[Community Discussion] How are anonymous community members beneficial to the governance forum?

Greetings Near Forum Community Members!

I’d love to get everyone’s take on the value of having anonymous community members playing an active role in moderation, gatekeeping or discussions in the forum and the legitimacy of their views and decision making powers.

From my experience, the majority of community mods, proposal creators and in general the people of the forum are not anonymous and can usually be verified through their participation in community calls or their socials. In fact I’ve met a number of them in person!

I understand the need for some people to remain anonymous, but in the spirit of transparency, specifically on the forum, having members of the community in particular positions remain anonymous poses a number of questions.

What benefit is it to the community that a gatekeeper/mod is anonymous?

How should community members respond to anonymous members questioning their proposals?

I’m going to keep this short, just to get feedback from the broader community about this.

Thanks!

Tagging @creativesdao-council @marketingdao-council for more reach

I think the moderators @creativesdao-council and @marketingdao-council should do something about this… Some of this anonymous are just joined the forum days and ago or weeks ago and they are questioning other community members proposals in different direction that the moderator will not even question while reviewing the proposal… Sometimes if not always this anonymous questions comes like a personal attack… Please the community needs to do something about it… Thanks

vandal:

but in the spirit of transparency, specifically on the forum

In spirit of transparency can you show how much money Dao Records and affiliated DAOs ( included your mom - Ina DAO, Gemini DAO) received in 2021, 2022 and how many new active wallets (people) and projected were onboarded in Near Ecosystem ? Thanks !

I think I share same view with u. I totally agree with you

hey,
important discussion.
I would like to make a distinction:

• imho people can remain anonymous, as I think they have the right to
• the way the forum, social media and the near wallet (identity and financials) work means people can be anonymous and still have credibility.

Having said that: while I think whistleblowers play an important role in democracy, most fake accounts in here are using anonymity to be able to escape responsibility and question users in a way that shows, most of the time, they do not understand why and how things came to be, and are therefore unable to really help progress things.

Imho users should not feel pressured to respond to each and everyone of these fake accounts, and should focus on those that present relevant and rigorous questions, plus making sure they keep in lign with the gatekeepers of each vertical/section.

Hi.
You write good words. Some do not understand the significance of the word anonymous user, as they themselves use social networks and nicknames that do not correspond to their identity cards. Pushing new people on the forum away from the life of the ecosystem can have a bad effect. On the contrary, we should attract new users, new ideas. I understand their concerns and anxiety. They work with each other for a long time and sometimes turn a blind eye to some shortcomings. New users see errors or a more correct solution. In fact, those who are outraged by new users simply do not want to admit their mistakes and are afraid of losing their place.
Good day.
Thx

vandal:

in the spirit of transparency, specifically on the forum, having members of the community in particular positions remain anonymous poses a number of questions

I totally agree with your thoughts, people can remain anonymous no doubt but in the spirit of transparency accepting to represent the voices and ideas of creatives means you have to show face so people can identify with whoever is representing them,
it also builds more trust .

In a web3 or blockchain, being anonymous is not a bad thing. For the sake of transparency, you can’t be a representative of the community or a particular group as anon.

It’s a very fine line and some anonymous are crossing the line, imho.

Thanks for starting this discussion Vandal

This is a sensitive topic that we’ve been dealing with since the early days.

I think that a huge distinction needs to be made:

• Are people using anonymity to cause chaos, bully, harass, etc. Behaviour that is clearly in breach of community guidelines and destroy more value than it creates?
• Or are people using anonymity or pseudonymity to raise sensitive topics that are relevant to the healthy development of an ecosystem?

While I have been a strong advocate of keeping the governance forum welcoming and civilised, I also have to acknowledge that there are some anonymous accounts that are doing a great public service.

It is clear to me from the responses that they may be anonymous but they are actually very deep and I am intrigued to hear what they have to say.

Another key distinction to make:

Who are the people upset about this anonymous accounts? Are they the targets of accountability?

Fun fact; the most disruptive anonymous account last year today is one of my closest working colleagues and critical to the functioning of the ecosystem. He has selectively revealed his identity when necessary, and to this day remains largely pseudonymous. Extra brownie points if you can guess who he is…

IMHO, being anonymous is another way people can reveal their fears without being questioned or harassed in rl. To me, Many anonymous accounts are so because they no longer want to hide their voices under the influence of friendship and fail to reveal the unpleasant actions taken by people they know directly as that may lead to escalation of disputes.

To some extent their fears are real, the accusations they point at are not falsified, many of them unveil some actions that needs to be corrected. Many of them speak facts, and that’s a proof that most are core people around the ecosystem who can no longer hold unto fraudulent actions exhibited by those they work with, they use the medium of anonymity to express themselves maybe for fears of not equally being exposed by their counterpart “maybe”.

Though it has not been easy handling such cases here but I’ll suggest that anonymity isn’t a crime, rather they should be corrected and guided on how to air their views without pointing fingers. And for any report, the reporter shouldn’t be afraid of questions as Near Protocol isn’t a personal affair. Qu

All that data is easily viewable on-chain for those who wish to look. I’m not sure in what way INA DAO is affiliated with DAOrecords aside from a Cryptovoxels parcel rental, which is all in proposals on the forum. I also don’t know what Gemini DAO is, pls enlighten me.

