Misuse of Delegation and voting power?

[ponti]

These pictures were shared with me as they are public data but tell more stories of misuse and corruption at the DAO.

This is about @AndrewLaddusaw, who is on @toadyhawk team from Prop 175.

Look at how Andrew abuses DAO money for his InternatioNouns project.

1. Andrew get funding from NFSW for 2.2 ETH for his project InternatioNouns.

2. Andrew then used those funds for a like and share competition to get engagement on his social media channel.

3. Andrew then submitted a prop on the Nouns Go Viral Prop House campaign for InternatioNouns - which he already got funding for (which is already wrong).

4. Andrew, who is active on Nouncil, then got his Nouncil friends to vote for him and win the 5 ETH (which is wrong because he already got funding for this).

You can see he pays himself twice for same work.

See, he pays himself twice. OK, maybe he just does this once, no big deal?

Now look at Prop 175 and Nouns Incubator.

1. Andrew gets nominated for funding from Nouncil for creating Nouns Incubator.

2. Andrew asks for retro funding in Prop 175 for 5 ETH for creating this same Incubator.

3. He also got 0.69 ETH from NSFW for doing the same work.

Look who nominates him, his good friend Toady Hawk.

So if Prop 175 passes we are paying Andrew more than 10 ETH for coming up with the prop to pay him more ETH in the actual prop itself?

This is double dipping, plain and simple to see. You can see the evidence in the pictures.

This is a pattern, look at the people involved in the proposal, they are all Nouncil and UglyDAO and TNS, this is what they do, they just sneak ways to get money out of the DAO.

They are all obviously aware of these very clear issues and yet they dont stop it from being included in the prop? They don’t care… they feel too powerful, no one can stop them.

This is why everyone feels the game is rigged at Nouns.

Maybe if I pay for Prop Box “consulting”, maybe then I will get money from the DAO for my projects…

[ponti]

Also, please read this great article on Nouns governance problems:

99 ProbNouns

I will copy the best part here, sorry for copying your text @Hindsight

Having a look at the UglyDAO members and the amount of votes delegated to them - it seems that they have about 32 delegate votes (more or less) while owning 2 nouns

On top of this, there is a lot of overlap between their members and following groups/subdaos

• lilNouns: 8 Delegates - Al409 who is on UglyDAO has decided the lilNouns vote in the last 10 props including this one (see: here)
• SharkDAO: 6 delegates - Joshua Fisher from SharkDAO is a member of UglyDAO and Nouncil (See: Snapshot Vote)
• Nouncil: 11 delegates - many members of UglyDAO are on Nouncil and have a lot of influence on the Nouncil vote

So here we have a group of people in UglyDAO that also work together in Nouncil, TNS etc that have 57 (+/-) votes either (a) delegated to them or (b) have a lot of influence in delegated votes - while owning 2 Nouns between them.

This is important:

In discord they have stated that the objective from the working group in prop 175 would be to eventually work with builders to get their proposals passed in return for a % of the proposal and that uglyDAO (with all of its delegated votes) will support those proposals.

[AndrewLaddusaw]

Yikes.

I’ll be very transparent with you. I’ve received two payments so far for my work in NounsDAO. 0.69 ETH which I was nominated for by someone who saw that I had many many hours into helping people with proposals with 0 ask for reward. I also received a nomination through the community retro round which I think I made 0.9 ETH. Don’t quote me. Slightly less than 1 though. I also have received two small retro rewards for FOODNOUNS (0.34 and 0.15 ETH respectively)

I have made zero from Nouncil and zero from InternatioNouns, even though I’ve gotten a nomination recently for retro rewards from both. I’ve won grants totaling a little over 14 ETH for the communities I’m a part of to do different projects, so I’m pretty proud of that.

If 175 would pass, I did plan to use some of the 5 ETH as a retro reward to me and also to reward other Nouncil members who have done essential work to help the incubator process along. I hadn’t worked out the details on that yet, but the plan was to use a nomination process similar to what happens there now.

As for the things wrong in your report, they are quite numerous. InternatioNouns is not my project at all. I’ve just been helping them with proposals because that’s what I’m good at. They were very transparent about the use of funds for the 2.2 ETH and with the Nouns go viral project. I thought they did a pretty great job at it honestly and I think they’ll continue to do so.

