Is Aragon falling into a Centralized Culture Framework?

I do understand your rationale, but first, funneling funds can happen also with fully dedicated teams, at least this is something I read from the Birds of a Feather post.

Second, there are other teams that even if their values align with the Aragon Manifesto and BTW are also building Governance tools (just following different product paradigms) like Liquid Pledging in the case of Giveth or the Kleros court. The way I read what I’ve seen is that this teams (even if they have evidenced their capacity in getting shit done) are being prevented to participate in flock not because they are not 100% committed to the Aragon Manifesto (mission, vision, goals, etc.), but because they are not committed to the Aragon brand.

1 Like

Yeah, I think it is a good analysis. Personally I don’t care that much about branding (Kleros started as “Decentralized Arbitration Court” and “Crowdjury”, fused in “Kleroterion” and rebranded “Kleros”). I couldn’t care less about what brand is used. It does not mean branding is not important, it can be a good part of a marketing strategy, but I have no emotional attachment to brands and I think goal focused people shouldn’t have it either (are we here to create a more fair and open society, avoid the technodystopie that some governments and large corps are pushing, or are we here to brag about “look this super important stuff I made”?).


This is more trolling then conspiracy i think. but there is also a fine line between trolling and criticism. The best is just learning and improving and be open and say thank you because its all about interconnection. the more you interconnect the more you will learn and the more robust you will become i think.


Trolling? Nothing of what I’ve said is untrue and the amount of posts about this subject should be an alarm. But it isn’t, and it’s always labelled as some conspiracy or trolling. This is misinformation 101.

I will let this here and see if it become more obvious.

@light Should I use that email to complain or is there any other mechanism that isn’t “supervised” by the glory fiduciary team?

Don’t tell anyone, but that email address doesn’t exist. For complains about my tweets you can use the line directly.

I can’t believe you are that naive, and I know you are trolling at this point, but I am going to explain it you anyway. Being in the board is not being part of a ‘glory team’ but a pretty big fucking deal specially when there are potentially hundreds of millIons on the line (there have been and there will probably be again). That’s why the word fiduciary is normally followed by responsibility, and responsibility as in legal responsibility. So yeah, I prefer dealing with some pissed off people than going to jail. Wouldn’t you?

I dream about the day in which there’s no need for me to be on that board, even more so for the day in which there’s no need for a board. It’s an unpaid role with just potential for trouble. Also there’s 0 reward involved, the AA board is usually just mentioned to shit on it when someone is unhappy about stuff.


There’s of course a cultural transformation ahead that we all are looking to tackle. The things with transformations is that you know where you start, but you are unsure about how it ends, despite how precise could be your vision about it.

TBH, I don’t have any issue with A1 centralized organization, I mean, just having a CEO and a CTO is a sign of it. But that’s ok, I would do it like that myself as well… Centralization give you a level of efficiency and pragmacity that decentralization can not (at least at this point of our history).

I wouldn’t expect neither that the absence of a command and control paradigm would allow an efficiency way of spending funds… I mean, although we speak about decentralization, abundance paradigms, freedom for everyone, we are all still subconsciously programmed to behave differently. We have done a brief experiment this the AragonCoop and it turned out that the Tragedy of the commons dominated there (see The Hunger Games post ). I don’t want to see what would happen if we decentralize completelty with the current immature tools the whole Aragon finance.

A couple of amazing guys did a fucking great job in communicating their vision about a decentralized world while demonstrating hilarious capabilities to do so. I’m sure both @jorge and @luis are conscious about they are not perfect and can make mistakes (and I hope they are also conscious they could be currently making mistakes without realizing it), but someone needs to hold the dam while we build the tools and culture to make decentralization happen. How we will make that happen? Well, that’s another thread I’d say, this actually --> Community reunion: your vision for Aragon

Yeah, I don’t think that to be a problem. I think that the problem is that those actors push a maximalist and imperialist strategy.

