[phase 1] HIP 48: Removal of Clement Lesaege as mission board member

Proof of Humanity
1 
HIP: 48
Title: Removal of Clement Lesaege as mission board member
Author: ludoviko.eth, v4len.eth, vice, lauraleticialopez.eth (Lety), pablo, drlorente97.eth
Status: Phase 1
Created: 2022-01-06
Updated: 2022-10-15

Simple Summary

This HIP proposes the removal of Clement Leseage from the mission board and the snapshot administration.

Abstract

The event on EF Devcon VI where Clément produced an incident involving a violent and unsustained reaction towards Santi Siri as a speaker, has sparked debates about the fitness of Clement as a Member of the Mission Board. Based on this and previous events regarding the actions of Clement as an admin for the Snapshot polls, and the overall attitude of constantly delaying any advancement or progress of any proposals that obstructs his own agenda, the authors of this proposal are proposing:

  • The destitution of Clement Lesaege as a Mission Board Member, based on the premise that, in our opinion, he is not aligned with the values of Democratization and Decentralization and respect for privacy of individuals being registered in the DAO.

Motivation

Here is a rundown of events that accumulated since the inception of the proposal:

  • Not acknowledging the issues regarding the concentration and dominance of a priviledged few in the Kleros Humanity Court and not doing anything to prevent such an abnormal degree of centralization.
  • Over-reaching MBM authority by numerous attempts (some successful) to demote, and then censor moderators from Telegram groups. An abuse of the mechanisms of those channels to supress dissent (36 warn actions in three days after a violent takeover of the now Kleros’ PoH group). The warns and the bans in the Kleros PoH group even included other Mission Board Members since then.
  • Disregarding serious security threats to the registering process (metadata issue): When warned about this issue, Clement lowered the priority of a huge security threat in which personal georeferencing data was being leaked into the registry profiles. The best answer he could give about the priority demotion he replied “Because it’s a nice to have, not a bug or a core feature.”. This was the response of people having their ethereum wallets and their physical addresses exposed in the blockchain virtually forever. The issue is still unsolved in the Kleros front-end.
  • Gerrymandering attempts by creating a set of 438 ethereum wallets that automatically delegated to him, even that up to this day, les than one third is registered or even an active member of the PoH community. The alleged “Myanmar” community is as of this day, completely invisible and without any signs of these people having the full picture of how the DAO works or if they had any alternatives to delegate to other candidates.
  • Systematically obstaculizing any process that helps humans register (352, vouchallengers, etc) sometimes suggesting that challenges are good and vouch-and-challenge attacks are part of the normal mechanism:
    • Example 1, stating that the only way to keep deposits low is keeping the challenges high making Proof of Humanity a dispute-creating machine at expenses of unaware and unprepared humans.
    • Example 2, falsely accusing of being “undemocratic” a democratic poll [Hiring] Product Manager - #68 by clesaege 1 and this is critical for someone holding veto power in snapshot.
    • Example 3, saying that having the opportunity to withdraw from a mistake where an innocent person is attacked by a vouchallenger is “perfectly fine” and that giving enough time for a person to correct a mistake “courtesy” and not a right.
  • Sabotaging or lack of respect to proper procedure:
  • Lack of proper spirit of collaboration with the community, showing lack of flexibility when community wanted questions answered.
  • Taking decisions in the background without proper consultation to DAO members, or disregarding alternative perspectives.
  • The removal of administrative rigths over the Snapshot platform.

Rationale

Clément was, is, and will still be a key and most valuable collaborator in terms of technical skills. The accumulation of this and other events suggests that Clement is unfit to represent the DAO. This does not mean that he is unable to continue contributing in some other way, and this is not a lack of recognition that he created the protocol.

This is the third time this HIP is refloated. Originally the HIP was left on hold since its creation, but events at that time regarding removal of dissenting members of the DAO from telegram channels have sparked the interest of the community to move forward with this proposal.

Implementation

If Phase 3 binding vote is approved, the position that Clement Lesaege is occupying as a Mission Board Member will become vacant. Mr. Lesaege will not be able to be candidate for the Mission Board Member position (or any derivatives/equivalents from this institution, i.e., positions with executive functions) for the following 2 years starting from the Phase 3 voting.
In addition to this, Mr. Lesaege’s administrative rigths to the snapshot platform will be removed indefinitely

4 Likes
2

Versión en Español:

Resumen simple

Esta HIP propone la destitución de Clement Leseage de la Junta de la Misión (Mision Board de aqui en más) y de la Administración de Snapshot.

