Dash Trust Protectors Please React!

[denk]

3. In the same channel Mark Mason also disclosed confidential information shared with the DTPs by Ryan Taylor. This is a violation of the standard of business conduct and trust between the DCG board and DTPs.

What is the "the standard of business conduct and trust" between the DCG board, DTPs, and the owner network?
Educate us, please.

We can condemn Mason again here, because he "disclosed confidential information shared with the DTPs by Ryan Taylor".
But what information? And to who did he leaked it?
He leaked information to the owner. I am not sure it is semantically even possible.

Could owners consider withholding of information from them by the board about their organization as "a violation of the standard of business conduct and trust", what do you think?
Probably many voters, the collective owners of the DCG, cannot understand why information about intent to resignation of the CEO of their organization should be withheld from them at all.
It would help to explain that.

Ryan's departure from the CEO position is enigmatic.
And you Robert seem defensive rather than opening up regarding DCG.

 

[Walter]

This statement is incorrect, I found out about this from public accusations by Mark Meson who is an elected member of the Trust Protector. As well as by a third person having no professional link with DCG or the Dash protector to my knowledge?

Hello,

I think this comment of mine:

..., a DCG board member has decided to make this a public discussion and so it will require a public response from the parties mentioned.

May have been lost in translation.. I'm not referring to Mark Mason getting involved in the initial controversy. I'm referring to Robert's decision to publicly air his grievances and call for Trust Protector action against Mark. We already received a private email from Robert regarding this and we are dealing with it internally. Its Robert's choice to also make his grievances and requests public, that's his prerogative, and I'm fine with that. It means that we (trust protectors) will also have to reply publicly as well as privately. There is nothing incorrect about this, I'm merely explaining why I've commented publicly at this point as it's not something I usually do with matters such as this.

So, for clarity, my words "make this a public discussion" in the context of my earlier post is in relation to Robert's grievances and requests.

I hope that clears things up.

Walter

 

[Walter]

Hi Walter, thanks for taking the time to address this issue.

I have to start by saying that I agree with you in this assessment:



In this case, making a public condemnation and distancing the TPs from this kind of unethical behavior is actually in defense of the Trust Protectors role and position within the Dash ecosystem; as it would set a dangerous precedent to allow an individual Trust Protector to publicly defame and slander another DFO, just because this person has a personal agenda.

The Trust protectors are elected to increase transparency, oversee processes, and replace DCG directors if needed, they are not elected to abuse the trust given to them, or defame other Dash teams.

As the head of the BD area, I can assure you that during the time the TPs have been operating, not once has a request for information, data, or results has been denied when it comes to Business development activities or expenditures. We have communicated with all of the TPs that have requested information through slack, emails, weekly meetings, private meetings, discord messages, hangout calls, and whatever means was necessary; and never was a request to audit any action or activity been denied; so if Mark, or any other Trust Protector wanted to review any information besides what was presented in the quarterly calls, the data and facts have always been available.

In any organization there are minimal ethical behaviours to which members should be held accountable in order to be part of this organization. So this is not a question of whether the trust protectors choose to defend DCG, this is a question of what is the lowest ethical standard that is accepted as a member of the Trust Protectors, and what that means for the future of the organizations that live in the Dash DAO.

Thank you for your time and effort,

Ernesto

I agree with your sentiments completely, any abuse of power anywhere in the ecosystem is unacceptable and needs to be exposed and dealt with accordingly.

Walter

 

[JOL]

Hello,

I think this comment of mine:

May have been lost in translation.. I'm not referring to Mark Mason getting involved in the initial controversy. I'm referring to Robert's decision to publicly air his grievances and call for Trust Protector action against Mark. We already received a private email from Robert regarding this and we are dealing with it internally. Its Robert's choice to also make his grievances and requests public, that's his prerogative, and I'm fine with that. It means that we (trust protectors) will also have to reply publicly as well as privately. There is nothing incorrect about this, I'm merely explaining why I've commented publicly at this point as it's not something I usually do with matters such as this.

