Hi Rongxin @WPReadingClub,
I am writing to address the inaccurate claims and provide a comprehensive account of the events.
@katashesolutions response pretty much captured the gist of the facts but let me provide even more context for everyone so that there is no doubt about our good faith and transparency.
1) On Conflicts of Interest
Let me start by addressing this. As @Jenya_K described, overlapping roles in DAOs are not unusual. In fact, it is often beneficial for active contributors deeply engaged with the protocol to have a stronger role in governance.
My role as a Lido Community Lifeguard has always been front and centre to how I am introduced (see our delegate post and delegate rally twitter spaces). As a matter of fact, my role was declared right at the “Introduction” section.
A simple Google search would have yielded all the details needed to know what this role entails in the first 4 search results (see screenshot below).
I am always happy to provide additional fully-linked disclosures if needed.
1a) There are measures in place to prevent conflicts of interest where the issuance of grants by the Lido Community Lifeguards is concerned.
As part of our internal controls, each Lido Community Lifeguard discloses any affiliations with potential grantees on a per-grant basis and abstains from voting on the issuance of such grants. Additionally, no grants have been issued from the Lido Community Lifeguards Initiative to Governance Grove or the Whitepaper Reading Club to date.
Besides, any grants from this Lido Community Lifeguards Initiative (proposal here) are always reviewed by the Lido Community Lifeguards Initiative Committee, a Lido Ecosystem Grants Organization (LEGO) Sub-Committee with a ⅗ signing threshold, of which I am not one of the signers.
For transparency, reports on the grants disbursed can be found in the quarterly reports of the Lido Community Lifeguards proposal thread.
1b) While Governance Grove consists of only Katherine and myself, we will also abstain from any voting related to matters of compensation for myself as a Lido Community Lifeguard. However, this may change once the multi-sig quorum for our snapshot voting requires the participation of at least 2 additional members.
2) On “False Representation”
First of all, your proclamation as the “founder” of WPRC was never communicated to us. As far as I understand being one of the members who was present in the very first WPRC session, the WPRC is driven by volunteer contributors as a collective with a loose decision-making structure. Even your own Linkedin profile fails to capture this, mentioning only Head of Developer Ecosystem at Cobo as your only active role.
That said, if you or even any member raised any disapproval, we would have gladly excluded the WPRC name.
This is evident from Katherine’s message to you and me below, showing our proactive-ness in moving away from the WPRC brand when you were radio silent to us for an extended period.
Not to mention, you gave a “thumbs up” emoticon to my initial suggestion to explore DAO governance, using the example in the screenshot shared in a WPRC organising committee sub-group.
As the self-proclaimed “founder” (which again, was never communicated to us) and in the absence of disapproval after an initial indication of support, is it fair to say we have “falsely represented” WPRC?
More screenshots highlighting your non-response below:
-
Katherine tagging you in the main WPRC chat to respond to us urgently on 15 November, which was ignored.
-
My personal reach-outs to you since September 10th in an attempt to get alignment
Our intentions were to contribute to building the collective WPRC brand in good faith through our efforts as DAO delegates and we maintained our collaborative approach to preserve the existing relationships within the WPRC community.
As described by Katherine in her post, we have always communicated transparently and included you throughout the entire process–from ideation, to drafting, to submission, and eventually to rebranding ourselves proactively when we could not get any response from you.
We have provided sufficient notice to you (assuming it was even needed in the first place) and there were multiple instances where you could have easily indicated your disapproval or that of other members on their behalf as the self-proclaimed “founder” to avoid this outcome.
- Throughout the period from July 23rd to 14th August between the ideation and submission of the delegate proposal in the “WPRC SubDao WG” Telegram group which you are a part of
- Between 1st September to 15th November when Katherine and I attempted to get in touch with you again across various channels to get alignment
- From November 25 onwards when we pro-actively provided you a final notice before going ahead with rebranding ourselves entirely
Instead, you chose to make an untrue public post about this matter AFTER we communicated our plans to rebrand ourselves away from the WPRC branding to you.
3) On your defamatory allegations
“In light of the above, it appears that Katherine Ng and her collaborator, Samuel Chong (@Stakesaurus), may be exploiting this misrepresentation to gain financial benefits and influence through the Lido DAO Delegation Program, at the expense and risk of the WPRC, myself, and the Lido DAO” and “Thus, the integrity and character of its Delegates should reflect the gravity of this role. In light of the above events, and to avoid unnecessary damage to the WPRC and Lido DAO’s reputation and interests, I strongly urge the Lido DAO team to reconsider Katherine Ng’s Application and to rethink whether she is an ambassador of the values of the Lido DAO and the broader Ethereum Ecosystem”
Given the evidence I presented above, I suggest you retract these baseless allegations.
All my rights are reserved.