0x9e0e9d25…57b1sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#23,990,022·view on Etherscan
wylin-for-reserve-admin-mizklrrf@0xc6a3...96E4
You keep repeating this story of heroic personal losses and selfless participation in the **forks**, but none of it addresses the **core problem** that was raised. The concern was about **influence gained afterward** and how that influence has been used. Pointing to old bidding losses does not erase what happened next or how it shaped **voting power** today. These are separate issues and should not be blended together.
About the forks, you and your benefactor were not exactly passive monks carrying historical artifacts. You participated voluntarily, yes, but you also **benefited from it after obligations were shifted back onto the DAO**. That part conveniently goes missing every time the conversation comes up.
On that note, I would appreciate if you could **name other members who also forked and then started accumulating more voting power using the extracted funds**. If this practice is as harmless and noble as you describe, transparency should not be a problem.
On the **501c3 topic**, you keep insisting decentralization and charitable status can co-exist. The law firms you mention might have given theoretical pathways, but here is the simple part. The one concrete attempt we had, through Endaoment, collapsed because the terms were not acceptable and because no one, including you, pushed for anything beyond **vague promises**. It is not fair to pretend the DAO rejected a perfect solution. **No real solution was ever presented**.
Also, during the DUNA discussions, the information you provided about charity law was incomplete at best. You presented yourself as well informed on nonprofit structures, yet you skipped the most important point. **United States charity law requires control and accountability structures that do not fit a decentralized, anonymous governance model**. That tension is not imaginary. It is legal reality.
If you have a complete protocol approved by law firms, great. **Share it**. Let the DAO see what tradeoffs exist. Until then, asking people to take it on faith does not work here. We value **transparent reasoning** more than hidden expert opinions.
Calling this a bitter character attack is a neat rhetorical trick to dodge substance. No one is attacking your personality. The issues raised are **structural and documented**. If some of the facts sting, that is on the facts, not on the person stating them.
> @0x9e0e...57B1
>
> the accusation that the organization/ DAO member extracted value from the DAO in order to then purchase more votes is false. they lost $2M+ bidding up arbitragers + buying Nouns during the fork era, and then not forking them
>
> to the extent they did participate in the forks, (2 Nouns each in Forks 1 & 2,) they actually bear significant personal liability for those DAOs and the finances involved once the fork was created, not the DUNA. participating in them was an act of love to own a canonical piece of the DAO’s history and potentially upgrade the contract suite for new purposes in the future
>
> the accusation that 501c3 status + decentralization cannot co-exist is also false. Endaoment presented terms that were not acceptable to the DAO, and the issue was not pursued further by DAO members - yourself included - or the Admins.
>
> exploration of the legal intersection between 501c3 charitable status + DUNA style decentralization & anonymity and how to make it work in the context of a Nouns-style DAO has been one of the two primary focuses of my work this year, in coordination with two high-end law firms, one specializing in crypto law, the other in charity law
>
> we’ve designed a protocol that is arguably more decentralized than the existing Nouns protocol and also gets the green light from both law firms
>
> if the DAO so desires, 501c3 could still be explored further in our specific context and a solution could likely be found, though it may still require some compromise on the DAO’s end. some DAO members have signaled their interest in discussing this further with me, though there hasn’t been any follow up
>
> it’s unfortunate you feel mislead. perhaps consider doing the work necessary to operate with true information and present solutions, rather than bitter personal character attacks based on false information. it may deliver more of the results you’d like to see
>
> >
> >
> > I am increasingly worried that we are pretending the reserve admin role is necessary. There is **zero evidence** that this role was needed at any point in the past year, yet we somehow kept paying a premium for it; it feels like we have been **burning money on a function that never actually served a purpose**.
> >
> > My concerns grow when I look at the broader pattern. You are representing someone, or possibly an organization, who quietly extracted **the maximum possible value from the DAO during the forks**. With those same funds, they have **accumulated votes**, **built significant voting power**, and consistently **pushed DUNA forward**, a structure that conveniently shifts **their obligations from the forks back onto the DAO**. It is difficult not to notice how neatly all of this aligns in their favor.
> >
> > I am also concerned about the quality of information provided during the DUNA discussions. Some of it was **misleading**, especially around the topic of 501c3 status. You and your benefactor claimed a certain level of **experience and familiarity** with nonprofits and charities, yet the fact that **charity status and decentralization cannot legally coexist under US law** somehow never appeared in your explanations. That omission does not look accidental to anyone paying attention.
> >
> > Then there is the historical pattern of proposals that only passed because **the votes you represent** arrived exactly when needed. At this point it feels less like governance and more like watching a stage play where the same character walks in whenever the plot requires a convenient nudge.
> >
> > As a member who genuinely cares about the health of this DAO, I find these patterns troubling.
> >
>
>
>
>
I am always open to solutions. **Present them clearly**, without skipping the inconvenient parts. That would move us forward more than polished narratives about past sacrifices.