community member:
→ If there are any other pertinent details related to the main issues raised above, please let the Creatives DAO community moderators know in private message here on the Forum. If there are details or incidents that you prefer to keep anonymous, we will honor your privacy.
Thank you, @adrianseneca, for your moderation and for your explanations.
In respect to 2, these were our guidelines in our introduction in the moment we removed Isa:
Membership: People can join our guild: by invite of the council; or, after joining one of our bounties or after an accepted projected by our guild, the person submits to enter and is accepted by the council, whose decision is given by majority.
I have to remember that Isa was not removed from a council position, but from a member position. She was never a council.
And Beetle-Juice entered in a council position after an accepted and successful project in our guild (diagramming many magazines for us) and by invite of the council. She was voted by me and Gus. It was proposed by me, and not by her, because she was learning how to use astrodao.
We have no rules concerning removing members.
Maybe we could avoid this kind of situation by establishing a rule that people can only be removed from the DAO by total council agreement. I don’t know if this is a good way, but maybe it is. I agree that we must build rules to remove members too, but it is hard to ask for unanimity, because not always all the council members agree with a removal.
Thank you for everything.
Too much coincidence my removal as a member and less than 20 minutes already have two votes against the gambiarra, right?
Being that the justification (blackmail) for my removal was that I turned council I would be removed.
And that never happened.
I am tired of this story. EXAUST!
One more bourgeois man rising above the others.
Nothing unusual living in Brazil.
Hello @adrianseneca . I did’nt felt forced to vote on her entering Metaverse DAO, because I believe it was the best to do at the moment, the same way I approved @thephilosopher enter on Spiritual DAO on a moment of fragility when John incident happenned. My experience within this ecosystem is pretty recent and I still have a lot to learn, but Im pretty aware of myself and what do I stand for.
Meeting done, Dazo now have a new passphrase created, the old one you shared with them was erased.
Thanks for your collab, big hug.
Was a nice meeting in português @Dazo
Big hug, cheers.
Thank you very much @FritzWorm , it was a good conversation.
Was a nice meeting in português and english, I also risked some of my English
Hello, @FritzWorm. Thank you so much for your help.
My name is Thais, here in this community I’m Filmes de Infiltração.
Thank you so much for your text and all the learnings you are sharing with the community.
I hope I can share some thoughts respectfully.
I just have one thing to add to the topic 7 because as a council at Gambiarra DAO I have also a responsibility in share some situations and some pre-arrangements and pre-consents of Gambiarra community.
- Gambiarra DAO’s payment to @thephilosopher for his cryptovoxel land:
Well, this topic is complex because it took long discussions in Gambiarra DAO. It could be read as miscommunication for sure.
As a council I was against the project from the beginning, but not because the philosopher was renting his own cryptovoxel place, but because he made a proposal and immediately voted to approve it without waiting for the deadline of all the proposals to Gambiarra (we have a rule about receiving proposals, and voting). We had a long talk about it, because ok, the rules could be broken, but… by a council, alone, with his own project, without a previous conversion about breaking the rule?
Our “open calls”, let’s call like this, have space for 7 projects with maximum budget of 500 USD each.
Philosopher project had 1000 USD budget, because 500USD was for the rental of his cryptovoxel land and 500 USD for the metaarchitects.
I asked thephilosopher to cancel the approved proposal on ASTRO, first because the budget was not in accordance with our “open call”, second we should wait all the proposals arrive and then vote equally to all (in Gambiarra we created a rule that first we receive all the proposals, second the members would have 2 days to vote, third the council would vote after all. In this way we could also give the opportunity to members decide some proposals depending on the quantity of votes, and also as council we could see which project could have more interest to the community).
So, he canceled the first proposal in ASTRO, and made a new propose in ASTRO, and voted on it again.
When I questioned him again, he said that he had cancelled the previous one because there were some bugs, but that this one was already ready to be voted on and he did it.
He somehow bypassed his colleagues, and voted for his own project, as a consul, bypassing the prearranged dates and the rules that had been created so that the DAO could organize itself in more harmonic way.
