Dash Trust Protectors Please React!

[kot]

Another day passed and there is no response from DTPs - I find it disturbing, considering the context of the current elections.

As already mentioned, we did receive the response from the Dash Trust Protectors last Saturday (Saturday in my timezone), but DTPs did not share any message with the community so far, despite the declaration that they intend to publish it.

I have no mandate to reveal the response from DTPs - I hope they will do it themselves eventually, as all DCG contributors and community members really deserve that. In a nutshell, the response says that DTPs conducted an investigation and came to the conclusion that there was no wrongdoing on Mark Mason's side, and his actions were legitimate - they have recognized only “honest mistake”.

As this is against all the principles and standards I hold professionally and privately, I cannot support a work environment that accepts and legitimizes such behaviors. Therefore I decided, with a heavy heart, to resign from my role at DCG. I will stay with the company till the end of April, and I am happy to help with handing over my duties to the new COO, hopefully, identified quickly by DTPs.

Robert

 

[qwizzie]

I understand your position, and the reasons for resigning from Dash Core Group. Who would have thought that the Dash Trust Protectors, who have a solemn duty to protect the Dash project, would make such a mess of things by not only letting one of their own members (Mark Mason) go around making unfounded accussations and allegations towards certain Dash Core Members and with accussations of fraude, but also by not disclosing their investigation publicly in a timely manner.

If the outcome of that investigation is indeed a no wrongdoing on Mark Mason's side and that his actions were legitimate, with only some “honest mistake”, then i have to conclude there is something terribly wrong with how the Dash Trust Protectors do their investigations and it has left me with zero trust in the current Dash Trust Protectors.

I want to thank you for your efforts and dedication over the years kot, i wish you well.

 

[peter]

Therefore I decided, with a heavy heart, to resign from my role at DCG.

Dear Robert,
Wouldn't it be possible for you to wait for such a decision after the election of the new DTPs?
Peter

 

[kot]

Dear Robert,
Wouldn't it be possible for you to wait for such a decision after the election of the new DTPs?
Peter

Hey @peter,
The results of the election wouldn't change the standards set by the current DTPs. I think @ErnestoContrerasLatAm described well what I think about the situation:

In any organization there are minimal ethical behaviours to which members should be held accountable in order to be part of this organization. So this is not a question of whether the trust protectors choose to defend DCG, this is a question of what is the lowest ethical standard that is accepted as a member of the Trust Protectors, and what that means for the future of the organizations that live in the Dash DAO.

The decision of the current DTP board approves and legitimizes attacks like the one made by Mark Mason - if it is not recognized as inappropriate and condemned, it is becoming acceptable. I refuse to support such low ethical and professional standards.
In addition, I don't want to see any DCG contributors (including myself) be the target of the next attack - and the next attack is coming sooner or later since it is now becoming an acceptable, legitimized standard of behavior in the ecosystem.

EDIT: Please understand that this doesn't make me satisfied whatsoever. Nevertheless, this is actually the only way I can protest the wrong decision of the Trust Protectors - I don't have any other "tools" available to me.
And I am deeply convinced, the DTPs have made wrong decisions and support wrong actions.

 

[vazaki3]

The decision of the current DTP board approves and legitimizes attacks ...

Whats wrong with attacks?
Nature Is Metal - crazy animal compilation - part 1 - YouTube

 

[Hilawe]

Another day passed and there is no response from DTPs - I find it disturbing, considering the context of the current elections.

@kot we were not able to post our response links with our new DTP account and you're on a Forum DM regarding this issue. We'll just go ahead and make 3 separate posts as getting our account whitelisted immediately has run into problems.

 

[Dash Trust Protectors]

Dash Community,

Our responses to Robert and the DCG Board can be reviewed in these two PDF documents. The first is a letter to the DCG Board, the second is a full investigation and report into the allegations made.

Sincerely,

Dash Trust Protectors

 

[qwizzie]

I just read the 'full investigation and report' and for me personally i have to conclude that objectivity is severly lacking in this report, it is just a very one-sided
support for one of their own Dash Trust Protector members (Mark Mason). For all we know Mark Mason could have written that report all by himself.

What this report tries to belittle (and is failing at) :

A : accussation of financial fraude supposedly committed by Dash Core Group, without any form of evidence (just a wild speculation thrown in the air), by Mark Mason
B : violation of privacy of Dash Core Group members, by Mark Mason
C : disclosure of confidential information, by Mark Mason

Those three points are still standing, this report does not change that. The Dash Trust Protectors may not have the authority to discharge one of their own Dash Trust Protector members for having committed the above points, but they can be held responsible for allowing one of their own members to make those wild unfounded accusations in the first place and their inability to suppress those accussations.