As for my contribution to the NEAR ecosystem, well I could list 10s of DAOs that I’ve helped facilitate without funding or financial reward, countless wallets that actually contribute to the ecosystem… I could go on.

Please let me know what you’ve contributed to the ecosystem

I totally respect anonymity. My question was around the gatekeepers/mods playing a certain role in the ecosystem being anonymous and how their anonymity benefits the community. What are your thoughts on that?

I’m am pretty sure I know who you’re talking about, which in circumstances where other credible members of the community can attest to the validity of the person, I don’t think is much of an issue.

I do think there is a perception problem though, for those who don’t know or are not aware it might be viewed differently. In many ways, when community members who are not anonymous are held accountable how do we hold those who are anonymous accountable when they have access to data, funds, proposal and records and no one is able to verify them? It’s a tricky situation.

In regards to accountability, I believe that the questioning should come from long-standing community members or those active in that role, not from newly created account or random anonymous users who don’t think to engage in a meaningful way. Just my option here.

That doesn’t really answer my question though. I’m talking about gatekeepers and mods as well as those accounts that question proposals who are not in charge of moderation, especially when their line of questioning is rude or not really relevant.

I’m all in favor of anonymity and totally understand the reasons for it. I myself am completely doxed and have no intention of creating an anonymous account to discuss things, argue or whatever else happens on gov forums and in the ecosystem. But that’s just me

Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character - Martin Luther King Jr.

My Dear Vandal. I’ve been involved with the NEAR ecosystem for a very long time. There is a concerning trend which prompts me to join others in going anonymous:

• Elitism and Gatekeeping. There are people in the NEAR ecosystem that are enjoying the privileged Status of being an OG. This status seems to open up the coffers to A LOT of funding.
• Some of these ‘OGs’ are now fighting back so that the standards they are judged by are based on reputation and not on their actions and actual output.
• The problem with this approach is that new community members don’t feel comfortable calling out ‘old OGs’, so they tend to look the other way or simply rubber stamp whatever these OGs say
• Worst, other OGs also don’t feel comfortable calling out their peers. At this point we have developed personal and professional relationships. It is not worth it for a true OG to damage that relationship just to call out another OG.
• If new people are not comfortable raising concerns, or those concerns won’t be taken into account, and OGs won’t either. Then how does anyone’s reputation ever get tarnished?

What is left? Bring back the glorious days of anonymity. Long live the CYPHERPUNKS.

For this to work, we need to have intellectual honesty. If the words have a different meaning based on who utters them, the YOU are the problem.

Your approach is also problematic because even if a new community member revealed their identity, they wouldn’t have the ‘reputation’ or standing to have their words and observations taking into account? It seems wrong to me that you need to be part of the corrupt core to be listened to by the corrupt core.

I’ve taken feedback. I’ll keep it respectful. But I won’t shut up.

vandal:

What benefit is it to the community that a gatekeeper/mod is anonymous?

How are anonymous accounts Gatekeepers? I am not imposing my authority through a pre-established identity, nor do I have any official decision making power. I am an anon from the community, asking honest questions.

To answer your question - the value that the anon accounts bring is directly proportional to the quality of the questions they ask.

• Are the questions fair and reasonable? Then they bring value.
• Are the questions bringing out serious issues that need to be addressed, even if they make some people uncomfortable? Then they bring A LOT of value
• Are they just sharing offensive memes and spreading conspiracy theories? Probably lower on the value scale.

vandal:

How should community members respond to anonymous members questioning their proposals?

They should assume that the anon person asking questions is part of the NEAR Core team and grant them the basic decency of responding in a concise and respectful way. No one is beyond questioning.

hello,

agree. However, I feel that as long as NF is still involved in the organization of these systems the community should first and foremost engage with it and demand fairness. Going after individuals who abuse influence misses the point, most of the times.

hairen:

They should assume that the anon person asking questions is part of the NEAR Core team

If that would be the case it would be a terrible sign. NF has deployed the verticals with an even more ambiguous structure than they have now…

Chicken and the egg situation. Why would the NF pay attention, or even suspect anything is going wrong when the community is entirely silent? Worst, gladly chirping along?

NF responds to community. There is this concept of going up the Chain of Command.

First you riase concerns with other community members, see what they think. (Most members I’ve spoken to think a lot of Creatives DAO proposals are crap)

Then you raise concerns with the projects (Most of my questions to these projects are flagged, hidden, and never answered. Now there are even separate threads seeking even more cencorship).

Then you raise your questions and concerns to decision makers. My questions and feedback on the proposal to reform creatives has also been flagged, hidden and never addressed. Coordinated attacks to suppress the truth and bring in accountability.

Then escalate to the Foundation, who should’ve been more involved and intervened earlier.

I just don’t think it is fair to give a free pass to everyday operators just because they are ‘meant to be supervised’ by a larger entity. Every single person along the chain of command needs to assume responsibility or step down.

