Being a silent observer of th community over the past few months has taught me many things. Contributors are rewarded big time. Anyone who brings even a penny of value to the space is rewarded a dollar for their efforts. Which is remarkable and every contributor acknowledges it with utmost respect. But there are some rather unpleasant things that are often overlooked.
In the internet age, keyboard warriors are empowered more than ever. Pseudonymous profiles (or anon as most people would like to call them) have become tools both for self defence (protecting privacy) and attack (bullying and toxic vigilantism). How does someone who’s on the receiving end of such toxic vigilantism respond or seek help?
Where should an individual go for grievance redressal when they feel threatened by or uncomfortable about something? Who is the right authority for such instances? Is it the Foundation or some other body?
I refuse to believe that someone would scour forum posts and social media profiles of hundreds of people, all day without financial or some other motivation. Usually these self proclaimed vigilantes have the blessings of some higher ups which could very well be the case here or it could also be a rare instance of someone being so deeply passionate about the ecosystem that they make it their life’s sole purpose to “investigate” and “interrogate” people even if it means using “intimidatory” approach.
Seeking accountability is totally fine. Seeking transparency should be appreciated. But how can hounding and questioning someone’s integrity be justified? There have been several instances of unpleasant forum interactions in the past few months. What does all of it reflect? There are no reporting or communication standards.
What does the Foundation or various DAOs expect from contributors in terms of reporting when they give funds to them? How does the Foundation or DAOs assess which contributors are worth rewarding and who aren’t. Empowering the community is something that everyone should appreciate but does it mean giving anyone and everyone the “freedom” (sorry couldn’t find a more appropriate word) to seek “accountability” from anyone and everyone?
If that is something which the Foundation indeed strives for then it should be explicitly communicated that every person who receives funds should be prepared to answer questions by anyone, regardless of what the answer seeker’s own credentials or background is. This is a thin rope to walk on since then it opens the room for people to even start questioning Foundation members and this could spiral into a very unpleasant culture very quick. Questioning someone’s integrity or hounding them will then become a norm in the veil of seeking “transparency”.
The question then is how do we prevent it? How do we make sure there is “non-invasive” and “reasonable accountability” without making someone feel threatened or cornered. Hostility has never resulted in productivity.
How can we have different incentive models for contributors and same reporting standards?
I am looking to learn.