So, for clarity, my words "make this a public discussion" in the context of my earlier post is in relation to Robert's grievances and requests.

I hope that clears things up.

Walter

thank you for clarifying

to be honest,

Without public communication from a member of the DCG on these public accusations of a Dash trust protector, it would be tantamount to validating his accusations de facto.

And I did not see a public message from the Dash trust protectors indicating that they were investigating this matter, before Kot made the public request.

And I thank you Walter for doing that

 

[denk]

Without public communication from a member of the DCG on these public accusations of a Dash trust protector, it would be tantamount to validating his accusations de facto.

That NO public communication by DCG on the accusations made by Mason would be tantamount to validating his accusations de facto, is an assumption and therefore a weak argument.
In general because of this:

https://medium.com/management-matte...ess-by-taking-silence-as-consent-bd95a1f04561

Trust protectors cannot remove Mason, who is a TP elected by owners, on a request from DCG members who have personal issues to work with him.
The direction of keeping accountability is: voters -> TP -> DCG, not the other way around.
It is concerning for community at large
when leading DCG members are pointing at an elected TP demanding his suspension
because he is pointing at them.
Max DCG can achieve is TPs asking the network to vote on replacing Mason,
but it seems as the most polarizing and confrontational act regarding the future developments.
Many would vote not to remove Mason just out of principle and not because they agree with his confrontational manners necessarily.
Without voters TPs can agree that Mason cannot directly contact DCG until the results of the new TP elections.

To make public communication by DCG regarding accusations made by Mason is completely relevant.
However it also depends on what exactly is the communication.
Namely whether procedural, forceful removal of Mason from his TP position is adequate demand / communication.
The DCG could announce a refusal to work with Mason by itself in a statement to the network and see how it will be tolerated.
The purpose of this webpage then looks like to refuse to work with Mason is not enough for DCG.

Notice that nobody is defending or validating Mason's style and way of communication.
It ranges from unfortunate and not constructive to insensitive and unacceptable for most members even on Discord.
But Mason's targets and intent seem legitimate. Or aren't they?
Anyway that is on what we should focus, and work on it collaboratively.
Let's look and move forward.

 

[kot]

Trust Protector role has been created to control and protect network assets. They have authority and autonomy to make decisions by themselves, within their area of responsibility.

If there would be no autonomy to make decisions, there is absolutely no reason to elect and have Trust Protectors in place.

 

[kot]

Dear Trust Protectors,

We have received your response to the DCG Board Members about this case last week. I urge you to share your response publicly.
Considering the fact that the new Dash Trust Protectors elections just started, and many of you want to be re-elected, I believe the voting community members deserve to know what standards are represented by the candidating DTPs and what should be expected as a norm in the future.
DCG employees also should know what kind of work environment they are going to work in.

Thank you.

 

[JOL]

Dear @Walter, @kot

The subject having been put on the public place, thank you to communicate at us a simple answer on the interrogations we have on the public accusations emitted by a dash trust protect against an employee of the Dash Core Group.
Obviously without going into the gutter and discussing the supposed privacy of this employee.

On a professional level, did Glen embezzle money from Dash Corp Group?

Yes / No

Thank you.

 

[kot]

On a professional level, did Glen embezzle money from Dash Corp Group?

No, of course he did not.

 

[JOL]

Hi @kot ,

Thank you for the answer.

Another free attack from Mark Meson! For those who are new to Dash, you should know that a few years ago, Mark Meson introduced/and/or/supported the Fiesty project. He was able to convince the DAO including me (using his lobbyiste tool: Dash Force news) that this was potentially a good thing for Dash. It turned out to be a scam. So far it's just stuff that happens. It turns out that Mark overly sided with the project that he himself had supported by blaming all of the project's shortcomings from DCG and Ryan. He used and turned part of the community against DCG and Ryan. After a constant harassment of the people who had been trained by Mark against DCG, its employees and Ryan, it finally came out that the problem was not with DCG or Ryan but with Fiesty And that it was indeed a Scam. The DCG and Ryan, in spite of the incessant public attacks of a community deceived by Mark succeeded in putting an end to this cabal. One could say that a mistake of Mark in good time by his lack of experience in managing projects and understanding what is a business, it can happen. Following this failure, and entrepreneurs are used to dealing with failures. Mark has since taken aim at DGC and Ryan. He never questioned whether this failure would allow him to challenge himself and move forward.

