[Phase 3] HIP-50 Clarify which Telegram group and Twitter accounts belong to PoH DAO

i think that when this hip be accepted, the community can determinate this questions. The hip proposes clarify wich telegram groups and twitter accounts belong to poh dao. Not exacly how gonna be moderated. After the phase 2, we add a explain of how twitter can be moderated, and the community voted.

What if the community arrives to a solution that does not work, like HIP-16? Should we trust blindingly that a solution will work, after we did not find a way to do it for one year?

I disagree with this path. I believe first we need to find a way to manage the groups/accounts that we are all happy with, and then make them official*. Otherwise we risk making groups that are not managed properly or that do not represent the DAO the “official ones”.

(*If we really want to have official groups. I don’t think it’s a good idea, but that’s another topic)

I don’t understand this part. Can you expand on it please?

  • How can someone that wants to help with the Twitter account might be able to join?

the group gonna be gobernated by the dao, everone can upload a poll on snapshot unofficial, and the group need to respond on that. Telegram dont permit decentraliced all, this is the best way that we have. First, having the control of the group (like a dao), and dont depend of the kleros coop.


and if someone wants to helo with twitter account, just can send the idea or whatever was, on the channels. The community gonna vote.

Are you coming up with these rules right now while we discuss or is this already live?

What if I create a poll, and get 1 vote, do I still get to be a mod?


Was the greater community consulted or was that posted in the forum?

So we wouldn’t have any way to have other admins being added to manage Twitter accounts, and the poll did not consider that?

Was posted on the pOH channel, and governance channel. The proposal was there to be voted. And on the groups to be debating.

The option voted was the C, what it’s conformed 50/50 by the option a and b. The option a, say, that the admins can be voted. So, the option c, can follow the same of a.

Sorry, which channels? Did you post it in English as well or only Spanish* speakers were polled? (*The HIP aims to rule on the official English channels as well)

And to answer myself: it was not posted in the forum, where I believe it would be more relevant.

You mentioned that there was a debate, but my questions and objections on Phase 2 here and here were not addressed, and I have the impression more people were expecting an answer to be able to form a proper opinion about the HIP.

I understand, so if I got it right only in case of “faltas graves” we can put to vote a decision on Telegram to remove the current admins. And then we would be able to choose new ones, but the current ones will not be voted, right? Why is that?

Shouldn’t you start with voting if you want to be democratic?

I would like to add that a poll about one of the groups mentioned (with 54 votes / roughly 20% of the group) inquiring people about how they feel about the management of the group had the results shown below. I would have expected a higher satisfaction rate from a new group that aims to be more representative of the DAO, and that probably has a significant amount of people that agree with each other.



The other group is inactive.

Hey @v4len.eth . Can you please add the URL to the Snapshot Voting?

Replying to the reply done in the wrong thread here:

The @proofofhumanityDAOes group is owned by a democratically elected Mission Board Member which has commited himself to attain to the rules of the DAO, and this includes relinquishing ownership if PoH DAO decides so.
@proofofhumanityDAOen is currently transitioning and will follow the same model than DAO es. All of this violent takeover happened very suddenly so there are reasons enough to needing time for organizing the group. Our trajectory as mods in the groups are proof enough of our commitment for the DAO.

This is the opposite action of what happened in Telegram: Contact @proofofhumanityenespanol after the takeover:

  • No relinquishing of ownership,
  • Shady selection of mods,

Over the course of the 3 days after the takeover of the group, Clement warned 36 times Յ3 warns is a ban) banned 10 people and Jeanpz warned 5 times in 3 days; To put that into context, in more than 7 months I warned 47 times and never banned anyone, other than the common scammers that regularly appeared posting links or referrals. None of my bans were political in nature.
A closed-door election by the Mission Board Members was summoned to select the next moderator that would be “more neutral”. This is not an action specified in any of the HIPs that define the power scope of a Mission Board Member. It was decided by alleged unanimity that the next moderator would be “Ruben” (remember Telegram: Contact @proofofhumanityenespanol). The selection was announced on June
27th Telegram: Contact @proofofhumanityenespanol here the announcement.
In the following days and up to this day, the new DAO recognized and independent groups receives repeated legitimacy attacks by Kleros’ mission board members, seeding doubt about the legitimacy of the group. Some examples:
Telegram: Contact @proofofhumanityenespanol
Telegram: Contact @proofofhumanityenespanol
Telegram: Contact @proofofhumanityenespanol
A new proposal, HIP-50 is created to guarantee the legitimacy of the new groups.
Again, this initiative is attacked.