Resumen

El suceso ocurrido en la EF Devcon VI en el que Clément produjo un incidente con una reacción violenta e insostenible hacia Santi Siri como orador, ha suscitado debates sobre la idoneidad de Clement como miembro del Mission Board. Basándose en este hecho y en otros anteriores relativos a la actuación de Clement como Administrador de las encuestas de Snapshot, y en la actitud general de retrasar constantemente cualquier avance o progreso de cualquier propuesta que obstruya su propia agenda, los autores de esta propuesta proponen:

  • La destitución de Clement Lesaege como miembro de la Junta Directiva, partiendo de la premisa de que, en nuestra opinión, no está alineado con los valores de Democratización y Descentralización y el respeto a la privacidad de las personas que se registran en el DAO.
  • La remoción de derechos administrativos sobre la plataforma Snapshot.

Motivación

He aquí un resumen de los acontecimientos que se acumularon desde el inicio de la propuesta:

  • No reconocer los problemas relativos a la concentración y el dominio de unos pocos privilegiados en el Tribunal de la Humanidad de Kleros y no hacer nada para evitar ese grado anormal de centralización.
  • Extralimitación de la autoridad de su rol mediante numerosos intentos (algunos exitosos) de degradar y luego censurar a los moderadores de los grupos de Telegram. Un abuso de los mecanismos de esos canales para suprimir la disidencia (36 acciones de warn en tres días después de una toma violenta del grupo de PoH que ahora está bajo control de Kleros). Las advertencias y los baneos en el grupo PoH de Kleros incluyeron incluso a otros miembros del Mission Board desde entonces.
  • No tener en cuenta las graves amenazas a la seguridad del proceso de registro (cuestión de los metadatos): Cuando se le advirtió sobre este asunto, Clement restó prioridad a una enorme amenaza de seguridad en la que se estaban filtrando datos personales de georreferenciación en los perfiles del registro. La mejor respuesta que pudo dar sobre el descenso de prioridad fue: “Porque es algo agradable de tener, no un error o una característica esencial”. Esta fue la respuesta de la gente que tiene sus carteras de Ethereum y sus direcciones físicas expuestas en el blockchain prácticamente para siempre. El problema sigue sin resolverse en el front-end de Kleros.
  • Los intentos de Gerrymandering mediante la creación de un conjunto de 438 wallets de ethereum que automáticamente se delegaron su voto a él, incluso que hasta el día de hoy, menos de un tercio está registrado o incluso un miembro activo de la comunidad PoH. La supuesta comunidad de “Myanmar” es a día de hoy, completamente invisible y sin ningún indicio de que estas personas tengan la visión completa de cómo funciona el DAO o si tenían alguna alternativa para delegar en otros candidatos.
  • Obstaculizando sistemáticamente cualquier proceso que ayude a los humanos a registrarse (352, vouchallengers, etc) a veces sugiriendo que los desafíos son buenos y los ataques de vouch-and-challenge son parte del mecanismo normal.
  • Ejemplo 1, afirmando que la única forma de mantener los depósitos bajos es mantener los challenges altos, haciendo de Proof of Humanity una máquina de crear disputas a costa de los humanos inconscientes y no preparados.
  • Ejemplo 2, acusando falsamente de ser “antidemocrática” una encuesta democrática y esto es crítico para alguien que tiene poder de veto en Snapshot.
  • Ejemplo 3, decir que tener la oportunidad de retirar el registro por un error donde una persona inocente es atacada por un vouchallenger está “perfectamente bien” y que dar el tiempo suficiente para que una persona corrija un error es “cortesía” y no un derecho.

Sabotaje o falta de respeto al procedimiento adecuado:

  • Paralizar el proceso de contratación hasta el punto de poner en hibernación la contratación propiamente dicha. También cabe destacar la contradicción con otros comentarios en los que afirmaba que las contrataciones debían hacerse con rapidez.
  • Doble standard: Argumentar sobre el cansancio de los votantes en propuestas con las que no estaba de acuerdo, creando él mismo el cansancio de los votantes al clonar una propuesta que ya estaba siendo votada con el fin de ajustarse a sus propios estándares individuales.
  • Subespecificación de normas (propuestas sobre contratación, sobre creación de propuestas) para que luego se interpreten como él piensa unilateralmente.
  • Falta de espíritu de colaboración con la comunidad, mostrando falta de flexibilidad cuando la comunidad quería respuestas a sus preguntas.
  • Tomar decisiones en segundo plano sin consultar adecuadamente a los miembros de la DAO, o despreciar perspectivas alternativas.