Since then, all his actions have been to regroup and support all opponents of Ryan and DCG. trying to appear like a Dash benevolent victim. I know that some of you are already aware that his actions were destructive and just a simple personal vendetta. For those of you who have not yet taken a step back, without presuming his intentions, Mark's actions since then have never been solutions They bring the problems.

Glen, please know that there are individuals in the Dash community who are not blinded by tribalism and condemn this type of irresponsible and disrespectful public statement towards an employee, a person.
From a professional and personal standpoint.

 

[kot]

Another day passed and there is no response from DTPs - I find it disturbing, considering the context of the current elections.

As already mentioned, we did receive the response from the Dash Trust Protectors last Saturday (Saturday in my timezone), but DTPs did not share any message with the community so far, despite the declaration that they intend to publish it.

I have no mandate to reveal the response from DTPs - I hope they will do it themselves eventually, as all DCG contributors and community members really deserve that. In a nutshell, the response says that DTPs conducted an investigation and came to the conclusion that there was no wrongdoing on Mark Mason's side, and his actions were legitimate - they have recognized only “honest mistake”.

As this is against all the principles and standards I hold professionally and privately, I cannot support a work environment that accepts and legitimizes such behaviors. Therefore I decided, with a heavy heart, to resign from my role at DCG. I will stay with the company till the end of April, and I am happy to help with handing over my duties to the new COO, hopefully, identified quickly by DTPs.

Robert

 

[qwizzie]

I understand your position, and the reasons for resigning from Dash Core Group. Who would have thought that the Dash Trust Protectors, who have a solemn duty to protect the Dash project, would make such a mess of things by not only letting one of their own members (Mark Mason) go around making unfounded accussations and allegations towards certain Dash Core Members and with accussations of fraude, but also by not disclosing their investigation publicly in a timely manner.

If the outcome of that investigation is indeed a no wrongdoing on Mark Mason's side and that his actions were legitimate, with only some “honest mistake”, then i have to conclude there is something terribly wrong with how the Dash Trust Protectors do their investigations and it has left me with zero trust in the current Dash Trust Protectors.

I want to thank you for your efforts and dedication over the years kot, i wish you well.

 

[peter]

Therefore I decided, with a heavy heart, to resign from my role at DCG.

Dear Robert,
Wouldn't it be possible for you to wait for such a decision after the election of the new DTPs?
Peter

 

[kot]

Dear Robert,
Wouldn't it be possible for you to wait for such a decision after the election of the new DTPs?
Peter

Hey @peter,
The results of the election wouldn't change the standards set by the current DTPs. I think @ErnestoContrerasLatAm described well what I think about the situation:

In any organization there are minimal ethical behaviours to which members should be held accountable in order to be part of this organization. So this is not a question of whether the trust protectors choose to defend DCG, this is a question of what is the lowest ethical standard that is accepted as a member of the Trust Protectors, and what that means for the future of the organizations that live in the Dash DAO.

The decision of the current DTP board approves and legitimizes attacks like the one made by Mark Mason - if it is not recognized as inappropriate and condemned, it is becoming acceptable. I refuse to support such low ethical and professional standards.
In addition, I don't want to see any DCG contributors (including myself) be the target of the next attack - and the next attack is coming sooner or later since it is now becoming an acceptable, legitimized standard of behavior in the ecosystem.

EDIT: Please understand that this doesn't make me satisfied whatsoever. Nevertheless, this is actually the only way I can protest the wrong decision of the Trust Protectors - I don't have any other "tools" available to me.
And I am deeply convinced, the DTPs have made wrong decisions and support wrong actions.

