It is my intention to help get clarity on various community concerns, in an unambiguous and effective manner. Sections of this list may appear blunt on occasion, solely for the purpose of providing clarity without making this lengthy. Detailed responses would provide for the most efficient process in moving past these concerns.
1. Repeated periods of extended absence
Over a period of a few months, you exhibited multiple periods of extended absence. While you have expressed reasons for your absence, most recently being a personal situation that you needed to resolve, this concern still lingers. A question many community members may ask themselves is:
“Would it be acceptable standard operating procedure for any managing member of an organization to not reach out to any team members about their expectation to be away before they departed, or extend any communication to the organization in this regard for the timeframe with which you exhibited recently?”
Now that you are indeed involved again, the follow up questions a holder reasonably asks is:
“What can we do to ensure that all managing members of this organization continue to maintain adequate levels of communication with the community, so as not to experience situations like this in the future? In order to be prepared for all outcomes; what course of action should we consider taking if we were to experience a managing member being inactive for an extended period of time? What should we consider to be an extended period of time in this context?”
What immediate steps are we going to take to ensure the protocol can maintain effective functionality if this situation were to occur again in the future? Taking these questions head on and providing detailed insights into how it should be handled in the future, could go a long way in helping the community overcome this concern, in addition to aligning holder expectations with what you’re comfortable providing.
Daniele’s Response: Governance is the tool to maintain the protocol functioning, in my ‘absence’ there has not been an instance in which me or any other multi signer has not executed the will of The DAO. If my absence would have been also about a technical incapacity to execute vital duties of the protocol than for sure I believe communication about it would have been crucial, but to be frank I’ve been constantly available if people wanted really to reach out to me. Discord has never been my platform and I’ve told this multiple times to the rest of the team. Telegram is where I respond usually within less than 24h .It is duty of the moderation team to communicate with us, I would not consider part of the job of a technical team to communicate directly with the community on a daily basis. As much as it is nice to do it, The DAO should have a structure and a specific team / responsible people to post constant updates on a weekly basis via a blog. Only a very small % of the token holders are on discord.
2. Social Media Access
There is a growing concern that the DAO doesn’t have sufficient access to all official social media channels. It has been requested many times that elected moderators be provided access to the official Twitter for outreach on governance and opportunities for holders, like the BSGG farm. This access can immediately help bolster engagement if maintained consistently with useful updates. What prevents this access from being granted to the senior elected moderator? If there is no concern from you on this matter, what is a timeline that we can expect for access to official social media accounts be granted to the senior elected moderator?
Daniele’s Response: Social media has been handed over.
3. Disagreement with Skyhopper
You have expressed that there were issues with Skyhopper’s approach and activity as treasury manager. You expressed on a couple of occasions that you feel Skyhopper “stabbed you in the back”. I think it would be very helpful if you could expand on this concern and provide detailed insights to the community regarding how you believe Skyhopper may have acted against the best interests of Wonderland Holders at any point throughout his time in the position as a Treasury Manager.
Daniele’s Response: Situation with Skyhopper is personal and I don’t think is important for it to be of public domain.
4. “Mystery Signer” - Address: 0x2d419804D07Ef4D20eC827F58cE535089c62cB47
The address above was added to the multisig without any communication or announcement to the community regarding the addition at that time. The community has still not received any information regarding this individual other than “they work for Georgiy”. This signer was removed from the Multisig after community discontent was expressed. What was the rationale behind adding this additional signer at that specific time? Please provide more detail regarding how this individual is associated with Georgiy and this individual’s association with any other protocols. How can we ensure no changes to the Multisig will be made in the future without guidance from articles of governance or thorough community discourse?
This is a difficult situation to navigate as the information is extremely limited. This signer also used the CVX to vote for MIM pools through a delegation function; What prompted this behavior, when was the delegation to this address established for this action, and what was the intent behind this action?
Daniele’s Response: Our team consists in multiple team members and there has been a wallet in the hands of the tech team to prepare complex transactions. That address has been executing my directives and had no other function than safety + technical executions.
5. Following Governance
Recently you have expressed a variety of intentions in regards to following governance. It would greatly benefit the process if you provided an unambiguous clarification on your intention to strictly follow governance or not. If you believe it is flexible, to what degree do you feel it is flexible? One interpretation of the situation is that outside of an elected policy officer, governance is always adhered to, and governance is the only process that makes changes to the protocol; would you agree with that assessment?
Daniele’s Response: I think governance should be followed strictly, the problem is that framework as it is is too open for interpretation. This is the reason why we are working all together to update it and make it more solid for the future.
6a. Multisig
There is much concern that you are actively positioning the multisig to maintain unilateral control over the treasury through associates. This is as blunt as I can be on this. No matter what the intentions are for this kind of activity, the activity itself inspires the notion of conspiracy. The questions at the heart of the issue are; What is your rationale in adding Vitalik to the gnonsis Multisig? You’d mentioned a need for a “technical person”, but this need was not apparent before the addition of the moderators, throughout Skyhopper’s tenure as TM and before. What provoked the need for that change at that time? What actions can we take to provide the community a sense of security on this specific concern, while also meeting the needs of your own concerns?