Justificacion

Clément fue, es y seguirá siendo un colaborador clave y muy valioso en términos de habilidades técnicas. La acumulación de este y otros acontecimientos sugiere que Clément no es apto para representar a la DAO. Esto no significa que no pueda seguir contribuyendo de alguna otra manera, y no se trata de una falta de reconocimiento por haber creado el protocolo.

Esta es la tercera vez que esta HIP es reflotada. Originalmente el HIP se dejó en suspenso desde su creación, pero los sucesos ocurridos en ese momento en relación con la eliminación de los miembros disidentes del DAO de los canales de telegrama han despertado el interés de la comunidad para seguir adelante con esta propuesta.

Implementación

Si se aprueba el voto vinculante de la Fase 3, el puesto que ocupa Clement Lesaege como miembro del Consejo de Misión quedará vacante. El Sr. Lesaege no podrá ser candidato al puesto de miembro del Consejo de la Misión (o cualquier derivado/equivalente de esta institución, es decir, puestos con funciones ejecutivas) durante los siguientes 2 años a partir de la votación de la Fase 3.
Además, el Sr. Lesaege perderá los derechos de administración de la plataforma Snapshot por tiempo indefinido.

1 Like
3

Same accusations, same answers.
If some people don’t like us, let’s just agree to disagree and fork. But the way it’s going there is escalating to dangerous levels and even creating physical safety risks.
At the Devcon I got insulted by a known member of the community (saying “fuck off” multiple times and giving me the finger). Worse I even got physical threats of being “beaten up” by a person I never saw before.

As a PoH founder, I think it’s quite crazy to have to deal with sort of behaviour. But as a community leader (i.e. getting significant delegations) I believe that people delegating to me have the right to be informed.
I also think that the initial post highlights some point of the PoH which could be problematic.

In this post, I will in a first part answer all Luis accusations (but won’t spend much time after that as building is more important) and in a second part on how Luis accusations may be revealing or deeper set of issues with the current state of the PoH project.

This recent “proposal”, didn’t follow HIP-5. It didn’t have any option to vote against (no “make no change”), so people could not vote to reject. It was promising to give proposer role to people voting for it.

As a board member I was therefore mandated protect the technical implementation and the use of the resource that is the snapshot page. Here there was a misuse of this resource: using it to display fake proposals (which lead to people coming to me and asking why they were not put as proposer despite having voted the proposal).
Not removing it would have been antidemocratic (would violate the combined instructions of HIP-7 and HIP-34).

I didn’t restrict snapshot proposing. Santi did restrict snapshot posting initially. We worked on a way to have more proposer than the status quo.
Moreover I’m using the right of delegation given by HIP-34 to add as proposer everyone who:

  • Hasn’t made invalid proposals in the past.
  • Ask me to put a valid proposal to vote.

In order to increase the list of proposers.

I effectively recommended not to have Luis as admin of a telegram group that we run while proposing him that he makes his own telegram group (that he did and in which I even participate).
You can find this compilation of Luis behaviour which made me think that having him as a telegram admin was not appropriate.

https://serving.photos.photobox.com/696049986d321994150f03f44fcd745c3288748282234720f31ed63c0f75084aa860ed61.jpg(image larger than 4096KB)

This is far from being the case. As the result of some comments stating that it was a higher priority, we set up a tokenlog for people to vote on priorities using quadratic voting.

Note that when I qualified this of a “low” priority, this was in contrast with bugs and features not working. One of this feature being the in-browser recording which if used, solves the issue (if the interface makes the video, we would not run the risk of users uploading videos with metadata).

The “nice thing to have” obviously refers to removing metadata, not having the metadata public.

I did ask a Kleros dev to work on this but he concluded that it was quite difficult. Now the priority is more on Gnosis Chain expansion but I hope someone can figure out how to automatically strip metadata from uploaded images/video.

This is false, the linked post is an answer to someone proposing to penalize vouchers of incorrect submissions.

This is false, I never stated it’s the only way. I’m just pointing out that everything else being equal, lower challenger rates lead to higher security deposits.

Actually Luis is well aware of this, as in his governance call where he interviewed me, we discussed promising research path on how to have a challenger ecosystem even in the absence of mistakes (work on forced errors discussed with people of truebit).