  • In case a moderator or admin believes that a ban was unwarranted, he can make a poll in the admin group.
    • This poll needs to last 1h before any decision is implemented.
    • If some board members voted, the result of the poll is determined by board members.
    • If no board members voted, the result of the poll is determined by moderators.
    • Ties lead to unbanning.
    • After 1h, the result can be implemented, if the results change after that, the new result can be implemented.

None of those bans were cancelled by the mission board (so there is no evidence of wrong banning), including your own for making a troll account. It’s easy to go violate the rules and push your follower to do so and then complain about bans.

The selection of mode is done by the mission board as voted there.

Mission board members can vote to add/remove moderators. This requires a strict majority of a 1 day poll to add moderators. A tie is enough to remove a moderator.

Also you haven’t answered on who owns the Twitter accounts.


Initial post Luis was answering to:

So I’ve looked at the channel owners and administrators.

Is owned by Santi and has Luis (the proposal author) as administrator.

Is owned by Luis and has Santi, Leti, and Mati as administrators.

Who owns?
@pohDAO and pohDAOenespanol

Here it looks like the proposal creator after having removed board members administration right in the main channels and gotten himself removed after that is trying to get back control of them by asking the DAO to declare legitimate the channels that he himself owns and administer.

“In link to those illegal promotions, I removed Shin (elected board member) and Clément (elected board member and project founder). No more illegal actions.” - Luis

Moreover there is no info on who owns the Twitter accounts.

Also those accounts are administrated without any neutrality, for example

Also we can see that both of those accounts are mainly retweeting and pushing narratives given by Santi instead of being balanced and neutral.

Moreover, this @pohDAO is mainly tweeting in Spanish and not in English. What is the point of having multiple Spanish accounts and no English ones?

Since those accounts are not neutral and the ownership of half of them is unknown, I voted against.

Also to give context to this proposal, someone had maliciously accessed the main twitter account to Tweet this:

This has since been removed and the password was reset.

So it looks like the authors after illegally getting access to the main Twitter account but failed to keep it are trying to get the DAO to bless their accounts.

1 Like

Why not organize the groups first, and rush the HIPs instead?

With HIP-16 (which you authored), there was a gridlock because the HIP could not be implemented, because the authors (you included) did not pursue its implementation to completion. (It looks like you expected someone else to do that for you: Telegram: Contact @proofofhumanityenespanol).

Why don’t you take ownership of this failure, fix it, before promoting another HIP regarding Telegram groups?

And why should we expect that these groups and channels will be properly managed by you this time? It’s very clear that you have your own personal agenda (also promoter of HIP-49 the change of arbitrator you’ve been pushing with your inflammatory rhetoric for a long time), and you did not relinquish your position as the sole active admin of the POH ES group for almost one year after NOT being voted.

You actually used HIP-16 as a bureaucratic barrier and even deleted a poll about adding new mods (which is something that is not regulated in the HIP, clearly an overreach, the poll could for example not be implemented instead of deleted).

Are we voting for another bureaucratic tragedy? Did we not learn with HIP-16?

Not only that, but you’ve been moving to remove Mission Board members or asking for an interim election to elect a new one - which I suppose you think would elect you this time.

I personally welcome people to create all groups they want, and moderate them according to their preferences. What doesn’t make sense is to use the Governance of the DAO to try to legitimize something that in the eyes of many is not legitimate. The elections so far are demonstrating that.


You’ve also argued that you were “speaking on behalf of the DAO” on HIP-48 and HIP-49, and both ended up being rejected. So it’s very clear to me that when you believe you are speaking on behalf of the DAO, like when you argue that groups administered by you are “managed by the DAO” we have plenty of reasons to be skeptical.


Juanu said something quite important today
He said we ought to legítimate which channels represent the DAO.
Thats not officializing. Neither is choosing only one group.


1 Like

Legitimation is important, so we need to make a framework to define what makes a legitimate channel and allow ANY channel that follows this rules.

Legitimation is not exclusive


You should also learn to respect the DAO and it’s democratic process.

1 Like

This proposal was accepted, but Twitter and Telegram accounts have not been updated in Coingecko and CoinMarketCap.

1 Like

nice catch! @santisiri do we know how to change this?

1 Like

yeah, i can work on that.


Creo que para la Fase 3 debería haber una mejor definición de lo que es un “filtro de modificación de rostro” y también de lo que es “maquillaje pesado”.

yeah, i can work on that.

1 Like