Selecting projects is not easy, even more when we have many super interesting and exciting projects. So I totally disapprove a situation where someone bypasses a selection, and this becomes even worse if this person is part of the council.
Of course, it could be read as a miscommunication.
We are all learning here, so I truly hope that we can look at our own actions towards each other and that we can keep the most precious thing in each of us. Learning from complex situations .
I’d like to give some context here. We all know why this messy voting happened. Another person submitting a project was the first to send his project and ask for votes before we decided on telegram which projects should be funded, even asking for votes on private messages before all the proposals get on the table. This made everybody put their projects inside astro and run for approval before we decide everything. And this was the case with me too. Here is the proposal that started the run for votes on astro: Astro
I said that I would vote before, even being a council member, because I was in the hospital and I didn’t know when I was going to be able to vote again, and if the other council members did not vote before, we would not have any problems with the votes of the members, that would still have voting power (because 1 council member cannot decide anything alone). It seems all of you are forgetting this point and also forgetting that it was not me who started the run for votes. Beyond that, February 25th (the day I submitted the rent and voted) was the day I had my biopsy, and from that day I was in the hospital up to March 4th. After that, I was recovering from cirgury at home.
I made another proposal on astro, because people were running to submit their proposals on astro and get votes before we decide the proposals to be funded. So when we decided that 1,000 usd proposals were not being funded, Isa’s proposal was already approved, like some other proposals. We could, nevertheless, as council, downvote Iago’s proposal, even with the votes of the members being casted (because it was a 1,000 usd proposal). If you go to the proposals between the end of february and the beginning of march, you can all verify that – mainly if you compare with Gambiarra’s funding proposal for March: [CONCLUDED] Gambiarra DAO Funding for March 2022 Even with all the confusion, we made a funding proposal and we selected the projects to be funded even with the problems on astro. We ignored what was approved on astro and we decided on telegram which projects were going to be approved. So even with my mistake of voting before, this did not affect anything, because we decided a posteriori which projects were going to be funded. You can all see the difference between the proposals approved on astro and the proposals we put in our funding proposal. And beyond all that, what matter the most is this poll: Astro This poll is the approval of Gambiarra’s funding proposal for March. So even with the problems in our votes on astro, Thais made this funding proposal with the projects that were in fact approved by the DAO, and not with all the projects approved on astro. You can see that Isa’s project is approved on astro, but not in the funding proposal. So it is clear that we decided the projects to be funded beyond what was registered on astro: [CONCLUDED] Gambiarra DAO Funding for March 2022.
I agree with you, Thais. I was wrong to bypass the other members in voting first, and for that I am sorry. But please, take into consideration the situation I was in when everything happened. I was in the hospital having a biopsy that day and taking many kinds of meds in my veins more than 3 times a day for 7 days. And I told everyone I was voting before because of that. So sorry if I tried to vote before, but I think I have a pretty good justification for doing so, given I didn’t know what was going to happen with me. My situation was pretty special.
We are all learning, even me. I tried the best I could inside Gambiarra, and I really made mistakes, just like other people. Nevertheless, the votes on the many proposals on astro did not decide the fate of Gambiarra’s funding proposal for March. What decided it was this poll, as I already pointed it, created by Thais and voted by her before all the other members, and also voted by me, as council member: Astro
I am really learning with everything that is happening and seeing that I made some mistakes. Sorry for them. I am human and I was in a pretty dark place with my flesh in necrosis, having to have a biopsy, inside a hospital, without anyone to be there with me (because of covid rules), taking antibiotics, anti inflammatories and painkillers many times a day. I didn’t know even if I was going to be healed, or if I had cancer. I think at least most of you really don’t know what is to pass through a situation like that. I know it is not good to justify actions with a disease, but I really have to show the context here.
I think we must decide what to do now in favor of the community. As I think I have explained myself here, I will wait now for the word of the moderators.
Kind regards to us all.
This will be the last time I will speak here, this story touched my emotional and made me sick, I don’t want to have to scream anymore to be heard, I’m tired.
Well @adrianseneca , first of all I don’t see much difficulty in deciphering what is going on, you have several reports of different people addressing the attitude of the same person (not to mention those who spoke out in the telegram group and didn’t have the courage to come and formally denounce it here).