I definitely think that mixing non HIP-5 polls with proposals is undemocratic, as it confused voters (don’t know if it’s a poll or proposal to be executed). But instead of unilaterally removing them, I proposed HIP-34 which restrict the main space to HIP-5 proposals.

This has to be seen from a protocol development perspective. When I designed the mechanism to withdraw a submission, I designed a mechanism to remove them in case that someone would not manage to find vouchers in order to make sure that deposits would not be lost forever.
No other TCR mechanism I designed allowed to remove a submission.
This has been used by some people to withdraw submissions to prevent the loss of a deposit. I believe this is great, but I didn’t have allowing people making mistakes the right to remove before getting challenged in mind when I designed this mechanism.

The thing is that disputes are a mean, not a goal. If there were no disputes, there would be no rampart against malicious submitters.
And no, I have no interest in making disputes for the sake of making disputes (and we worked to make/integrate pre-dispute mechanism in other projects like the escrow and reality.eth).

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” (see Hitchen’s razor)

So I did argue against voter fatigue in case of:

  • Creating a bunch of elections, even for non important stuff.
  • Posting invalid proposals.

HIP-18 was not proposal cloning. Most of my modifications were actually implemented in the original HIP and I think they wouldn’t have been if there were not this proposal.

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” (see Hitchen’s razor)

I’m more of a builder than a politician and do regret the drift of PoH to politics instead of building.
So no I don’t spend all the day discussing in telegram when building is more efficient. But even then, I believe that my participation in telegram/forum is significant.

Funny to be accused of stalling something that I was pushing. I actually even tried to spear fish candidates (contacting people individually encouraging them to apply) but finding talent in this market is hard.

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” (see Hitchen’s razor)

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” (see Hitchen’s razor)

I would also like to take this opportunity to alert on two potential issues that I’m seeing in the current PoH setup which Luis post has highlighted:

  • Focusing on PoH governance instead of PoH building.
    Sure, you want effective governance and a high degree of decentralization. But ultimately protocols that wins are protocols gathering builders.
    If we look at the HIPs, we have around 40% of them which are self centered, i.e. not about building something but about how we govern something.
    I’m not saying that it should be 0%, that would also be bad. But that at current rate, it’s too high.

  • Tending far too much on the vetocracy side.
    Luis accusations are also interesting as I can see the roots of it. Those are political and can be found in the
    bulldozer vs vetocracy political axis (see Vitalik article The bulldozer vs vetocracy political axis).
    Luis is probably a vetocrate. Even if the proposal clearly shouldn’t have been in the official page, he believes that we should have had a complex process to remove it (maybe even make another vote).
    While I’m comparatively more on the bulldozer side (I insist on the comparatively, if I was a full bulldozer I wouldn’t even have made PoH a DAO): There are rules for being on the page, those rules are not respected, it’s just an administrative task to have those rules respected, not a governance one.
    I believe that early stage projects have more to win being on the bulldozer side. There are way much to win than to lose. If we start seeing the simple tasks of junk removal as a governance issue, we will consume all the limited resources we have in discussions.
    If the majority believes that the project should be a harsh vetocracy, I’d happily remove myself from it as I am not interesting in spending all the time in politics instead of building and believe that it would not be successful this way.
    Other people believes the same and one candidate to PoH ended up making a competitive project instead. When asked why. One of the reason was that he believes it would be hard to get things done in the current PoH setup (too much on the vetocracy side).
    Fortunately I hope that most people there are interested for the project to be in the right balance of vetocracy-bulldozer and that we can all work to make it successful.

3 Likes
4

If you want to hold Clément accountable for his reaction, why aren’t you also holding Santi accountable for making false claims? His defence on Twitter was that the UBI integration helped to launch/bootstrap PoH users - helping to launch, contributing to the project, and collaborating with PoH are all more appropriate ways to represent his affiliation with the project, but outright saying that he launched it is the literal definition of “misrepresentation”.

Is he wrong? Proof of Humanity, whether you like it or not, was launched by the founders as a Sybil-resistant registry of humans. As such, security must be prioritised over inclusivity. If you wanted to improve inclusivity without compromising security then you could’ve contributed to our BD efforts and encouraged partner projects to run crowdfunding campaigns. Instead, you rallied the community to directly intrude on our BD/integration efforts by voting to explicitly leave Sybil-resistance out of the policy

You voted to have your PoHDAO telegram as the “official” channel, so live with the consequences of us managing our channel the way we want to. Let’s not forget that a DAO is not a nation state, it’s for enforcing protocol changes - the vote of official channel may have gone in favour of your side but there’s nothing stopping us or anyone else in the community from opting into our “unofficial” side.

