Because the status quo is ~$50mil taken from Ant holders without a governance vote…
The risk of this proposal passing is -$300,000
The risk of the status quo is approx -$50,000,000, ie it is ~166x more risky
2 Likes
What value has Aragon had for the industry?
1 Like
I was refraining from joining but, oh boy, posts like that make my blood boil. Unreal double standards.
You rush to call IncubatorDao signers thieves based on information from one person (troll or not) seemingly without any due diligence but don’t seem to be concerned with thievery happening in Aragon. Despite evidence of it being presented multiple times on this forum. Even their own blog post clearly states that they plan to take multiple millions $ from DAO and investors.
To clarify ROOK/Incubator situation:
- Last time I checked selling tokens on market and filling 1inch orders isn’t stealing. Those were tokens send to Incubator msig by redeeming users and signers had all right (one could argue even obligation) to use them for benefit of IncubatorDao members.
- 50/50 split passed governance process. It’s definitely not low performance fee but since they made money for the dao (something that never happened in Aragon that took 0.01 ETH per ANT and now returns only 0.0025376 ETH per ANT
) no one was against it.
Now lets compare to Aragon AA blog post
- Initial redemption
- Incubator released whole treasury to holders.
- Aragon decided to keep $11m to “mitigate against regulatory uncertainty”. Btw doesn’t that sound like “We know we are on the hook so lets keep some funds for lawyers and settlement”?
From Financial Overview we can learn that ETH wasn’t only asset in AA belonging to AragonDAO (among others report states ~3m CHF cash or cash equivalents, ~2.3m CHF in other assets). What happened to those assets? No clue…
On top of that there is roughly $500k worth of ETH left in treasury. Why this isn’t part of redemption? No clue…
- At the end of claim period
- Following governance proposal Incubator airdropped all unclaimed funds to holders that took part in redemption + bonus from selling ROOK tokens.
- Aragon plans to take ALL unclaimed funds to private entity without governance vote. “Continue the mission in a product-focused structure – committing remaining funds to product development.”
Lots of words for “We will use it to pay our salaries”, isn’t it? Considering that over $45m worth of ANT didn’t even migrate to v2 (migration was in 2020) it will likely be a lot of funds going out of DAO into the hands of team via private company.
Knowing all of the above I’m 100% more willing to trust “Oversight Committee” members listed in proposal than any member of AA/Aragon team. At least I know incentives are aligned. All of them are holders and will benefit from successful legal action against AA and none of them are benefactors of this mysterious private entity that AA wants to donate our money to.
6 Likes
Hi everyone,
I just want to make sure that anyone considering voting on this proposal can make a fully informed decision:
wANT holders are organized under the legal wrapper of the Swiss association “Aragon Ecosystem Association (AEA)” – see articles here:
The purpose of AEA states that the use of any funds that is not in line with the purpose is prohibited.
The proposed vote by Diogenes Casares (Dcasares) would therefore be in breach of the articles of association of AEA, as the intention of the proposal is not to continue the Aragon project mission but to further enrich ANT holders.
The vote will not only have drastic tax consequences for AEA but also expose wANT holders, and in particular Patagon Management, Arca, DCF God, Wismerhill, Tedward, CM, Triangular and Yakitori (listed as a committee in the proposal) to lawsuits by other members of AEA that voted against the proposal based on article 75 Swiss Civil Code that states:
“Art. 75
Any member who has not consented to a resolution which infringes the law or the articles of association is entitled by law to challenge such resolution in court within one month of learning thereof.”
see here: Fedlex
In addition, as AEA would not have funds anymore but must pay taxes because of the non-purpose-compliant use of the funds, the committee and others involved may become personally liable (.i.e. in particular the committee mentioned above).
This is not legal advice, just a warning that you should do your research before voting on this proposal.
The lawsuit does fall within the scope of the purpose listed. It furthers the development of Web3 open-source software applications by discouraging future theft within the space as we have witnessed by the Aragon Association. The implications of civil or criminal charges brought against thieves would encourage better funding allocation towards real Web3 software builders within the space, and discourage thieves like the AA from pursuing similar fraudulent schemes in future.
So, don’t try this route buddy - it won’t end well.
2 Likes
You are 100% wrong
This legal action is absolutely necessary to further the the growth and development of DAOs
To let the AA get away with their abuse of this DAO is to the detriment of DAOs
The legal action is necessary to directly increase confidence in DAOs, and DAO’s ability to fight bad actors.
2 Likes
The lawsuit entirely falls within the scope as it promotes the original purpose of a decentralized community and additionally is not a lawsuit targeting the Aragon project itself or the AA’s mission but rather protecting the DAO.
If any member believes we have infringed on a law, they are within their right to pursue us.
Thank god there are $10M explicitly for obligations. Also this is simply not the case, you are saying this would be the case in the event of a resolution, not necessarily the vote itself.
Patagon has already done several lawsuits and has heard various reasonings behind why teams should keep the vast majority of cash. In every case this has not held up, we are confident we are in the right here.