Daniele’s Response: Also during sky hopper time there has been the need for a technical person and that was provided by the address replied on point 4. I think community should realise that deploying Millions of dollars is not as easy as it seems. It takes time to take decisions and it takes time to executes. Discord is too public and can incur in people front-running part of our strategies, telegram works best for maintaining privacy in the Treasury management . All activity is on the blockchain and can’t be deleted so…
6b. Multisig and treasury council
It has been expressed that the multisig is still not acting in an efficient manner. How should we expect the BSGG farm to be maintained in the immediate future? When should we expect the final requirements of WIP 14.1 to be executed? How can we ensure more efficient execution of treasury related DAO decisions moving forward?
In addition, the accountability and productivity of the treasury council is also an immediate concern. There are technical requirements within WIP 15 that call specifically for a Discord channel to be opened for the treasury council to analyze and vote on strategies before deployment. WIP 15 also calls for these council communications to be released to the community every quarter. The use of Telegram for this activity is in dispute, due to its lack of secure accounting for all messages. The current productivity of this council is also in dispute.
These concerns need to be addressed in a detailed manner and an effective structure for this process that meets the requirements of WIP 15 should be deployed asap. Without internal resolution on these issues, it will be difficult for many in the community to hold high expectations for the effectiveness of the more dramatic changes in the works.
Daniele’s Response: Also during sky hopper time there has been the need for a technical person and that was provided by the address replied on point 4. I think community should realise that deploying Millions of dollars is not as easy as it seems. It takes time to take decisions and it takes time to executes. Discord is too public and can incur in people front-running part of our strategies, telegram works best for maintaining privacy in the Treasury management . All activity is on the blockchain and can’t be deleted so…
7. Relationship with Sifu
Your relationship with Sifu seems strained. He is also a founder of Wonderland. He is a large stakeholder in the protocol and it’s future. On multiple community calls you’ve taken shots at him as well as publicly on the Wonderland Discord. You have presented an interpretation of the SifuVision redemption mechanism that seemed to imply a potentially negative consequence for Wonderland’s investment in SV. Do you see a productive future with him and our investment into Sifuvision? What can we do to better facilitate a productive working relationship?
Daniele’s Response: Won’t answer personal questions, My relationship with Sifu outside of WL should not be of public domain. Everyone knows I’ve defended my decisions and this has not changed.
8. Liquidation Refunds
This issue has lingered for most of 2022. You have expressed that you will personally provide some kind of recompense to holders who were liquidated in Abracadabra wMemo cauldrons with a risk level lower than your own. While this repayment schedule does not necessarily concern Wonderland, being of a personal nature, the situation nevertheless continues to negatively impact the protocol and community sentiment. It would provide the protocol and community a much needed breathe of fresh air if you could provide some form of official, unambiguous statement regarding this situation. An additional layer to this issue is the continued pressure for you to return a sum of funds to Sifu that he sent to you to distribute, so that he may distribute those funds himself.
All of this being of the personal nature, the concern arises due to the collection of situations that revolve around unpaid debt. These situations separately are each of moderate importance, but together they form a pattern of which we feel concern is warranted.
Daniele’s Response: Personal.
9. Bribes
The Abracadabra bribes are very ambiguous at this time, and a frequently used source of FUD. What sort of timeline can Wonderland expect this to be resolved and what figure should be expected? Until a timeline is set and a figure clarified, this concern will be a fruitful source of negativity for fudsters to stir discontent with.
Daniele’s Response: We should calculate what was the bribe for that period on other add 10% and will be paid out in SPELL. Timeline is by end of September.
10a. Abracadabra Conflict of Interest
Abracadabra owes Wonderland quite a bit of funds and the community cannot fully resolve the concern of being put in a similar situation again with Abra until the first debt is paid, or at least an official agreement has been publicly announced outlining a payment schedule. On multiple occasions you have tried to pursue the proposition of merging Wonderland with Abracadabra. I hope you can understand the concern many in the community may share; that you might continue to pursue that outcome in an overarching manner whether the community supports that effort or not. If you could provide a detailed explanation of your intentions regarding Wonderland and Abracadabra’s relationship over the next year, that would greatly help to resolve any concerns in this area.
Daniele’s Response: We decided there is no more cross interest. If the farm is the best farm TM will farm it. That’s about it.
10b. Abracadabra Personal Debt
You have a collection of negative positions open with Abracadabra, putting that protocol in a position to maintain this debt of more than $138,000. Abracadabra is technically unrelated to Wonderland and their debt could be considered out of scope for Wonderland Holder’s concerns. However, this particular activity highlights potential character attributes that reasonably seed concerns. What is your intention in regards to relieving Abracadabra of the debt associated with your positions and how can we be assured that you will not exhibit activity that could put Wonderland in a similarly controversial situation in the future?
Daniele’s Response: Personal.
11. Your personal stake in Wonderland and Team Allocation
Do you currently own any amount of wMemo, Memo, and/or Time worth more than 1000 USDT? Do you have any intention of receiving, or attempting to receive, any additional form of team allocation tokens from Wonderland in the foreseeable future? The concern surrounds the notion that you may receive team allocation tokens as a default result of various changes to the protocol, without previous thorough discourse within the DAO regarding how and how much. A detailed explanation on your rationale regarding this subject would greatly help resolve this concern.
Daniele’s Response: No more allocation.