7 Likes
5

Is having brought the vast majority of users to PoH misrepresentation? And by vast I mean easily more than half, quite probably even most of the users PoH had during its initial months; and certainly those with high influencer reach like the celebrities that joined. I collaborated with PoH since at least 2019, participating in meetups, researching and writing papers about it. Needless to say that developing the smart contract of UBI and working with Kleros before the launch certainly made me feel welcomed to the efforts to launch PoH back then. Specially since all of the blog posts, videos and website content included the Democracy Earth logo. It is an act of incredible human misery to now pretend none of that ever happened and erase something that pretty much anyone close with intellectual honesty to PoH remembers. Turning that historical fact suddenly into a grammar debate shows how minuscule and petty the criticism is.

Kleros does nothing but blame the messenger, deflect the conversation, demonize people and is deaf to any kind of criticism. This culture stems strictly from a founder who is not fit to lead a community, does not believe in decentralization, thinks of himself before thinking of the project and gives a bad image to PoH.

After the act of intolerance that goes against every principle Ethereum stands for during my talk, the Kleros founder kept on following with insistence on the aisle insisting to talk with me when I repeatedly asked him to leave and get away from me since I feared for my physical integrity. Several witnesses were there that can account for this. I ask anyone around here how would they feel if a madman started screaming even before you set foot on a stage in order to give a presentation? I was there with my family expecting to have a good day after we even talked out our differences the previous days. But none of that seemed to make this person care at all to lower the tone on the conflict, quite the contrary: he chose a violent behavior regardless.

I do not want to interact this person ever again, he’s not fit for any kind of leadership role, he lacks the most basic sense of ethics openly claiming the ends justify the means, has no people skills whatsoever, is prone to cheap tactics of smear campaigns and leaking private chats, has serious accusations of corrupting his own protocol and quite frankly the Kleros community should consider taking a similar action to this since the reputational stain around him is now of considerable size.

If he has any decency left in him he should simply immediately resign to the board and help the PoH community avoid this tortuous debate. For once that would show he’s capable of putting the project before himself. But sadly, I very much doubt he’s capable of it.

2 Likes
6

This is false. I protested when Santi was falsely introduced as having launched Proof Of Humanity. I didn’t interrupt any talk.

This is a lie, after the talk which wasn’t following what Santi had announced, a Devcon organizer came and asked to talk to Santi about his talk not matching the description. I asked the Devcon organizer whether or not I should join the conversation and she asked me to join. Santi then left refusing to talk with the Devcon organiser and myself.

After that, there was a group of people (approximately 10 people, including people both from “founder side” and “Santi side”) debating the talk, I joined. Santi and another person on their side were trying to prevent me from talking. Santi shouted me “Shut up” multiple times and gave me the finger before leaving.
I reported this behavior to Devcon organizers which advised me to avoid Santi which I did.

As accusations of harassment are (and should) be taken seriously, if those accusations are not removed, I’ll consider with my counsel whether or not a defamation lawsuit should be engaged.

Note that it is not the first time Santi has been falsely accusing people of harassment. He also accused Cooperative members of having harassed him at the conference as seen in this chat:

image
image2417×1363 691 KB

However this picture taken during the alleged “harassment” tells another story:

harassed
harassed1202×903 221 KB

(Also after that, Santi asked for an invite to the Kleros party and went there. If you get harassed by a group of people, asking to take happy pictures with them and coming to their party is one of the last thing someone reasonable would do)

I’m not gonna pretend I’m a fan of Santi, but for example I wouldn’t try to kick him from the mission board. People can be political opponents while still being respectful.

This respect can take two form:

  • Agree on some points and work on those together.
  • Agree to disagree and peacefully split (fork).

Here I think the first point is not possible anymore and that we should focus our efforts on the second and peacefully fork.

6 Likes
7

I’m voting against this HIP if it moves to Phase 2.

We are not handling Governance as grown ups. It’s easy to say it’s the other guy’s fault.

1 Like
8

First of all, I would like to express by this means that Clement’s intervention in the devcon seemed to me a total lack of respect. Santi is a great exponent of this protocol and many of us landed here thanks to him. He didn’t deserve to start his talk that way.