I know that it can be difficult to accept that a person so influential and “cordial”, so “beneficial” to the community, is all that people are saying, especially when this group is formed by women, lgbts, people in financially vulnerable situations; we are already used to not being heard and having to prove every word we say. This is part of our reality in Brazil.
I didn’t come here to accuse Cid, I came to expose him, it is not a misunderstanding.
Do you know how to identify a sociopath?
I will bring some characteristics that are used to identify sociopathic people.
1- Difficulty to empathize.
The main characteristic of sociopathy is the reduced capacity to empathize. Cid is a person who uses the vulnerability of others to get the things he wants and that they be done as he wants. I won’t expose the cases with others, but with me for example, he blackmailed me, if I became council of Gambiarra Dao, he would remove me as a member. This is punishment. Because I do not agree with the attitudes of trying to harm Gambiarra that he was having.
2 - Compulsive lying. Sociopaths are compulsive liars.
Cid, always lied to everyone in the Brazilian community, always with double standards, charging undue things (the person did not speak here in the post, even though the entire Gambiarra community knew that Cid made undue charges to her).
3 - Manipulation.
We were all victims of this. Everything was manipulated according to his will. "I have been in the community for a long time, you have just arrived. All the people who had direct contact with Cid have heard this phrase. He used it a lot to reverse debates where the majority didn’t agree. Always thinking he is superior, withholding information on how the DAOs work, taking advantage of the fact that almost nobody is fluent in English, taking advantage of people who live in vulnerable situations and depend on every penny that falls into their account, using the fear of the person not having money the following month (I am one of them), the aggressiveness in phone calls against women (I have heard cid screaming on the phone, and I know of threats that he made to another woman also by phone call), of the exposure of the work of other people in a public way, playing the victim of a situation that he himself caused, as in the case of the portfolio that we had to fight for more than 10 days to get back, and in the case of the council salary and that he returned the wrong money. Everyone knows that Gambiarra DAO makes payments in NEAR, at the exchange rate of the day the money arrives at the DAO, a rule that he himself created and we adopted. But the golden rosemary receives in NEAR and pays in DAI? It came back less NEAR than it left.
4 - Impulsiveness. This one I love. Because that’s the one where his mask fell off. The CFC against the gambiarra was proof of this. He removed me, and created two CFCs in a matter of minutes. Acting out of anger and impulsiveness. He deleted Gambiarra’s telegram groups, returned the general one, and did not return the DAO one. Guess why? Because all the evidence against him over the months is there. The accusations against Octopode Dao, the chirping, the requests for votes at dawn, everything is there.
He excluded the group in his impulsiveness.
5 - Arrogance.
I don’t even need to get into this merit, just reread the texts that Cid sent. Always the owner of the reason, always superior, always correct and coherent.
Listen to the audios of the conversation with Gus.
Check the evidence I sent, there are audios and conversations that prove it.
6 - Hostile behavior.
I see the blackmail he did to me as hostile behavior.
I am unemployed, and he knows it. And Near has become the dream of the undervalued artist in Brazil, the dream of growing and working for a fair remuneration doing art. Blackmailing me, at the risk of losing my livelihood for not taking his side?
7 - Abusive relationships.
This topic I will not be able to talk about properly. @blusw was the one who went through this terror, and who continues to be afraid to talk and expose it in detail, for fear of what Cid would be capable of doing in his life out here.
8 - Impatience.
Cid, the master of impatience, when he attacked @Natashacremonese in the Gambiarra Dao group, when his land was not going to be rented, when he needed things to be approved quickly and asked the councils to approve quickly, and the rule is always the councils vote last to give the members a chance to voice their opinions.
The calls, the removal of John, etc… and so on…
@thephilosopher is sick! He needs therapy, psychiatric treatment.
His posture does not match a community posture.
He will always put himself first for anything.
He doesn’t know what it is to be a community, to take your project away from you so that someone else can join, someone else can welcome you in their project so that you won’t be left without doing anything, and everyone helping each other for the sake of the group, for the collective growth.
IT IS COLLECTIVE! IT IS NOT INDIVIDUAL. IT IS NOT CENTRALIZED.