For the clearance of any doubt, I am too smart to work at the NF

That doesn’t change my point, questions should be answered regardless of who asks them.

hairen:

For the clearance of any doubt, I am too smart to work at the NF

ahhaha

well, when I was council of the Creatives Dao, last december, I tried often calling out unfair situations and abuse and was either ignored or told each dao/vertical had absolute power to make decisions…

So while I understand the chain of command, I do not think those in the verticals have enough support and, bc the system allows for abuse, abuse happens. I try not to individualize guilt when the system is flawed

i think anonymity is good to some extent but doesn’t favor us past a point. someone just trying to test the waters and figure things out can stay anonymous, but once it comes to gate keeping and moderation? i don’t think that helps the ecosystem in anyway.

on another hand, some people have all the right intentions, but deal with a lot of anxiety.
maybe more kyc’s would help, this way they remain “anon”, but the system would “know” them.

NF people failed experiment with NDC and now are trying to demolish the balance in Community between Vertical DAOs (less than 1% of total NF expenses) and Community which had consensus before. These two verticals have been working excellently, been a gorgeous example of transparency for the Near Foundation grants team (we have never seen any reports, and 75% of granted apps are not working) and regional hubs Sancore, Balkans, etc. (we have never seen any reports, Sancore hub leadership refuses to contact with African local guilds and contributors).

@illia @marieke.flament can you ask Near Foundation to stop these experiments?

I am personally don’t have money to pay my bills because all payments put on pause.

изображение1213×900 357 KB

Than ex-NF employee and CEO @erik.near got 1.5M Near. Is it fair? Why are ex-NF employees more valuable to Near Foundation then community?

[Discussion] Who Runs the Nodes?

ANOTHER 100% validator has been spun out and seeded with 1.5m NEAR directly from NF since my original post.

satori.poolv1.near - Satori is a great project, now led by the former NEAR CEO @erik.near

Screen Shot 2022-09-30 at 10.40.42 am1920×867 61.4 KB

I totally agree with this submission…I think proper identification and transparency will help people to communicate freely without any kind of fear

Mario:

NF people failed experiment with NDC and now are trying to demolish the balance in Community between Vertical DAOs (less than 1% of total NF expenses) and Community which had consensus before.

Hello!
Community members have been brainstorming on NDC and positive growth has been visible. So, in what way has it failed already?

Have you been on any of the NDC working group calls?

vandal:

What benefit is it to the community that a gatekeeper/mod is anonymous?

How should community members respond to anonymous members questioning their proposals?

I think the concern should be if work is done appropriately or not. There is a level to which a certain person can remain anon but still look known to everyone based on their work rate.

vandal:

How should community members respond to anonymous members questioning their proposals?

Another question that answers this is; what’s is the direction of the question? Are the question demanding accountability or just throwing shades and raising dust that comes from nowhere?

I believe once the focus of the questions are gotten, the originator of the proposal can either ignore or flag such a statement/question.

hairen:

First you riase concerns with other community members, see what they think. (Most members I’ve spoken to think a lot of Creatives DAO proposals are crap)

I can’t agree less with this. You look at some activities there and wonder what is happening.

One of my major concern is how same group of people wonder about in different DAOs as council members and have proposals that doesn’t hold water.

Another question is; are most DAOs that take funding from CreativeDAOs actually DAOs?

However, I believe the NF’s recent call with creativeDAO mods to make things better.

IgbozeIsrael:

Community members have been brainstorming on NDC and positive growth has been visible. So, in what way has it failed already?

I think you’re not aware of what’s happening. You can see some group activities because leaders (ex nf employees) got grants to “create” the activities.

vandal:

That doesn’t really answer my question though. I’m talking about gatekeepers and mods as well as those accounts that question proposals who are not in charge of moderation, especially when their line of questioning is rude or not really relevant

I think we’re in a Decentralized system where everyone has the right to speak his mind. If someone doesn’t feel satisfied about any report, I think it’s not bad to air their views. If the approach was rude you can flag as rude or inappropriate.

what about a 3rd party service like doxxd https://www.doxd.io/

Mario:

I think you’re not aware of what’s happening. You can see some group activities because leaders (ex nf employees) got grants to “create” the activities.

Educate me and also provide proof to the community on this.
It will help everyone know what is going on btw

Unfortunately flag and private message with moderators solves 0% of cases. I know, I’m still waiting for statements about abuse I suffered on this forum and nothing happens…

IgbozeIsrael:

Educate me and also provide proof to the community on this.
It will help everyone know what is going on btw

Ex NF employees got grants for ndc and using other near contributions for free.

Mario:

NF employees got grants for ndc and using other near contributions for free

hey do you know this for a fact?

Mario:

Than ex-NF employee and CEO @erik.near got 1.5M Near. Is it fair? Why are ex-NF employees more valuable to Near Foundation then community?

Maybe not more valuable but easily more trust worthy

The problem is that they are always rude most times,the arguments don’t even relate to the proposal.
It always feels like one person is creating multiple accounts just to question everything that is not going their way and if appropriate answers are given, they’ll ask questions or bring things not relating to the topic just to make the proposal look bad.