I’m incredibly disappointed to see this:
I see very little point in going on putting my neck out and engaging in DAO debates with a goal of supporting credible neutrality as a common good if rules decided upon by the entire community are not upheld by the team who has the power to police the system on behalf of the community.
The ‘no insider participation rule’ was publicly debated on Discord and here, clarified and approved by the DAO (99.6%) a week ago. It was even explicitly stated that:
I thought of this as a clear promise.
Giveth’s pool has had 22 members in this entire season. At least 11% of the funds went straight to two of its own two lead members. (It could be much more, but those are the two addresses with unmistakable ens-names that I have specifically done the research on).
To make it clear by an example: One of these addresses got 42461 SUP from Giveth’s pool in season 5, to date. When that stream was still going strong, the address owner held 168 pool units, which in this case means that they had donated roughly $168. (I studied this pool specifically because I, too, have been a participant in it).
So - this person donated $168 to their own campaign and got $555 worth of SUP in return (current exchange rate). Or, if you like, 42k more governance tokens to use in the next campaign selection vote.
That’s just one address, one season. In previous seasons it was worse (no 5% cap then).
Giveth has stated that they saw 340 unique recurring (ie streaming) donors in season 5. But only 22 addresses got any SUP rewards. How exactly is this helpful for Superfluid?