That said, clement has been proposing a fork for over a month. I don’t know the details of the discussions for a “peacefully fork” rather than a document I read, but it seems to me better to focus political energies on getting such a process properly underway. With the fork done, I understand that much of the community that wants to remove Clement as MBM will have their own poh fork where Clement will not participate as MBM.

This is all a big assumption on my part, I know. But voting to remove an MBM at this point just adds fuel to the fire. Those are my thoughts at the moment.

3 Likes
9

Whether it’s harassment or not, I might be lost in translation but stalling me for 3 hours on Monday during the conference surrounded by this person and his employees was not a happy situation in spite of my effort to put my best face. Tolerating the shouting and screaming before my conference without any consideration to have a rational talk was certainly a very violent situation for Devcon standards. After the talk of course I did everything in my power to get away from this person. It wasn’t until the authorities behind Devcon and the Ethereum Foundation arrived that I was able to leave the situation on the aisle. Needless to say, the sudden lack of recognition after 2 years of my efforts making PoH what it is today, speaks for itself.

Thanks @herniadlf for your nice comments. I drafted this proposal: A Peaceful Fork 🕊 - Google Docs and to my knowledge accepted most of the input from the Kleros side. Everyone is welcomed to contribute and chime into it.

I personally have no particular interest on pursuing a fork per se and I’m willing to hear what the community wants to do. Forks are always a measure of last resort.

1 Like
10

Not only you are distorting @clesaege words (not a characteristic I love to see on a Mission Board), but you are also implying that the core objective is to create disputes, when revenue generated to jurors (9.5 k usd so far in the Humanity court, less than $0.6 per submission) is far from being expensive IMO. I don’t know another arbitrator that provides this security with this costs…

First, there is an equilibrium (between amount of challenges and total deposit) backed by incentives to Keep PoH as the top sybil-resistant list of humans that is today. This is the best option which specialists on game theory and math (William and other team members) could find, but they never stated was the only one. Finding a optimal solution which combines the best of both worlds (low deposit and low challenges while maintaining security) is not easy, but if you can find a solution for it, I will be glad to hear it.

4 Likes
11

As a person interested in PoH, it’s capabilities to improve democracy and base-layer for many bot-free social apps, but a complete outsider to this conflict, I’ll offer my perspective on wider picture. I don’t really care who has founded it, but I do care how it scales. I’ve learned about it from one of podcasts featuring Santi (english speaking), so he must be doing something right.

I’ve started to scratch my head, when I found out that I have to buy PNK token that has nothing to do with PoH, just to be allowed to be a court juror securing PoH. I was drafted as a juror only once and defended some guys stash from unjust taking, because of a rotated picture (at the time there was no rule against it). Deposit saved, but he got removed later from the registry, anyway after rules got clarified.

I don’t mind the latter part and having a desire to keep registry clean, but it seems rather strange to me that the developers are focusing so much on passing laws, more contraints and discussions of individual cases, rather than fixing the app frontend (video and photo parameter check, simple automatic verification of lightning conditions and face detection, etc?), which is almost unchanged for more than a year. It seems to me they’re incentivized to do make it harder to get into the registry than it needs to be, because they get rewards from challenges and legal fees. This was clear to me even before Devcon 6 drama

I believe courts should be made of people participating in the protocol. Just note the difference between American (random jurors) and Chinese (appointed judges) courts. It’s hard not to notice that Kleros people have huge conflict of interest here and it will hurt PoH, until the “klergy caste” (ironic choice of naming, BTW) is purged.

PoH certainly needs developers and a fund, but not with so many strings attached.

2 Likes
12

The new interface built by @nicobilinkis.eth actually improves many things and removes metadata from videos and pictures to better preserve privacy. I encourage you to use it and recommend it. It’s on proofofhumanity.org and has my support and the community’s. Expect many cool improvements soon.

1 Like
13

The Kleros developers working on POH are more focused on creating POHv2, which aims to be deployed on Gnosis Chain and lowers the deposit significantly - it could be around 30 usd. This was the #1 pain point and the devs are working on it. The developers do not like playing politics or status games.

Before that, there were other situations where the required deposit was lowered, by the initiative of the Kleros team. So, I understand there’s an appearance of a conflict of interest, but the team is actually lowering the revenues to jurors, and lowering the deposits.

After POHv2 launches, a refactoring of the UI and the adoption of some great Nico Bilinkis UI tweaks, we will probably get to a better situation. And anyone is welcome to host their own UI, make PRs (preferably small PRs), and test out improvements.

The drama, name calling, blaming, certainly do not help with the resources Kleros has to dedicate to this project.

