CAB: Moultrie audits

Hi everybody, I just had a Twitter DM conversation with Moultrie audits. He is really concerned about the state of the CAB. He told me some stuff that sounded like he was having a difficult time aligning with the team. Oh I am changing Notional’s vote to know. I should also say that on non-controversial governance matters, I’m not directly involved in every vote in every case. Otherwise, I probably would have voted no or abstain from the start. I want to go through his points and say what’s valid and what is not.

  • He was worried about 2% equity grants (sounds like advisory or board type role to me) and I told him that I felt this would benefit the projects receiving funds.
  • He was worried about the msig composition of the current CAB (he says it is all akash team) – I think it’s reasonable to get at least Moultrie on that-- basically as a check.

On an individual level my biggest concern about this chain and this network and this product right now is that the markets have pooped all over projects like this one in a very unfair way. The markets are of course unfair. We really can’t do anything about that. I told him that my biggest concern was keeping this one floating because I think it’s very important to the continued development of decentralized infrastructure. I view my personal investment in this network as a long-term play betting on a very strong team with very clear first mover advantage. Also, multisigs take a lot of time to restructure. This is just real.

One thing I’m not concerned about is these funds being used as some kind of a personal slush fund because that’s just not how this team is. This is the first chain that I validated and I used a different name at that time, I was hostronix. I failed hard during the network launch and nonetheless I received a grant from the team. I’ve always had a high degree of trust here. I would try the old embrace and extend model here. Moultrie does not seem to have bad intent. At the same time, I’m not really sure he understood why it’s a great idea for all parties involved to have equity but well I understand that.

The 2% will give the team the ability to monitor and guide and this is a team that provides outsized value.

Update: I am changing my vote to abstain, and I am getting in touch with other validators.

Moultrie Audits here—As context we had discussion with other CAB members and Akash team members and now Jacob from Notional. We are admittedly the odd one out in this discussion but I will lay out our general points.

  1. June 12 we submit a governance prop to turn CAB wallet into a CAB controlled multisig, this is something the CAB has been discussing since formation and was one of the reasons the initial funding (prop 9) almost didn’t pass. See Jack Zampolin’s comment.
  2. June 15 the Akash team states that the CAB no longer exists. In my opinion this undercut the active governance proposal. Eliminating the CAB in the middle of a voting period, slated to pass, undercuts the community’s ability to exercise governance and goes against decentralization. If the CAB was to disburse, or be changed, especially giving more power to Akash team, this should have been a governance proposal left up to the community.
  3. My problem with the 2% equity share is that it is a mandatory clause enforced by the Akash team. If they want their own incubator fund that’s perfectly fine but this is explicitly a team fund then and not a community org. If the community org can’t control the terms of a funding deal, they have no sovereignty and it is decentralization-theatre. Additionally, we don’t like the fact that community pool funds are used to give equity to the official Akash team. We understand that the Akash team provides resources to CAB projects, but that is their choice. They should not be extracting value from these projects. By owning Akash tokens, there is already an inbuilt mechanism for them to share in the productive value of projects.
  4. From discussions with Alani, he has stated the Akash team is not interested in allowing the CAB to have control over funds. This confused us since previously they seemed on board.
  5. Per a phone call with Alani, an Akash team member would become a voting member on the CAB. This further demonstrates that the CAB would no longer be a community org.
  6. As a summary, if the CAB can’t control their own funds, terms of their deals, and official team members are on the board, this is not a community org. We value decentralization above everything and propose allowing a decentralized CAB to continue existing side by side with the team incubator. If our proposal passes, this is the plan we will begin to execute. We will respect the outcome of any governance prop, as that is the voice of the community, the most important thing in a decentralized ecosystem.

We have tremendous respect for the core Akash team and value our relationship with them. However, we have an obligation to do what we think is right. No hard feelings regardless of the outcome, we’ll still be around auditing and making security products.

1 Like

Please correct your points 4 and 5.
4. This was concerning the overall Community Pool, not CAB specific funds.
5. This refers to the Akash Accelerator, not the CAB.

aaaaaaaa

I am rather confused <3

<3

Absolutely should not convert the whole community pool to multisig would be a terrible idea!

I am too confused for life at this point. I shall abstain.

Moultrie, you folks sounded quite sane.

Alani, if that tis true they are insane.

:heart:

I avoided using AAP as to not confuse people not deep in these changes.

  1. Will AAP funds be controlled by Akash multisig or community controlled multisig? You said the Akash team wanted to keep control of funds. I also brought this up in the CAB future chat and the point was never corrected.
  2. The CAB doesn’t exist in your eyes anymore. To request a correction on this seems like a semantic avoidance of the fact that Akash team is putting a voting member on the AAP, which was the CAB until it was changed without a gov prop.

Jacob, we’ve received a lot of confusion on this point because of a forum post we wrote. This is our bad because the wording was trash. We’re open that we need to be much more clear and specific even when just trying to start conversations about topics so people don’t confuse our opinion. The forum post was birthed out of an email we sent a community member asking about why we keep needing to do prop after prop for the CAB. “We would like to either convert the community pool into a multisig controlled by the CAB” was meant to convey the idea expressed in our message many days prior to the forum post as to including a mechanism to automatically fund the CAB’s community wallet. It wasn’t meant to literally take over the community pool or even defund it. We specifically stated it was not optimal, but we would prefer that to the core team controlling the account. Obviously this is not what we proposed on chain. The original forum post is uneditable now so we can’t clarify this. Also didn’t want to go around attacking people over saying it was a bad idea since the point of twitter/forum posts is to discuss different ideas imo.

Statement that was never corrected: