Core Team Multi-Sig Oversight

It occurred to me while working with Max on the proposal for the BarnBridge Council, later termed Integrations team, that it was important to have reporting and oversight structures in place to adequately manage the activities of the Integrations team team, and to serve as a template that we could scale as the DAO grew over time.

This is the language from “The first BarnBridge Council” forum post to this effect:

“ Council members will undertake reasonable efforts to provide transparent reporting of their efforts via the following channels:

Dune Analytics dashboard monitoring budget flows and the performance of any joint on-chain ventures initiated by the Council’s efforts

Standardized monthly summaries of relevant milestones and accounting
Regular community call participation ”

The Core Team Multi-Sig is the first on-chain governing body of Barnbridge, and at a minimum should adhere to the same standards we hold the Integrations team and any future teams to.

I also believe there are a few additional measures of accountability that the Core Team Multi-Sig should be held to due the the share value of funds held by the 2 / 3 multi-sig solely controlled by Milad, Troy, and Tyler.

The aggregate of funds held in the Core-Team Multi-Sig stands at approximately $13.5 million mostly in BOND tokens, the Core-Team Multi-Sig can be viewed here:

https://etherscan.io/address/0xc192F75bcb64D2E4f7e444A8E6fe8c3729728086

I therefore suggest the following as points of initial recommendation and discussion:

Standardized quarterly summaries and accounting for funds disbursed by the Core Team Multi-Sig.

I respect there are certain expenditures that may need to be held in confidence for a period of time due to certain warranted circumstances. Expenditures that fall into this category should still be publicly noted, and details disclosed in the future at a time when such non-public information is eventually appropriate to share.

This will allow the team to retain the needed autonomy while still giving the community some sense of where funds are going. I also think opting for a quarterly reporting cycle will make this less onerous and of more value relative to a monthly cycle.

Dune Analytics dashboard monitoring budget flows and the performance of any ventures initiated by the Core Team Multi-Sig

As previously stated, this it to bring the Core-Team Multi-Sig into alignment with the with the standards of transparency we are holding the Integrations team to

A full roster of Individuals on the payroll of the Team Multi-Sig, their general function, expectations set for time dedicated to the project, and aggregate quarterly funds disbursed by the Core Team Multi-Sig for payroll

It’s important for the DAO to know all the individuals being paid for contributions to Barnbridge, and the expectations set by the Core-Team Multi-sig relative to compensation given.

I think this is particularly important in light of the fact that a number of core-team members spend a significant amount of time on other endeavors. Tyler has stated publicly that he is no longer on payroll and contributes his time freely to the community.

It will be of value to the DAO to know the status of all contributors and the expectations around their contributions going forward, particularly those whose work is less visible and cannot be easily accounted for through other means (visibility within the community chats and forums, sum and depth of reporting at bi-weekly community calls etc).

I think its important for the DAO to know who works on behalf of the community and have some sense of their contributions.

This is should be read as a set of recommendations that spur a broader conversation. I would appreciate candid feedback from everyone and additional thoughts that could from this into a more formal DAO proposal.

3 Likes

I was just going to ignore this but as this is now officially posted on the forum (as publicly as the #announcements thread earlier in this week creating FUD in what I can only take as an attempt to destroy value) but it looks there is a need to address certain aspects of it. Especially with Akin suggesting this doesn’t paint us in a bad light and it most certainly does as it insinuates a mis-use of funds.

First of all, I think it’s clear that Akin is generally upset taking into consideration the misuse of his authority as a core team member in Discord (before we revoked it) to post an announcement about leaving the core team before the core team even had a chance to address that officially, and now this. It is just a bad look. In no parallel universe would I ever do that in a job or contract I was let go from but here we are. I think it probably gives the community insight into some of our decisions leading up to Monday.

I honestly don’t have the time to deal with petty political bullshit and the team doesn’t either. We have time to build technology and we’re doing a damn good job at it. Even our detractors who are joining this haphazard political movement will say “the products are great but we don’t like the transparency” while I go and put myself at legal and regulatory risk as being one of the most transparent founders in defi (which people praise me for and in many cases were attracted to the protocol over). It drives my lawyer nuts, but I think when we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, I care about the community more than lawyers so I do it anyway. To see that undermined because me, Milad AND Troy unanimously made a decision that I think the community can see was clearly the right decision in retrospect given the resulting actions. We absolutely love fucking working together and have for years and I don’t think anyone internally wanted to change that culture and start playing political games. We want to build tech.

I think it’s clear that Akin has misaligned motives here but the people who originally funded this protocol (including me) entrusted us with the multi-sig and we then gave away governance to the community to ensure no long term abuses of power took place.

However, the intent in locking up funds in the multi-sig in the first place was to ensure we could actually ship what was in the whitepaper without on-chain politicians affecting the outcome or trying to make power moves. It was also so we wouldn’t have to operate in full transparency (by the advice of Kain) and so we called it the secret service multisig FOR THAT EXACT REASON so people understood the point of it. If the actual community and not a vocal minority are unhappy with how we allocated capital over the past year then please DM me. None of the founders have used the multi-sig in a personal capacity like some protocols founders (no BarnBridge wrapped lambos) or even minor stupid expenses. We literally pay for our own working computers.

I think it’s this general level of disrespect towards the people actually building this that resulted us in making certain decisions we did. At this point, I don’t think I’ll ever have a 2nd thought about it. Now that this has spilled out into the community, I’m fine with it because this looks super petty and I think this brings transparency to that as well.

Secondly, in regards to the Core Team Multi-Sig oversight I’ll give some bullet points for anyone generally thinking “yeah we’d like more transparency”:

  • First of all, this proposal won’t pass quorum. Akin knows that (maybe that is part of the point he is trying to prove but that is the result of people trusting us not the result of any singular group having too much power). Its a general distraction that I shouldn’t even waste time on.
  • I have a strong belief that the community at large trusts us with the way we run things and how we move forward onto the general decentralization and building efficient workflows. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have been able to start 2 separate DAO first ventures without needing a SAFT or any type of sureties to the top investors in crypto (on top of protocol builders).
  • The dev team are not slaves to people pontificating & asking for immediate results outside of the human realm (often due to lack of technical expertise). They have to show results for the cost of what they are doing or they won’t be compensated in the future. I seriously doubt the dev team isn’t going to get compensated in the future as most of everyone thinks what they are doing is useful and surpasses the industry standard.
  • This is an easy way to lose development talent by making everything transparent. It would cause internal and external bickering. Imagine people knowing who are you, how much do you earn and what is your schedule. That’s not usually the case, especially in crypto, where a lot of the dev teams are complete anons and we are NOT so that already differentiates us.
  • We can’t even disclose half of what we do without getting a lot of people complaining (like Chainlink who didn’t want to go through the DAO because their pricing models are private).
  • We can’t disclose a ton of other things we do like OTC, anything related to market-making (if we do engage in it), and payments to individual employees (illegal to disclose in various jurisdictions).
  • The DAO can’t even retroactively enforce this (which means it is mostly political and not at all constructive or the people proposing it don’t actually understand how the DAO is constructed and what it does and how it works). You can’t codify forcing people to not be retroactively compensated, you can put in parameters forward-looking so this is honestly a waste of everyone’s time to talk about.
  • The mult-sig has never made a seed investment we don’t treat it as a VC fund like other projects. The only one we have considered is SynthBridge (which needs smart alpha) and more likely a project Atpar is working on if they help us build their bombshell idea that integrates with smart yield first. If Atpar wants to launch something BarnBridge integrates with after building smart exposure and this new gamechanger idea to the table I think they have probably earned that right for us to partner with them like SNX did with Kwenta but we aren’t anywhere close to proposing that.
  • Including June we have spent $1.4m (including legal retainers and other various costs outside of core team salaries like minting fees and more). That goes to around 20 employees on top of $100k or so going to me even though I’ve since waived my salary and take no salary from BarnBridge or Universe. These funds also goes to the bot master Ser Danijel and Ser 0xBoxer for building dune analytics.
  • For those not math savvy that means we split around $127k ($1.4m divided by the running average of 11 months). That number increased to around $200k/month as we’ve increased the team because the integration work for smart yield WHILE we need to build out smart alpha, smart exposure and additional things we are working on after this week. This means the average salary at BarnBridge is either around $50k-$80k depending on how you calculate it and that includes boss level devs. There was a YFI blowout over their devs taking $60k/week payments from Badger and I can assure you Milad is every bit as boss of a dev as those other protocols but he has the ethics to never flex like that and ask for an salary the payment couldn’t financially stomach.
  • I could have easily asked for a $1m salary for the work I did like other protocol founders do. Instead I waived my salary because I think 2 devs for my $200k salary are more valuable than me having an extra $16k of spending money each month. But that is the type of person I am and how much I give a fuck about this project.
  • To insinuate we are mis-using the dev fund is so fucking absurd and disrespectful but I think this paints a worse picture on Akin than us. I personally did not come to defi for the tech and stay for the politics, I stayed for the tech and that’s what I would like to focus on and not get dragged into political bullshit or onchain politics.
  • In light of all of this, in spite of all of the crazy bull market and the sharp bear, we’ve built a $300m protocol that has processed billions of dollars in payments and we are just getting started. Again, with $1.4m from the dev fund. If someone doesn’t like that output I don’t know what to tell you.
  • Anyone suggesting we don’t do what the community asks… I was on 7 hours of calls today (budget meetings, meetings about product development (smart alpha and the atpar idea) etc. I still took the time to reach out to the major insurance protocols and get our team talking and integrated with them because a community member mentioned it was something that would help.