So Andrea, it is not difficult to understand, it is difficult to accept.
I am tired of being invalidated, exposed, and needing to shout to be heard.
I end here my statement about this case.
To the moderators responsible for this case I bring one more question:
What will happen if Cid gets away with this situation? Other people will come along and will also feel entitled to act in bad faith because they know of this impunity.
Rodrigo Cid cannot go through this case, with several people denouncing his stances, with impunity.
Or you will only prove what he preaches to be: Untouchable.
Hello all, this post has been temporarily locked.
Part of the work the Community Moderators have taken on here is to ensure they’re getting the fullest possible picture to then be able to accurately respond to Community concerns, and move to protect everyone negatively impacted by the incident in question.
Following due diligence and giving opportunity for everyone to speak to the matter at hand is what is required here and allows for voices to be heard so full context can be understood. Calling out a moderator for doing their job is not necessary and is counter-productive. Any ‘accusation’ regarding the state of someone’s mental health has no place here as we are not mental health professionals. The last comment here will be kept visible because it contains material feedback for the Moderators to consider. There are also conversations that are happening outside of this post that are being attended to simultaneously.
To that end, this post will remain locked until the Creatives DAO Community Moderators are ready to outline what the next steps will be here, because any complaint or concern from any community member is taken seriously.
Hello Creatives Community,
Thank you for your patience with our response.
Keep in mind we are fellow community members doing our best to support the cultivation of a healthy Creatives DAO community space.
We are all walking together in our learning processes.
First I will share the steps we took to mediate this conflict to embody transparency and encourage open conversations around how to engage with conflict in the most productive and regenerative of ways.
- We read through all comments on the forum.
- We identified main issues and complaints.
- We shared our findings and interpretations internally, doing our best to give all parties involved equal and fair consideration.
- We identified if the issues were going against the community guidelines / out of the range for us as community moderators.
- We took initiative to remedy the most urgent conflict points (returning wallet access).
- We looked for solutions and offered suggestions for preventing similar conflict in the future.
- We had @hevertonharieno and @ted.iv translate the Portuguese accounts shared and share with the rest of the moderation team their findings.
- We took our time and much care coming to conclusions.
Now our conclusions from our findings:
We have concluded that while Metaverse DAO & Gambiarra DAO had many structural and communication points of difficulty that contributed to this conflict, the @thephilosopher at times leveraged his knowledge about the ecosystem to sway and sometimes belittle his teammates, most often his women teammates.
- Consult with a moderator - We would like to clarify with all members in the ecosystem that if you are unsure about something, feel that you are not able to make your own decisions, feel undervalued, confused etc - please ask the moderators. We value all DAO leaders and the work they do to teach newcomers, yet we acknowledge that leaders can hold unequal power. Therefore we want to remind everyone entering NEAR that they have neutral and safe places to communicate with the moderators
- We would like to respectfully ask @thephilosopher to please step down from council on the DAOs he is currently in and pause the initiation of his new DAO for 2 months. We propose that it is acceptable for you to still operate within the ecosystem as a contributor but not as a council at this time.
- We would like to propose that @thephilosopher reflects on these happenings and shares with us these ways in which he plans to re-enter the community with different actions so this harm does not get repeated.
- We remind all DAOs that they always have ability to exercise their rights to remove council members perceived to be causing harm.
- Creatives Moderators would like to offer further support to Metaverse DAO & Gambiarra DAO - We believe with some more support Metaverse & Gambiarra would have been able to avoid some of this conflict. Therefore we would like to offer your communities direct support to help you move forward if you would like. Feel free to reach out to us.
- We remind all community members to hold themselves and others accountable in caring ways.
- We ask everyone to continue to practise ‘pragmatic optimism’ in our interactions with anyone on the internet, that is, give individuals the chance to prove themselves but exercise caution, especially when funds are involved. (Thanks to @mecsbecs for these words & concepts.)
Thanks for everyone who has given input. There is a lot of work to be done in these two communities and across the wider creative community to ensure this perceived power imbalance doesn’t impede our work as a community to actively decentralize authority. May we all move forward with better understandings of how to truly collaborate together.