The Dash Trust Protectors should speak as one, not avoid speaking out when one of their own Trust Protector members is making all kinds of wild unfounded accussations and then be forced to make an official (internal) investigation, when things get out of hand.

In my opinion this has severly damaged the reputation of the current Dash Trust Protectors.
I sincerely hope none of the current Dash Trust Protectors are getting re-elected.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Okay I'm going to reply to a part that I find a little egregiously wrong. As much as I would like to sweep this under the rug some things need to be said.


From the Dash Trust Protector response (NOT Robert's Second Allegation):

That is NOT what he alleged.

Robert's second allegation: Mark suggested that our former colleague had a romantic relationship outside of his marriage, and this relationship potentially led to the financial fraud mentioned above. I consider it a disgusting violation of the privacy of another person and also a possible life-ruining act.

Am I missing something or are the trust protectors defending against an allegation that wasn't made?

Reading the above I have to say that I concur with Robert that `Mark suggested that our former colleague had a romantic relationship outside of his marriage`.

It doesn't matter if Mark knew that the employee was married, because it could still have destroyed the ex-employee's personal life regardless of what Mark knew.

This is the captions for above.

For 1. There is no police report that Mark is referring to. So that is incorrect.

For 2. Yes Mark suggested something, and notice that Robert said "Mark suggested that our former colleague had a romantic relationship".

For 3. "No individual was specifically named". Robert said this in his allegation Mark suggested that our former colleague had a romantic relationship outside of his marriage, and this relationship potentially led to the financial fraud mentioned above. I consider it a disgusting violation of the privacy of another person and also a possible life-ruining act. Could any trust protector let me know where Robert said that an individual was specifically named?

Can we all agree that the first part of what Robert said is true in his allegation? "Mark suggested that our former colleague had a romantic relationship outside of his marriage".

 

[xkcd]

@kot we were not able to post our response links with our new DTP account and you're on a Forum DM regarding this issue. We'll just go ahead and make 3 separate posts as getting our account whitelisted immediately has run into problems.

haha, Am I reading this right? So the DTP were waiting on an official account to post from while the forum administrator `kot` who is the guy to create this account keeps hitting the DTPs about not posting while at the same time not creating the account for them to post from? And then ultimatum rage quits? ROFL.

 

[xkcd]

I just read the 'full investigation and report' and for me personally i have to conclude that objectivity is severly lacking in this report, it is just a very one-sided
support for one of their own Dash Trust Protector members (Mark Mason). For all we know Mark Mason could have written that report all by himself.

What this report tries to belittle (and is failing at) :

A : accussation of financial fraude supposedly committed by Dash Core Group, without any form of evidence (just a wild speculation thrown in the air), by Mark Mason
B : violation of privacy of Dash Core Group members, by Mark Mason
C : disclosure of confidential information, by Mark Mason

Absolute nonsense, your post is the one-sided view. The TPs addressed A through C and it is clear that kot and Glenn did escalate the matter, the line of questioning, well beyond what was actually asked, by jumping to conclusions and through their own paranoia. Then it is deplorable that kot would insist that a democratically elected TP should be stood down because he didn't like the types of questions he was asking. You are a MNO, qwizzie, Mark is a TP elected by the MNOs and the DCG staff member wanted to oust him! that is treason. I am sorry to see kot go, but I believe he made up his mind when Ryan revealed he was leaving, Robert is just too old and stuck in his ways to work for the network, his loyalty was to Ryan and keeping the company closed from prying eyes.

 

[strophy]

DTP were waiting on an official account to post from while the forum administrator `kot` who is the guy to create this account keeps hitting the DTPs about not posting while at the same time not creating the account for them to post from?

No. What you are saying is simply not true, just because it would be convenient to speculate facts into existence doesn't mean it is actually possible. DTP contacted @AgnewPickens (through the forum support function) and then me to get their forum rights adjusted. Agnew is only a forum moderator and not an administrator, so does not have permissions, and I was overloaded and did not respond promptly. Any of the DTP with a posting history could have used their personal accounts to post the statement, I offered to modify a posted statement by manually attaching the files, or they could have created a forum account in good time instead of at the last minute.

I get it, you don't like DCG. But please stop speculating everything DCG staff do has some malicious motive, it feels really shitty to spend so much effort working as transparently as possible, and then still have people fabricate narratives like this.