EDIT: We are specifically making sure this section is done properly…
2 Likes
The lawsuit entirely falls within the scope as it promotes the original purpose of a decentralized community
ser your favorite known troll over here if you don’t mind to answer… How does funding a lawsuit to try to distribute as much $ as possible to your own bags really fits the purpose of the entity or “protects” the DAO?
I guess that what you understand as “protecting the DAO” really means appointing yourselves as multisig members and distribute all the $ among friends and cronnies right like you did with Rook?? Ah! And then taking the extra cut by stealing extra funds left as “management fees” 
@rhizobtc did a top job here exposing your ways here:
I guess you thought you could rinse and repeat the same play with Aragon? I mean you even appoint the same guys as “oversight committee” now LMFAO. I really need to share this more
Because it is not for us, as mentioned in the proposal it is for all holders.
We would not be appointed to any multi-sig, that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the proposal.
This has already been covered, and also Patagon itself was never on the multisig. I would encourage you to read the actual proposal.
1 Like
Wait wat, I’m confused… You mention that Patagon was never on that multisig, but you are Patagon’s primary beneficial owner.
Aren’t you also also member of this multisig?
Please clarify ser
Given my name is not there answer is obvious no
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Hello, as you may not have noticed, this is not a spinoff of RookDAO.
Here, team members have been repeatedly selling their vested tokens, leading the price to dilute to a very low level. Investors started to see that, after 6 years, product-market fit and path to sustainability still wasn’t found, that the burn was increasing drastically (7+M$/year!), so they started to take action and asked for accountability. Especially since the AA pledged to transfer the treasury to the DAO.
When the team saw that it was put in minority and couldn’t salary farm anymore, they repurposed the DAO overnight, did some pretty bad insider trading, then had to back down after everyone told them it was pretty bad.
After long months of discussion, and proposals of different paths that didn’t necessary include disbanding the project, we had a long radio silence, a lot of backdoor discussions, and, a week ago, a proposal that will lead to 50M+ going back to the team. Team that got 5M$ in accelerated vesting, as a preliminary “gift”, undecided by the DAO by the way.
You may feel that you have been wronged once, but it doesn’t mean that every case is the same. Overall, unless you explain why you feel the current proposal is bad, and how we can improve it, I dont believe you should post things about Rook.
It seems the previous post got flagged…maybe you didn’t like the evidence getting out?
Let me repeat my post…
Given that you disclosed on TikTok that you are Adonai (happy to share the evidence with anybody who wants it), shouldn’t it also be public knowledge that you were also a member of that Rook multisig?
This is particularly important to clarify. You have an active proposal in Aragon DAO, and ANT holders should know whether or not they want to vote in support of a proposal made by someone involved in rook DAO and LYING about it.
So let’s get this straight. Can you please confirm if you participated in the Rook dissolution independently (as Diogenes Casares), as Adonai, or on behalf of Patagon Management?
1 Like
Hi Zach, what you’re saying is quite concerning although that the twitter thread you linked earlier contains just feels about a process that is quite common in the life of DAOs.
Do you have evidence of wrongdoing (as in, illegal) by Adonai?
I’m in to this proposal. the court of law is absolutely an appropriate place to resolve issues like this, and the outcomes may be incredibly valuable for the community generally… if the process is done thoughtfully
one of the challenges aragon has struggled with generally has been legal clarity. $10M can fix a lot of that and build some better entity formation tools, for instance, that are clearer about the liability DAO members are exposing themselves to. This has a been a perpetual source of conflict in the Aragon DAO that has contributed to the organizational chaos undermining production of value generally (ie it’s harder to get sued for doing nothing than for doing something stupidly… so a lot of nothing has gotten done)
LexDAO is a non-profit with lawyers who specialize in these types of issues, and i think could bring clarity and highlight opportunities. There are many other web3 legal communities in the ecosystem, and all I’m advocating for here is that as you set up a battle plan you consider these opportunities… Making this conflict a more broadly impactful learning experience may require more effort, however i have to believe it may be well worth it in the long run…
best of luck etc…
1 Like
As a reminder:
The Patagon legal action proposal has 2 votes going on.
- Signal voting → Aragon DAO
- Vote with the transaction → Aragon DAO
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
Ohhh boy it seems you guys really DON’T want this info out there as it got flagged AGAIN…
Copying the message again, for the record 
Hi @Yakitori I’m glad you share the concern!
What I have is evidence of Diogenes Casares (aka Adonai) lying about not being in the Rook multisig. I will leave the interpretation of wrongdoing to others to do.
@Dcasares still waiting for your reply!
Can you please confirm if you participated in the Rook dissolution independently (as Diogenes Casares), as Adonai, or on behalf of Patagon Management?
Hi folks, Josh here from Oxford / Metagov. I’m preparing an article on Aragon, and it would be good to chat with @Dcasares , if they are still paying attention to this thread.