That’s why I reject this HIP (that throws more gasoline to the fire, in my opinion), and would love to discuss forking more. If we do fork, we’ll probably need to discuss two constitutions, and figure out all the terms to make the community satisfied with it, the HIP will only distract us of our objectives.

6 Likes
14

I don’t think this is only an appearance and your words don’t negate it in any way. Kleros is a for-profit DAO (i.e. a company) with PNK shareholder interests (pumpenomics) and the only reason such fee decrease would be voted is to increase profit by increasing court usage - cutting fees in order to increase demand may very well increase overall profits. Nothing new here.

AFAIK, there is very little other use of Kleros, besides PoH and it’d be very bad for you if PoH replaced court implementation with one “by the people of the people for the people”, but it will happen. Even if PoH doesn’t do it, other registry will, and because it will be more efficient thanks to being less burdened by operational costs and value extraction by outside parasitical structure - it, eventually, will win. Don’t want to call names, but it is what it is. PoH to Kleros is deposit extraction application. No lawyering - no profit.

Regarding, xDAI - aren’t side chains out of fashion due to better security properties of L2s?

2 Likes
15

Not true, Kleros main goal is to have integrations and be adopted, and for that to happen, disputes must be efficient, have lower costs, and deliver results. Otherwise, just like you said, other options might be better in the long term.

Kleros v2 will have a module to use 1p1juror as the sortition mechanism, that could be adopted in Humanity courts. That’s also the incentive Kleros has to help develop the protocol, and for it to be secure and reliable.

(I don’t think it should be the only mechanism to select jurors in this court because it could create a systemic risk to the protocol, i.e. if you have sybils, you can break the court, create more sybils, easier to break the court…, but this is a separate issue)

It’s strange that you say that with this confidence. Can you expand more on this on another thread?

2 Likes
16

Will Kleros v2 allow to use other tokens than PNK?

17

Seems like the same HIP with weak arguments is being pushed, with the only difference being the devcon event. I was at devcon, I joined the group discussion with Santi quite late (I’m in the shared picture), seemed to end in pretty friendly terms (peaceful fork, yada yada), among other things, Santi mentioning that he plays the politics game, sort of “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” I probably missed the part when he was harrased.

Next day there was the talk, Clement having a frustrated reaction over a point that has been discussed for a looong time, that Santi is not in fact the founder / launcher of PoH, not much trace of contribution from him, he mostly spread the word of it to his following, most of them having joined PoH because of UBI, of course. If we were to take actual contributions as proof of founding a project, maybe certain members of Kleros should join to claim the crown of founding UBI. Of course, they are not attention seekers, they played their role in building UBI and leave the responsibility of pumping the price to the person/s that should assume it, the good humanitarian/s, that, however, prefer to play politics here, rather than putting a fraction of that effort into helping the price action :chart_with_downwards_trend: of $UBI.

image
image1920×1041 74.9 KB

Santi then proceeded to give a talk, completely not sticking to his own summary of the talk, bringing drama to the whole Ethereum community (remember that after the talk, EF took action against him) and completely misrepresenting / forgetting past discussion and agreements made in the community over parameters, policy etc. If the discussions had in the past over how to fix the problems noticed are so easily misrepresented, or the politics leads to such short term memory, then why pretend like dialog matters? Let’s just call it what it is, scapegoating of the founder and Kleros team, creator and developers of the protocol respectively. I’m sure if we got rid of them, it would solve all the problems, there are no tradeoffs - the tradeoffs of course are just points used to help the Evil Kleros Corp. :tm:…

Myself, I prefer not to play politics. I prefer to push on the keys to write code, rather than doing it to spread bs politics :slight_smile: My updates on PoHv2 don’t get much discussion so I assume I’m doing the right thing. Sure, many people from the community, including some of my teammates see politics as necessary. I silently disagree with them as I prefer not to stay in fool’s way, so to speak. I wished for a fork since July, rationally or not, just to see what the protocol politicians, the managerial class of PoH, these “”“humanitarian”"" fascists, do when they are left with no one to point fingers at besides themselves.

Just to add something in case things are unclear, among other things, politics creates a toxic environments for building - just past days Santi called salva on telegram like a Kleros dog for mistaking a chart he (Santi) used in his presentation (without checking beforehand!). This seems to me harmful to the community, not only because it targets a random person contributing to PoH, but also because Santi (a huge influencer of the spaniard community - don’t tell me the thing is decentralized) immediately associated the mistake with some Kleros malice rather than a human mistake (a mistake Santi shares by using it in his presentation lol). Of course, let’s quickly forget about that episode because it doesn’t fit a certain narrative, right? It makes things too clear, don’t want to spoil the game too much.