 

[kot]

haha, Am I reading this right? So the DTP were waiting on an official account to post from while the forum administrator `kot` who is the guy to create this account keeps hitting the DTPs about not posting while at the same time not creating the account for them to post from? And then ultimatum rage quits? ROFL.

View attachment 11169

No, you are not reading this right.
I didn't get any DM from the Trust Protectors.

All these false messages don't do anything good for the project.

 

[xkcd]

No, you are not reading this right.
I didn't get any DM from the Trust Protectors.

All there false messages don't do anything good for the project.

Thanks Robert for the straight answer! It was a question, I made a logical assumption given that you are an admin (the only one I was aware of) and directly involved with the matter I would have assumed the DTP asked you to get their account activated.

No. What you are saying is simply not true, just because it would be convenient to speculate facts into existence doesn't mean it is actually possible. DTP contacted @AgnewPickens (through the forum support function) and then me to get their forum rights adjusted. Agnew is only a forum moderator and not an administrator, so does not have permissions, and I was overloaded and did not respond promptly. Any of the DTP with a posting history could have used their personal accounts to post the statement, I offered to modify a posted statement by manually attaching the files, or they could have created a forum account in good time instead of at the last minute.

I get it, you don't like DCG. But please stop speculating everything DCG staff do has some malicious motive, it feels really shitty to spend so much effort working as transparently as possible, and then still have people fabricate narratives like this.

Strophy spends hours telling me about the perils of making false assumptions and then assumes that I

I get it, you don't like DCG.

and that I am

But please stop speculating everything DCG staff do has some malicious motive,

Just a case of kettle calling the pot black.

 

[denk]

Whats wrong with attacks?

1. Attacks eliminate possibility of collaboration.
2. It is extremely difficult to perform intellectual work if you are in an environment prone to attacks.

That said I totally disagree with the statement claiming "... the current DTP board approves and legitimizes attacks ...".
I have read the report and it does not legitimize any attack.

 

[JOL]

Dear Dash Trust Protector and MNO,

To the main questions you have answered:
Did Glen embezzle money from DCG? No
Did Mark disclose confidential information? Yes

After that, what you believe about the intentions of each person is pure speculation (and not what was expected), unless you can read people's minds.

Dash is a competitive environment. It would be nice to make sure that DTPs are not in a conflict of interest. Because when a DFO by his function in DTP, controls and has access to confidential information of another DFO, in this case DCG. It is impossible to ensure that information will not be consciously or unconsciously exploited to the advantage of a competing DFO.
This is a standard concept to avoid suspicion and misuse of the DTP function.

In view of these established facts: "Did Mark disclose confidential information? Yes
" Some MNOs would consider this to be serious precedent, not compatible with Mark running for or being elected as DTP. Normally, Dash is based on MNs voting on the Dash blockchain without a trusted intermediary, with the +10% voting rules of the MN network.
Due to the precedent set by Mark Meson, of having disclosed information he obtained as DTP, to be used in his public dispute with Ryan Tailor, a dispute between two DFO officials.
I ask that voting for new DTPs follow the only legitimate rule in Dash today.
That each candidate run directly on the network. Because the consensual rule previously accepted by the network, does not allow the MN network to discard or validate a candidate.

As ask by the DTP themself in the repport:
"the network will imminently have the opportunity to vote on Mark’s continued involvement as a TP in the coming
election, should he decide to stand again. We trust the network to be the arbiters on this matter."

Thank you,

 

[strophy]

I made a logical assumption

Follow up question: do you think posting unfounded assumptions and speculation, and using them to publicly tar and feather your opponents is a fundamentally honest and productive way to move a fact-based discussion forward? Who is acting in bad faith here? I understand free speech is important for society as a whole, but since we are engaged in a collaborative project, what would it take for you to restrict your statements to things you know to be true for a fact?

 

[xkcd]

Follow up question: do you think posting unfounded assumptions and speculation, and using them to publicly tar and feather your opponents is a fundamentally honest and productive way to move a fact-based discussion forward? Who is acting in bad faith here? I understand free speech is important for society as a whole, but since we are engaged in a collaborative project, what would it take for you to restrict your statements to things you know to be true for a fact?

This whole thread is a farce, the DCG staff are now so polarised and rabid they cannot see their own hypocrisy.

