The cryptospace is being shaped by a new kind of tribalism culture. Crypto organizations are being born and evolving by systems coerced by a common ideology, mindsets, and/or believing systems instead of territory and/or violence. Bitcoin and their forks, Ethereum and other communities are autonomously self-organizing themself (more or less) to build the code that answer back to such ideologies, and Aragon is not only a perfect example of this, but a very clear one, as we have a pretty well stated Manifiesto.
In my personal perception, the above is just nature! The good one! An space full of diversity that will probably end up into a Darwinian process that would allow, not the strongest, neither the longer chain to survive, but that one that will adapt better to the market, industries and overall culture conditions.
At a meta level, referring to the crypto space, there are clear signs of cultural decentralization that makes me assure we are going through the right path, but I’m not sure if inside Aragon we are experiencing the same thing, as I have personally been seeing signs and patterns that makes me thing that we want to centralize the culture around one (ore few) person’s mindset.
From one side, of course we need a manifiesto, a centralized ethical code to serve us as a north star to keep the Aragon Project bonded enough. The cultural perspective that I want to challenge now is not that one, but the individual agent one. Is it ok that people that work for Aragon Project (aka Flock teams) should centralize their individual efforts onto a single project?
A couple of weeks ago I read in thread among @clesaege and @luis about Kleros Proposal to have a common court with Aragon the following:
even calling Kleros to focus 100% on DAOs giving up his own identity for receiving a Flock grant…
Bus as the same Luis said in this other thread:
so I’m taking the chance to make this open critic, also because this is not the first time something like this happens.
In January this year, @GriffGreen submitted the AragonDAC Flock proposal after months of working together with Aragon thanks to the Nest Grant they had. This AGP was rejected by the AA board before submitting it to ANT holders vote, because the team did not commit 100% of their time because they were already working (and planning to continuosly doing it) on the Giveth project. Giveth soul was not committed, so the AA rejected the AGP.
My personal believe is that we should embrace decentralization in all themes, at all levels, even if we have to go fractal with that. Decentralization brings diversity, and diversity can bring wealthiness and evolution if we know how to embrace it and take advantage of it. I think that if we allow other teams, with their own identity to be part of the Aragon project, we should actually study if the entity that these teams also represent could bring value to our network as Kleros and Giveth want/wanted to do instead of demanding all of their attention for ourself.
I totally understand and support that the professional live of Luis and other fellows shall be centered around Aragon Project with 100% of their soul committed to that, but I don’t really think this should be the case for every single soul receiving a Flock grant… We could be taking advantage about different perspectives, knowledge and experiences from another organizations instead of demanding Aragon to be the center of their world.
. Honestly you sound like you have some axe to grind. I can only speak about what I know and the coop fiasco had nothing to do with Aragon, its culture, or any flock members. There were issues with onboarding (very frustrating to me too) and a rushed AGP but fundamentally what happened was two people had a very public falling out and created a extremely bad atmosphere. This lead to ~90% of the participants disengaging all together and effectively bricking the governance process