Maybe watch for the log in your eyes before taking the speck out of another’s eye, but that’s probably too much to ask,

Ekzg38LU8AEGM0y

8 Likes
18

I am more than happy to consider Kleros folks as founders of the UBI project. I rather built collectively as a community any given day. The founder dilemma has serious implications for decentralized communities and is something that has been addressed by Balajis, Vitalik and others (with different points of view).

The dashboard built by Salva misleads into thinking that only 40% of challenged profiles get removed since it’s a dashboard strictly about challenges and “removed submissions” is the most prominent metric. When looking at the Kleros subgraph turns out the story was about 88% of challenges profiles get rejected, something which Koki ended up agreeing with and we were able to clarify the data discrepancy.

Regarding my talk, expecting me not to address the elephant :elephant: in the room and pretend to share views compliant with the other side of the aisle is very naive. Maybe quite possibly as the naive statement of pretending not to be political when you spend three paragraphs talking about me and things that did not happen (the EF did not sanction me and even more, I had a lunch with Aya Miyaguchi and the whole team afterwards).

We are in a context where there’s distrust everywhere. I think until Wednesday during Devcon week we all did a good job de-escalating the conflict:

  • We talked for 3 hours on Monday all of us (even though I wish we needed less time than that). My first words that day to Kleros was asking to schedule time because I wanted to go to conferences. I couldn’t go anywhere. De-escalating was prioritized.

  • I went personally to the Kleros party by myself in good faith. Talked with Fede, and many researchers there. I think that’s a very clear action towards caring to build common ground and de-escalation.

  • I went to the Glen Weyl and Paula Berman workshop where the Kleros team was, we talked about using pol.is and tools to find common ground. Again: that’s pursuing de-escalation.

Shouting and screaming before a conference starts, insulting me in public making a very uncomfortable scene for everyone in the audience rather than reaching out politely to clarify things, getting the conference people to reach out security and making a whole scene in public, immediately destroyed all of the efforts aimed at de-escalation during the conference. Quite frankly it’s a pity.

I frankly don’t care about this HIP nor I’m involved in it at all. But if it helps to express ourselves on this thread and reach a better understanding, then maybe there’s some good in it. I even offered on Telegram that DAOs approached to mediate between us like Gravity DAO and Slow Burners. No one seemed to care. I always seek out the other side and I’m willing to hear. Yet something tells me that the modus operandi of demonizing others is too strong for some to actually let their ego aside and enable common ground.

1 Like
19

I know you are OK with that. What I’m referring to is who takes credit and responsibility for what. Don’t run from that.

Sure, now address my point.

I addressed the scapegoating as politics. I point to the accuser, which in this thread and context are the authors of this thread, among other part of the community, whose spirit you also embody. Anyone having reading comprehension can see my disagreement with both sides, but saying that expressing this POV and addressing your strategy is politics is common political-fanatic speak. If I said it out of context, would you still consider it as that? Unless you are political-fanatic probably not.

Seems like the harassment you talked about didn’t scare you not to go at the Kleros party.

What’s the point here? That workshop was a disaster, lmao.

Ok, so the talk you prepared, WITH SLIDES, was to facilitate deescalation? Got it. Nothing to add.

Eh, seems like you’re proving my point,

Ekzg38LU8AEGM0y

4 Likes
20

I disagree, the dashboard has two sections, one for removals, and one for challenges. You could also have inspected which events are being counted. Your misunderstanding does not give you the right to bash him in public at a conference because you assumed he is helping your political opponent.

It’s funny that you mention that. The workshop we went (Kleros team was also there) was about neutrality. Your talk, where you escalated everything, created divisiveness (even separated the community in two groups, “POH-leaning” vs “Kleros-leaning” :man_facepalming: for example, failed to mention Kleros actively pursues lowering deposits, etc) was anything but neutral.

I can imagine 100s of ways that would be more productive to present the situation, without painting anyone as the bad guys.

It felt like backstabbing, and propaganda to many of us that talked with you during the week. To be honest, some of us expected it anyways. You missed the opportunity to reunite the community, and now after re-escalating you ask for conciliation again.

You literally messaged on another group that you would advocate strongly to remove Clément. Is that “not caring” or are you lying?

3 Likes