I think its time for an update on Aragon DAO’s funds:
It has now been over a year since its creation, over 3 months since the first deposit was sent to the DAO and over 5-6 months since the FULL treasury was to be in the DAO’s hands.
Why have no additional funds been sent? Why has there been no update?
We would love some clarity from the AA when possible
Tagging @Joan_Arus as it seems this is your duty to ensure this happens.
As a vote already passed for this it would be nice to see some meaningful progress on this.
Isn’t the DAO represented by its own counsel that can compel the team to respond?
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to express my gratitude and appreciation for your efforts. I understand that the team had concerns earlier regarding unmanaged votes (or “51% attacks”). However, I have noticed that the situation has significantly improved, with the latest votes indicating a substantial increase in on-chain activity and successful wANT wrapping.
In light of these positive developments, I was wondering if we could kindly hear from the AA regarding any remaining obstacles preventing them from proceeding with the rest of the treasury transfers. Your insights would be highly valuable, and I believe open communication can help us make further progress.
Thank you once again for your time and consideration.
@Gabriela is it correct that you are part of the AA?
I am disappointed to observe that there is absolutely no progress or intention of progress being displayed by the team members to execute what has been approved by the DAO. The only interpretation we can make here is that the organization that is currently holding the treasury has intentions that don’t align with the mandate they have.
Why is there 0 accountability?
Just to re-clarify, the Aragon Project teams have no power over the treasury, the Aragon Association does.
Why is there no progress made?
Why did the AA swap 23M$ of stables into ETH at the local top, the 30th of August? Who was responsible for this? Will they pay for their bad management? At the moment, the AA is responsible for a nominal loss of 1.15M$!
Can we agree that the AA is acting against their fiduciary obligation here?
@Joan_Arus or any other member of the AA (@luis ), could you show up to speak about the situation and explain your trading theory?
Is it too much to ask not to gamble the treasury in stupid trades?
How it started / how it’s going
@Yakitori Lets please try and keep this on topic. These memes and screenshots arent adding to the conversation. If you have something constructive to add, please use your words. Thank you.
I think the real issue is that, similar to what has happened recently to Nouns DAO and to many other DAOs, that there are people that don’t care about the mission of Aragon and just see that it has a large treasury and wants to capture it’s governance and make money by buying the token and then dissolving the project and cashing out the treasury.
IMO, we need to find a way for Aragon to have other stakeholders represented besides liquid capital.
Did you do any research into what happened at nouns or any of the other situations…? Team members draining treasuries with inflated salaries… using treasury funds for absolute nonsense…
Anyways… you are basically saying “wow I dont like that our governance token is governing in a way that does not benefit the team members pockets… lets strip the tokens ONLY utility because we as team cannot stand that people may actually want value returned to holders”
Is this a serious take?
Lets keep the conversation on topic and avoid attacking other members for their opinions @AntHolder
warranted response to someone advocating for rugging governance token utility.
Or is this just another take against your bias Shawn?
Nope, its a legit attack on another community member.
You’re allowed to have your opinion. Just dont attack others because of theirs.
Nowhere did i attack but question the message!
thanks for your concern
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I urge you to do better.
Firstly the poster insinuated malice by governance participants misrepresenting examples of unrelated DAOs.
Secondly they insinuated governance tokens shouldn’t govern.
I do understand everyone is entitled to their opinions so I do appreciate new voices.
Please do a better job of governing these forums and protecting the non team member bias POV instead of claiming off topic and ignoring them its quite sad to see this go on esp within a project who are DAO builders…
DAOs treasuries are not blank checks to teams. Token holders submit capital beforehand, if the “vision” is not achieved, either due to graft of insider, lack of PMF, or external problems, what are their options?
“Exit, Voice, and Loyalty” is a classic framework for DAOs and, in general, organizations, from nation-states or local communities.
You’re advocating for loyalty, very well - some others are advocating for exit. Both positions aren’t necessary incompatible, as the current treasury is large enough to withstand more than 50% of the supply exiting, while not endangering the project.
Having a clear exit path for willing tokenholders could even be a net positive, as it would create some pressure to ship working products with clear PMF and revenue expectations. This pressure happens in most companies and is generally a good thing for the ecosystem.
Also, to echo @AntHolder, crypto is not short of underperforming DAOs ran by insiders. Luxury beliefs such as “vision”, “mission” (etc) are not a remedy for accountability. The RFV crowd is akin to the pack of wolves that keeps the herd healthy.