^So I think that is the transparency that was asked for but its absolutely ridiculous that it even has come to this for numerous reasons. Hopefully it becomes a one time thing because this general type of disrespect is how you lose dev talent and we don’t have time to go through every nickel spent while we are trying to change the landscape of defi.

So to clarify in an ongoing capacity… open transparency is what birthed Saffron. Nobody wants that so I think its clear what is better for BarnBridge is LESS posts like this. At this point, the way we have been running things for the past month, all we have to worry about is leaking information and I’d prefer to keep it that way.

At the end of the day, I think even the people complaining that we did 1 single thing without transparency are saying the products are on point.

The general comment about overlap of resources is dealt with by us using the autonomy we have and I think people generally trust this.

8 Likes

I saw the events on Discord. Akin’s “annoucement” (made without consulting everyone else as Tyler’s post now clarifies) precipitated all of this in the first place. There was FUD raised by ONE guy, who i recall has always been dealt respectfully in the forum. That guy has a tendency to flex about how much he has invested and I understand his concern. Yet, he is flinching at the smallest of things and doesn’t seem to have the balls for this evolving industry. Be that as it may, he made it a big issue about Akin leaving and made false accusations about Parafi.

ParaFi representative clarified and even offered him a call which he was unable to take. Though, I think his concerns were, once again, respectfully addressed.

Well, this is what happens when people go overboard with the “Its a Democracy, we all have a voice and we want to know everything” thing. This is also why these projects need a lot of steering in the beginning. The sense of entitlement is never good for a community. DeFi communities should be thankful that there are teams like Barnbridge willing to build out a product with the DAO ethos firmly in place.

Wright had to leave because he responded too strongly to Akin announcement leading to the JohnnyFiat FUD. Things could have ended there with Akin keeping this respectful but looks like his sense of entitlement did not allow that. I think Tyler himself has adequately and painstakingly explained the situation above.

IMO, What he did was highly unprofessional, starting from the non-discussed announcement, to the preposterous “Will fulfill this one last commitment” post in Discord, this silly post asking for a mobocracy to finally telling Tyler that “Not everyone is perfect and I won’t always agree with you” (like that needed to be said).

This was completely unnecessary and avoidable but such politics will always be a part of organizations. It is always best to do this in person and not publicly. When it comes to DAO’s, the decision making related to project and the product should only be public. Personal disagreements, hiring-leaving moves, any concerns of baseless FUD must be dealt with the person concerned. All of those outlets and support options are in place at Barnbridge and I completely trust that this will continue to be an awesome place.

Forward Now…:slight_smile:

5 Likes

You wrote it all good @Amish @lordtylerward. I can’t agree more. Let’s move forward, nothing has changed for me, the people and Barnbridge. I’m even more bullish when I see how accurate Tyler is when there’s a small FUD in the air. I mean, we could close this. :bridge_at_night:

3 Likes

I like Tyler’s reaction. If anyone needed reasurrance/explanation, here it is.

As i reacted on Discord, we are still in early stage therefore not everything can be 100% transparent. After we release all our products and everything is in order, we can get back and try to think about multisig and build our DAO for the long term success.

In the meantime multisig’s holders should have our 100% trust and we should support them and stay behind them at “every” cost.

With all the respect to Troy and Milad, Tyler is the most publicly seen representative o BB accros defi and his visions are breathtaking. Nobody could even say shit if he would be compensated and still he is not.

At the end of the day most of the early stage projects are just about people and i am convinced here in BB are great people.

3 Likes

Well… I believe to the team and that is why I’m here and why I will stay with BB long term.

The FUD on Discord was unnecessary, but people like this is in every project. If people are unhappy with how things are they can alway leave.

Thank you @lordtylerward for your exhaustive reaction and your transparency. I really like how you are in touch and involved with BB community. Your activity on discord is one of the things what intrigued me when I found BB.

TBH I do not have capacity or enough knowledge to be involved with every single decision so I’m totally ok with how things are.

3 Likes

I think an extremely low percentage of the people in crypto actually have the technical know how and experience working behind the scenes on protocols to be able to make totally informed critiques. I certainly am not one of them and so I mostly try to stay in my lane. Most unconstructive critiques are the result of human emotion, whether it be greed or fear. See the example of the guy who “flexes” about how much he invested (I HATE these people btw, we all know you are only flexing for the dopamine hit and to feel better about yourself), flinching and reacting. That’s a fear reaction. Maybe don’t invest so much. I love how this response has broken things down for people like me, but please understand you do not NEED to explain anything to us, the majority not completely in the know. It is always appreciated and helps strengthen the community, but for things like BB to succeed, bleeding edge tech, the community has to (and the majority does) accept that there is going to be a lot we won’t know and aren’t even qualified to understand. That’s the risk we all assume when we invest. If you cannot take on this risk, within reason of course, than this is not the industry for you yet.

2 Likes