 

[vazaki3]

The decision of the current DTP board approves and legitimizes attacks ...

Whats wrong with attacks?
Nature Is Metal - crazy animal compilation - part 1 - YouTube

 

[Hilawe]

Another day passed and there is no response from DTPs - I find it disturbing, considering the context of the current elections.

@kot we were not able to post our response links with our new DTP account and you're on a Forum DM regarding this issue. We'll just go ahead and make 3 separate posts as getting our account whitelisted immediately has run into problems.

 

[Dash Trust Protectors]

Dash Community,

Our responses to Robert and the DCG Board can be reviewed in these two PDF documents. The first is a letter to the DCG Board, the second is a full investigation and report into the allegations made.

Sincerely,

Dash Trust Protectors

 

[qwizzie]

I just read the 'full investigation and report' and for me personally i have to conclude that objectivity is severly lacking in this report, it is just a very one-sided
support for one of their own Dash Trust Protector members (Mark Mason). For all we know Mark Mason could have written that report all by himself.

What this report tries to belittle (and is failing at) :

A : accussation of financial fraude supposedly committed by Dash Core Group, without any form of evidence (just a wild speculation thrown in the air), by Mark Mason
B : violation of privacy of Dash Core Group members, by Mark Mason
C : disclosure of confidential information, by Mark Mason

Those three points are still standing, this report does not change that. The Dash Trust Protectors may not have the authority to discharge one of their own Dash Trust Protector members for having committed the above points, but they can be held responsible for allowing one of their own members to make those wild unfounded accusations in the first place and their inability to suppress those accussations.

The Dash Trust Protectors should speak as one, not avoid speaking out when one of their own Trust Protector members is making all kinds of wild unfounded accussations and then be forced to make an official (internal) investigation, when things get out of hand.

In my opinion this has severly damaged the reputation of the current Dash Trust Protectors.
I sincerely hope none of the current Dash Trust Protectors are getting re-elected.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Okay I'm going to reply to a part that I find a little egregiously wrong. As much as I would like to sweep this under the rug some things need to be said.


From the Dash Trust Protector response (NOT Robert's Second Allegation):

That is NOT what he alleged.

Robert's second allegation: Mark suggested that our former colleague had a romantic relationship outside of his marriage, and this relationship potentially led to the financial fraud mentioned above. I consider it a disgusting violation of the privacy of another person and also a possible life-ruining act.

Am I missing something or are the trust protectors defending against an allegation that wasn't made?

Reading the above I have to say that I concur with Robert that `Mark suggested that our former colleague had a romantic relationship outside of his marriage`.

It doesn't matter if Mark knew that the employee was married, because it could still have destroyed the ex-employee's personal life regardless of what Mark knew.

This is the captions for above.

For 1. There is no police report that Mark is referring to. So that is incorrect.

For 2. Yes Mark suggested something, and notice that Robert said "Mark suggested that our former colleague had a romantic relationship".

For 3. "No individual was specifically named". Robert said this in his allegation Mark suggested that our former colleague had a romantic relationship outside of his marriage, and this relationship potentially led to the financial fraud mentioned above. I consider it a disgusting violation of the privacy of another person and also a possible life-ruining act. Could any trust protector let me know where Robert said that an individual was specifically named?

Can we all agree that the first part of what Robert said is true in his allegation? "Mark suggested that our former colleague had a romantic relationship outside of his marriage".

 

[xkcd]

@kot we were not able to post our response links with our new DTP account and you're on a Forum DM regarding this issue. We'll just go ahead and make 3 separate posts as getting our account whitelisted immediately has run into problems.

haha, Am I reading this right? So the DTP were waiting on an official account to post from while the forum administrator `kot` who is the guy to create this account keeps hitting the DTPs about not posting while at the same time not creating the account for them to post from? And then ultimatum rage quits? ROFL.