At the same time, Mark Mason's wife fabricates more ungrounded accusations, attacking DCG and DCG members on Discord. At this point, I consider it a coordinated attack on the project and request Dash Trust Protectors to stand and protect the company and project, according to their mandate and function.
I am demanding DTPs to immediately release official, public statements and explain what is the position of the Dash Trust Protectors in this case.

Thank you,
Robert Wiecko

In the above quote, kot makes assumptions that Mark's wife -> fabricated ungrounded accusations. He has no idea under what grounds her claims were made, he never enquired about them, he just straight up assumes they are baseless, much like you do Strophy. Continuing kot regards Mark asking valid questions as 'a coordinated attack on the project' This is utter nonsense, MNOs should always be allowed to ask questions, there was reasonable cause in this case to seek clarification on the matter since if true it could put Dash in a bad light.

I refuse to work with Mark Mason in any capacity. I have also sent an email to the Trust Protectors requesting immediate reactions, removing Mark Mason from the DTPs board and public condemnation of his actions.

kot goes so far as to demand the TPs remove democratically elected member by the network, Mark Mason, attempting to completely undermine and subvert the Dash Trust Protectors autonomy. This is nothing short of heinous and underscores how he feels about the TPs, the network and his role in the network.

DCG works for the network, not the corporation, not the CEO. We have to shape DCG into something that delivers value to the network, over and beyond reliable paycheck paid to employees with little over sight or responsibilities.

 

[kot]

This whole thread is a farce, the DCG staff are now so polarised and rabid they cannot see their own hypocrisy.



In the above quote, kot makes assumptions that Mark's wife -> fabricated ungrounded accusations. He has no idea under what grounds her claims were made, he never enquired about them, he just straight up assumes they are baseless, much like you do Strophy. Continuing kot regards Mark asking valid questions as 'a coordinated attack on the project' This is utter nonsense, MNOs should always be allowed to ask questions, there was reasonable cause in this case to seek clarification on the matter since if true it could put Dash in a bad light.



kot goes so far as to demand the TPs remove democratically elected member by the network, Mark Mason, attempting to completely undermine and subvert the Dash Trust Protectors autonomy. This is nothing short of heinous and underscores how he feels about the TPs, the network and his role in the network.

DCG works for the network, not the corporation, not the CEO. We have to shape DCG into something that delivers value to the network, over and beyond reliable paycheck paid to employees with little over sight or responsibilities.

Same accusations, made a month earlier - this time with names. Coordinated, prepared and completely fabricated attack. Check also the other "facts" thrown by Mark and his wife in the chat. Disgusting.
Feel free to ask Marshall from DashDirect about his opinion about her.

Your fantasies about Ryan and me are interesting.
I am assuming you have much better replacement for Ryan and me and propositions of great changes in the project. Please share.

 

[xkcd]

Same accusations, made a month earlier - this time with names. Coordinated, prepared and completely fabricated attack. Check also the other "facts" thrown by Mark and his wife in the chat. Disgusting.

Demelza was asking a question in the context of the AMA for Ryan to respond to the allegation that DCG funded some farm in Hawaii, first I am hearing of it, but I don't believe it was made up out of thin air. I don't know the status of this claim, if true or not. We can ask Demelza where she got the impression DCG was funding this.

What we do know is Ryan got the network to invest in ALT36 which is now looking like a 'scam' to us. He protected them from network scrutiny, encouraged the MNOs to continue funding it from the DAO even when it was in trouble, the knowledge of that which he with held from the network. On the basis of that, I would not be surprised to learn there were other DCG misadventures with network money that he was not forth coming about.

As for your replacement, kot. I am partially interested in the role myself. Have you got a job description for what the role entails? My only wish is to have people in DCG that are aligned with the network and chose to work for it rather than for a paycheck with few strings attached.

 

[kot]

Demelza was asking a question in the context of the AMA for Ryan to respond to the allegation that DCG funded some farm in Hawaii, first I am hearing of it, but I don't believe it was made up out of thin air. I don't know the status of this claim, if true or not. We can ask Demelza where she got the impression DCG was funding this.

What we do know is Ryan got the network to invest in ALT36 which is now looking like a 'scam' to us. He protected them from network scrutiny, encouraged the MNOs to continue funding it from the DAO even when it was in trouble, the knowledge of that which he with held from the network. On the basis of that, I would not be surprised to learn there were other DCG misadventures with network money that he was not forth coming about.

As for your replacement, kot. I am partially interested in the role myself. Have you got a job description for what the role entails? My only wish is to have people in DCG that are aligned with the network and chose to work for it rather than for a paycheck with few strings attached.

