Contact & Delegation Address Information
- Delegate Voting Address: mrtdlgc.eth
- Point of Contact: handle mrtdlgc on almost any social platform that you can think of
- Website: N/A
- Twitter: @mrtdlgc
Introduction
gmgm! This is mrtdlgc. I have been involved in crypto in general since late 2017 when I got assigned to translate an article on how blockchain could help solve corruption through transparency in the now outdated forms of organizations/governance practices as well as enabling the inclusion of non-privileged communities (namely the global south) into the financial realm. I have discovered DAOs in 2020, right after the DeFi summer as you like to call it, and have contributed to DAOs such as 1Hive, Agave, Token Engineering Commons, and learned how to find my path in the dark forest. Hence, I have been contributing to the then xDai, now Gnosis ecosystem for the past 4 years to build better forms of governance and transparent structures mainly through public goods funding and tools that everyone can use without prejudice to their backgrounds mainly in comms/marketing/community support roles.
Delegate Motivation
As someone who has already contributed considerably to the development of the Gnosis ecosystem, and as someone who has always tried to be the voice of the community, my main motivation as a delegate will be to encourage transparency, promote a positive-sum approach, and ask for better accountability. I am committed to not withhold myself from voicing concerns around proposals that do not fit into the core values of Gnosis (most importantly around credible neutrality, community ownership, and censorship resistance). I believe the intrinsic value of blockchains is in their ability to enable everyone in the world to participate in any interaction with other peers without the restriction of any arbitrary authority or any middleman. Let us make GC cypherpunk again.
Areas of expertise
- Governance
- Public goods funding
- Humanities (post-structuralism)
- Literary theory
- Communications
Conflicts of Interest
Right now, I am not part of any organization that would put create a conflict of interest other than informally contributing to and participating in discussions at 1Hive and Gardens communities (yes 1Hive is still alive 
)
10 Likes
We will be supporting @mrtdlgc in the upcoming first delegation vote.
we are throwing our full support behind @mrtdlgc. Their critical feedback and reflection on all manner of issues presented to the DAO in recent months has been invaluable. Though we do not always directly agree with the positions taken, we respect @mrtdlgc’s thoughtful contributions, and recognise them at the forefront of our DAO’s governance.
2 Likes
Proposal: GIP-99: Should Gnosis Guild steward GnosisDAO Governance?
Voted: For.
Rationale:
It is obvious Gnosis DAO governance is in dire need of improvement , allowing more stakeholders to participate. Although, the initial iteration of the deliverables does not directly address the more important drawbacks of why I believe the governance is not working as intended, I believe, as a first step, Gnosis Guild deserves a chance to work on some improvement. However, I will be closely following the performance to see the extent of the positive impact. Due to the somewhat high cost to the DAO, might appeal for the discontinuation of the service.
Proposal: GIP-108: Should GnosisDAO honor the original rewards for GnosisVIP before the distribution schedule was modified (this proposal does not reward additional nodes with the same withdrawal address)?
Voted: Against.
Rationale: The main reason this proposal has been put forward was due to a program run by the Builders team, which acted without any accountability to the DAO after securing funding. Both the initiation and the sunset of the Gnosis Validator Incentive Program were decisions that were not decided by the DAO. As I believe it would set a bad precedent for future proposals that asks the DAO to rectify issues as a direct or indirect result of executive bodies with limited or almost no accountability to the DAO itself, I am voting against this proposal. However, this should also be seen as a call to action to fix the organizational drawbacks of the Gnosis 3.0 vision and how it should not keep repeating the same mistakes that led to the creation of this proposal. I would advise the proposal creator to establish direct contact with the entities responsible for what caused the discrepancy. All in all, the DAO had no say in how the program was initiated and how it was discontinued.
1 Like
Interesting point of view, but I think the DAO should rectify this because:
- It was promoted by main Gnosis accounts, such as:
-
The official Twitter from the beginning, for example: https://x.com/gnosischain/status/1649069825912721410
-
@mkoeppelmann saying in May 2023 that “we” designed a “Geographic Diversity Program” and having been on Cointelegraph which mentioned the original rewards;
-
Gnosis Core agreed to have the program handed over and this should come with the commitments that were made.
-
Gnosis Builders has sought funding anonymously, with support from key Gnosis figures who said to know them. It would be impossible to “establish direct contact with the entities responsable” as you suggest without passing through those who supported Gnosis Builders, and it would be unfair for Gnosis to avoid accountability by delegating funds to anon teams.
-
Even if the entities responsible could be reached, the funds they had obtained from the DAO were returned to the DAO. Arguably it could be said that the DAO holds the original GnosisVIP rewards “in trust” for the entitled participants (look up “constructive trust” under English law).
I absolutely get the “in trust” holding of funds argument. And I believe the situation has not been well handled. However, your argument also holds that “key Gnosis figures” or Gnosis Chain twitter account represent the DAO, which in my view absolutely not and basically one of the main reasons why I have applied to become a delegate, to correct this discrepancy. At the very best, I could have just abstained in this vote, but I wanted to take an active stance to vote against, and this is not specifically about your proposal, but in general, about the general practices and the confusion around what constitutes or should constitute the actors/pillars of Gnosis 3.0 vision.
1 Like