Hopefully someday I’ll get the chance to double dip. I’ll need to get my first dip one of these days to experience such a thing. To be honest though, I’d turn down any payment that was above the value that I thought I created.

I’m happy to answer any questions about me or what I’ve written here. I’ve said before, I’m an open book.

[ponti]

To quote another Nouner:

the “5 eth of retro funding for what has been done to build this system already” - what is this for exactly? The network? Who is getting paid?

If 175 would pass, I did plan to use some of the 5 ETH as a retro reward to me and also to reward other Nouncil members who have done essential work to help the incubator process along. I hadn’t worked out the details on that yet

[AndrewLaddusaw]

Was my answer not clear? I’m not sure how to help further.

[Evil]

bruh ‎‎‎‎‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎

[Evil]

I just found out that they’ve done this before too, earlier I thought just one time voted for themselves but…makes me wonder how many more cases like these have been going on under the Nounder’s nose as well as treasury

Prop House

[Evil]

I cant even… no questions answered, have diverted the entire chat when questions asked from others nouners as well, suddenly summoning their own friends to change the topic. This proves that how they are misusing their power honestly.
Despite people asking them to be abstain from their own proposal and vote, now this discussion has come in full circle and proved my point once again. They are corrupted

Toadyhawk

Benbodhi

These are just few examples, seriously kudos to those who were abstain about their own proposals and my respect to them. But these guys?

[Benbodhi]

⌐🄶-🄼

I’ve actually been afk proliferating nouns at an IRL event lately, for no monetary gain and actually spent like $7k out of pocket to do so. Forgive me for missing all these accusations and not participating in the chats.

But honestly, I feel like all this is not only disrespectful to the people who work day in and day out for Nouns DAO’s benefit, but also to the nounders. At least the comment about it happening under their noses.

I’m damn near positive most, if not all of the nounders have a hand in or a close eye on how the protocol is evolving, both on chain and the social layers.

They also still hold veto power… Should any prop seem to be a malicious attempt to drain the treasury through what you’re labelling misuse of votes (which I think is inappropriate tbh), or otherwise, it can be cancelled by them. To act like “it’s happening right under their noses” is both uninformed and imo more malicious than the actual so called misuse you’re attempting to socially vilify.

If you have a problem with how the protocol is working, you can submit a proposal to change things such as the ability to vote on your own proposals.

As it stands, whether we like it or not, a noun owner or delegate has one vote per noun, regardless of who submitted the proposal. It is baked in that you can vote on your own props and why wouldn’t you? If you submitted it, you clearly believe in it and are part of the consensus mechanism by voting. If someone believes they or others should abstain on their own props or any that are proposed by people they work with or have some relation to, that’s their call. This decision can’t be socially forced on others unless it is added to the protocol.

Trying to socially police the protocol is one of the key benefits to there being no central discord anymore imo. Anyone can try to shame others into voting a certain way based on social implications, but again, voters have the ability to vote as they see fit based on the protocol rules.

The people you’re targeting here work hard. This is a waste of everyone’s time imo.

If you’re looking to do some proposal results auditing, extrapolate payments out to an extended and unfunded period of work, leave out plenty of things that are done for no remuneration and generally bring this level of argument to the table, why don’t you start at the beginning and check over each and every proposal - even ask for funding to do so, see if it’s valuable to the DAO.

In summary:
See a problem? Submit changes to the protocol. Everyone is free to use the protocol however they like and if a proposal is blatantly malicious or draining the treasury, there is still veto rights. It’s not a poor little protocol that needs the help of social policing.

My 2 gwei

[ponti]

@Benbodhi thank you for disclosing you are Ugly leader, and are a leader in the misuse of delegation and voting power at Nouns DAO.