Great - I think with your integrity and experience DCG will do fantastic.
Contact DTPs about the recruitment - I am not recruiting my own replacement (obviously).

 

[vazaki3]

1. Attacks eliminate possibility of collaboration.

After the attack, in case we have no victims and peace prevails, the bonds are tighten and the collaboration is more fruitfull.

2. It is extremely difficult to perform intellectual work if you are in an environment prone to attacks.

Those capable to perform intellectual work in an enviroment prone to attacks, are the best workers.

 

[vazaki3]

I ask that voting for new DTPs follow the only legitimate rule in Dash today.
That each candidate run directly on the network. Because the consensual rule previously accepted by the network, does not allow the MN network to discard or validate a candidate.

I agree. Every Trust Protector should spend 5 dash proposal fee and add his candidacy into the Dash budget system, as a proposal that expires in 1 year.
The TPs that are elected, they will get their proposal fee back.

Three questions, addresed to all Trust Protectos (TP).

1. What should be the minimum number of votes , as a precentage of the total possible votes, you should receive in order to be named a TP? For example, in the hypothetical case you would receive only 3 votes (out of 4289 possible) and still you would be able to get elected, do you think it would be fair to receive the TP title ?
2. The TP election procedure allows voters to cast only positive votes, and not negative votes. I can vote for the TP I trust, but not for the TP I do not trust. For example, in case someone is trusted by 500 masternodes and not trusted by 2000, due to the election system he is elected as a TP. Do you think this is fair?
3. Is trust something that starts at 4 April 2022 and ends at 14 April 2022, during the TP election period? What if I the network trusts someone at 14 April, and at 15 April it stops trusting him? Do you think it is fair for the network to tolerate this TP for the next one year?

If ALL Trust protectors add their candidacy into the Dash budget system, the above 3 questions are answered.

1. minimum number of votes = 10%
2. negative votes? = ok
3. stops trusting? = ok

My only concern is this hardcoded 10% number. Why 10% and not 5% or 45% ? Lets vote the numbers, lets create an "adaptive minimum votes percentage for the Trust Protector election" proposal, similar to this.

 

[AgnewPickens]

No, you are not reading this right.
I didn't get any DM from the Trust Protectors.

All these false messages don't do anything good for the project.

I tried tagging you in a message the DTP had with @strophy and me about getting link privileges, but
clearly, Xenforo did not add you to the conversation, but the DTP wanted to respond from an official
account, and strophy was away, it is my fault that I suggested they contact strophy instead of you.

 

[Hilawe]

I tried tagging you in a message the DTP had with @strophy and me about getting link privileges, but
clearly, Xenforo did not add you to the conversation, but the DTP wanted to respond from an official
account, and strophy was away, it is my fault that I suggested they contact strophy instead of you.

Agnew: Thank you for clarifying the situation and your diligence as a Dash Forum moderator is much appreciated.

It turns out that all parties involved were not aware of what was happening. It's unfortunate that the software allowed you to tag @ kot in a group DM but did not actually add @ kot to the DM group.

 

[strophy]

assumes they are baseless, much like you do Strophy

There is a difference here though, I provided evidence your claims were baseless, and instead of engaging with my argument...

DCG staff are now so polarised and rabid

you attacked my person. How can we have productive discussions under these circumstances?

 

[qwizzie]

That is typically xkcd. He makes unfounded allegations, baseless claims and ultimately resorts to highly personal attacks. I have learned a long time ago to just put ignore on people who demonstrate such behavior.

 

[vazaki3]

That is typically xkcd. He makes unfounded allegations, baseless claims and ultimately resorts to highly personal attacks. I have learned a long time ago to just put ignore on people who demonstrate such behavior.

You just did an "ad hominem" attack, didnt you?

 

[vazaki3]

There is a difference here though, I provided evidence your claims were baseless, and instead of engaging with my argument...

you attacked my person. How can we have productive discussions under these circumstances?
View attachment 11178

Not again this irrelevant triangle, presented by people who are trying to escape.
This is NOT a philisophical issue. This is a dash trial.
Ad hominem attacks should be part of the dash trial procedure.
In a dash trial, the credibility of a witness should be much more important than the witness's sayings.

 

[vazaki3]

Agnew: Thank you for clarifying the situation and your diligence as a Dash Forum moderator is much appreciated.

It turns out that all parties involved were not aware of what was happening. It's unfortunate that the software allowed you to tag @ kot in a group DM but did not actually add @ kot to the DM group.

Hilawe, will you add your TP candicacy into the Dash budget system?