So, when the outside world, like exchanges or governments or anyone else asks if the funds are in the hands of the community and decentralization and transparency are real on the NEAR ecosystem what will you do, send them the wiki link?
Anyone can use circular arguments to defend almost anything; why not consider the NF part of the community and instantly guarantee that the money is 100% in the hands of the community? That would be a faster decentralization model, eheh: just change the meaning of words!
Poor arguments, imho, but enough for me on this subject. Not my money, happy to see it happen from afar. Good luck everybody.
@sheadyyy Your statement makes no point, you are trying to make conflict instead of contributing.
Near is going to meet its goal, with it without you….
So stop making despondent comment to bring misunderstanding here.
Thanks for your understanding, would appreciate if you bring vital comments to the ecosystem.
You can make your opinion know without been rude.
You can also object to proposals with a fair comment, or very outstanding reasons
In terms of the day-to-day, my objectives are to engage the broadest sense of the community possible in the process and decision-making:
Champion and contribute to drafting a budget, plan, and resources to create and implement an ecosystem-wide governance framework. Drafts are put forward to the contributors in the GWG for discussion and then to the broader community
Champion grassroots funding and guilds v2 model program
Engage the community and leaders in the ecosystem to increase awareness, gain feedback, and build consensus through broader contribution to the proposed governance model for later adoption
Engage external resources to review, consult, and provide direction on legal compliance and review of the Constitution and Governance model
Present updates to the community, NF, and ecosystem leaders on the status and progress
Ensure roadblocks are removed for workgroup leads and other contributors as needed.
Advise on community issues or challenges related to funding and community growth.
Working full-time to champion these deliverables over the next 6 months to a year with the engagement of the community to ensure a common understanding of deliverables and to gain as much consensus as possible.
Current Phase: Discovery until Dec 31st
Local and global on-chain decision-making (voting)
Local and global on-chain journals, logs, and minutes
Transitionary Governing bodies, their operations, powers, and checks/balances
Community Treasury operations, safeguards, and checks/balances
Community Guidelines, Code of Conduct, and Dispute Resolution
GWG Communications Strategy
GWG Community Engagement Strategy
DAO V2 Governance Model
Glossary of Terms and Conditions
Community Onboarding, Badge, and Promotion Program
Grass Roots Growth & Sustainability Strategy
Depending on the final scope and definition, some of the objectives may not be completed within a year and will need to be moved to a later phase.
We hold weekly community updates on Tuesday, please find last week’s update here:
We have multiple line items in the budget to this point:
For contributors working in a full-time or part-time capacity that are responsible for the delivery of specific objectives
For contributors from the community to contribute via bounties.
The budget is in active discussion. A Q4 budget and a Q1 budget will be drafted.
I’m more of a straight shooter. My day to day involves serving my users and creating value in the marketplace. In the interest of supporting my users it now appears that I must also start politicking on these forums. IMHO, my time would be better spent in the text editor.
Given my experience thus far with the NEAR ecosystem, it is hard to put a charitable spin on what you’ve presented here. What I am reading is mostly corporate gobbledygook and buzzwords. A better way to communicate with me would be to be more plain spoken.
I see here you’ve posted a 13 page PDF? It also appears that these documents are being produced on a weekly basis? After reviewing it, not much made sense. I’m reminded of politicians and FED speak. The words fit together grammatically, but as a whole it is hard parse them into anything intelligible.
A cynical interpretation of this passage might read as follows:
Advocate for more money for myself and my clique of insiders. Secure our position as gatekeepers of these funds.
Much of the same could be said of your 13 page PDF.
I’m very disappointed to be typing these things. Perhaps if the NEAR ecosystem were more transparent; if my experiences and interactions with the members of the NF were more meaningful, we wouldn’t find ourselves here. None the less, here we are.
In the above text you repeatedly invoke collective, community and other similar language. Yet there is a large faction of the community which is dissatisfied with the current goings on. If you truly want to serve the community, then perhaps it is best to start by addressing the trust deficit.
Again, I’d prefer if it were not my place to say these things. However the current situation has forced my hand. I have a duty to support my users. I’d like to be onboard for a consensus and have positive things to say here, but the cupboards are bare.
Consider creating goodwill before proceeding. Quell the controversy with meaningful actions. My views are shaped not by flowery language posted on forums, but from my lived experience interacting with the NF.
Looking forward to participating in an open ecosystem, sans gatekeeping. Hope putting this out in the open can lead to a productive dialogue.