GnosisSafeProxy | Address 0xc1a75c35f861563c446e4b146381c6934d515168 | Etherscan

[Evil]

First of all I wanna say thank you for actually coming in and saying all of these things.
What I’ve seen on discord and discourse is other people jumping in trying to take their side and others directly ignoring it, and by ignoring it I mean diverting the topic by any means on discord. When some nouners started asking questions from Toady as well his messages were clear that he was annoyed by nouners asking these. And as soon as this has happened his friends have jumped in chat and diverted the entire conversation from that point on. So these lack of answers raised even more questions.
A week ago I started questioning these and they got offended and made fun of me, saying I dont have proof of my claims that they are misusing their votes to win multiple times again and again. Now that I showed proof they went silent instead of attacking in just 2 days timespan. I later on find more proof and others started speaking up as well
Summary :
You guys are taking advantage of lack of moderation and delegated nouns for your own benefit.

[NanoNouns]

Some thoughts:

1. Nouns DAO is a governance structure. There is a treasury and there are votes (Nouns). Owners of votes can delegate their votes for any reason or no reason or vote the Nouns themselves. Delegations can be revoked at any time for any reason or no reason.

2. The only people that have a legitimate interest in treasury spending are Nouns owners, as they control the treasury through their ownership of Nouns.

3. Everyone else is part of the peanut gallery.

[lilskrtskrt]

I do think that the dynamic shifts when you have cross ownership of Nouns assets tho.

Lil Nouns owns 8 nouns now, so doesn’t the entire Lil Nouns ecosystem have a legitimate interest in the treasury spending of Nouns?

Does that make everyone who owns a Lil Noun not part of the peanut gallery?

[Benbodhi]

I’m happy for open discussions. I’ve literally just been busy, doing stuff for nouns.

Look, it comes down to the fact that this is your opinion. I sense that after listening to closed minded and badly researched opinions becoming the main points, especially when it’s attacking the hardest working people in the community, no doubt people will bow out, especially when you devolve into bad language.

But maybe this point needs to click for you: Nouns DAO is a protocol. Read the contracts, see how it works, use it or don’t.

How the noun owners use their votes, whether inactive, active or delegated, is the owner’s call. It’s very simple. If you try to imply there’s a social law on how to use them, where is the line in the sand? Those rules change from person to person. Sentiment changes. That’s the beauty of this, the protocol is written in code and is open and auditable. Also you’re able to submit your desired changes to the protocol via proposal. Trying to socially shame people into changing how to engage with a protocol is probably futile.

If I buy a noun, I will vote how I see fit, if I’m delegated a noun, I will vote how I see fit. If the owner of a delegated noun doesn’t like the way their delegate is voting, they have the option to remove delegation in seconds. It’s all in the protocol.

I think it’s time you dig deeper into how everything works at the protocol level rather than the social level for now.

[Benbodhi]

There’s many fractionalised noun owners. This would mean there is many people interested in how to vote on proposals at nouns.

An “interest in how the nouns treasury is spent” is exercised by voting using the nouns.

Retro actively hunting down audits from people that actually do work in the ecosystem is not required. If you aren’t presented with the information that satisfies your vote, you vote against on subsequent proposals. How many things have you seen that would never be funded again? The Noun Square in particular has been funded repeatedly after the DAO has been presented a clear and concise proposal. Which means a lot of noun owners see benefit.

I hope this helps.

[Lnino]

Hello GM Nouns Dao.
I’m here as one of the TNS participants contest.
As i see, everytime TNS held a contest, mostly they have the same winners again and again.
They didn’t give any chamge for other participant to win.

Yes, everytime voting start they will vote the same artist. You can check the complain on TNS discord.

[Lnino]

Hello GM Nouns Dao.
I’m here as one of the TNS participants contest.
As i see, everytime TNS held a contest, mostly they have the same winners again and again.
They didn’t give any chamge for other participant to win.

Yes, everytime voting start they will vote the same artist. You can check the complain on TNS discord.

[Evil]

You can put this up with the TNS team itself right?

[Lnino]

Yes already, not only me but lots of participants complained but the the TNS team seems doesn’t took it very well.
Majority of the voters had connection with the participants, so they will voted for them.
Same winners each contest, and the voters ignored the other participants entry which is more good

[Lnino]

This contest is for Global participants, but everytime TNS held contest 80% winners came from Phillipines.
Compare to other participants entry, which are more better,more good, still the entries from Phillipines will be the winner