Maximalism in this case is just an ego issue and nothing good can come from it. Aragon is far from being in a dominating position, actually DAOstack and Moloch see more traction. So you cannot have a maximalism similar to Bitcoin, as BTC maximalism is an attempt to have BTC as a standard and reject other attempts to do something better which could dethrone BTC. You cannot have a similar strategy with Aragon simply because it is not on the throne (at least not yet :stuck_out_tongue: ).

Imperialism is an all or nothing kind of bet. Either it works, and almost everyone has to take you into consideration and submit to various degree (US style). Or you create yourself enemies out of people who would have been partners.
I think the chance of this working with Aragon are almost null. The only actor which could eventually push an imperialist strategy is MakerDAO and it seems that they went the other direction (composability, with compound, Uniswap and cie).
By asking projects to submit to Aragon (instead of having mutually beneficial relationships), Aragon will likely exclude of its ecosystem projects composed of independently-minded and really motivated members. Yeah, it has the money to pay contributors well, but you cannot just buy “entrepreneurship” skills with money. Nor can you buy the talents who value the ethical aspect of their job.
It will also create itself a bad reputation which would prevent other projects to seek collaboration (if you know that it is an admitted strategy to fork projects to put an ANT derivative instead of their token, even for projects offering to collaborate, you probably won’t reach out to them).

Let’s get real for a second here, as I wrote in the other thread, you were totally OK when we told you about our intention to do a 0-work-fork (that is, take your code and deploy it with a different token) back in January. You only got pissed when you felt personally attacked when we had to start re-implementing it from scratch.

You didn’t care when I was going to take your stuff for free and capture value from it. You had an issue when we had to to re-write it from the beginning because the state of your codebase was not possible to be fixed and polished to Aragon quality levels.

IMO, I don’t think you care that we took some ideas from you, just that you are feeling personally attacked because I implicitly said that we could do a better version of Kleros and then you pushed me until the point to say in public that your code is shit

There’s always ego involved of course, but my top goal is making Aragon incredibly successful, nothing else. You look into the mirror yourself and think whether you care more about Kleros or your ego, as a 0-work fork would have been waaaaaay more of ‘steal’ from Kleros and you didn’t seem to care at all.

I was never OK when Jorge told his intention to do 0-work-fork. However I tried to negotiate to find a mutually beneficial collaboration. However, he thought that the best was to ghost me (and refuse collaboration, without even being clear about it). The fact that he disrespectfully stopped the discussions is what encouraged me to speak out. Whether he planed to do a straightforward fork or copy does not really matter.

Saying that Kleros code is not “polished to Aragon quality levels” seems to be an excuse on his part to justify refusing to work with Kleros. He hasn’t been able to point out to any vulnerability and the Kleros codebase is way more concise (less code and complexity -> less chance to get something wrong) than the one he is developing.
Actually, if Aragon were to launch his own court and place itself as a Kleros competitor, that would be better from my perspective that it uses a complex reimplementation compared to a straightforward fork as it leads to smart contract security risks and would place a competing Aragon court as weaker competitor.

That makes little sense. I think Jorge is attributing me some emotional thinking process while I’m more interested in project success and economics.
Of course there can be better versions of Kleros, we are working toward new features and Kleros can be improved. I’m not a Kleros maximalist (I actually sometimes discouraged people building on Kleros as they could get simpler/better security models in their particular usecase and have respect for people proposing meaningful alternative solutions like the Augur oracle).
“Love the problem, not the solution!”

Actually, people making copies of what you built (Kleros cryptoeconomics), using data structures you invented (the sortition sum-tree) is even flattering.
“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”
However, from a purely rational perspective, Jorge plans to create a Kleros copy which would be competing on “hype”. And this would distract resources from building toward “hype competing” (since the proposed Aragon court is a re-implementation of Kleros, it can only compete on hype and smart contract security).

I let readers make their mind on this comment. Abusers often blame their victim saying they “pushed them” to do something bad. In this case, I don’t see myself as a victim, I just think it made Jorge look bad…

1 Like