Thank you for the opportunity to be in DV Cohort 2.
Unfortunately I will not be applying to be considered a candidate for the Decentralized Voices Program Cohort 3 for the following reasons:
- I want to focus time more on my JAM implementation.
- I want to focus time more on Coretime.
- I wish to spend more time with family over the next 4 months.
- I will be busy participating in a Devcon-related event throughout October and November 2024
- I was disrespected on AAG multiple times. For example, I was subject to disrespectful comments by @Leemo on AAG #156 https://www.youtube.com/live/tsf2YGc9YII?feature=shared&t=1310 about the extensive comments I make on proposals when conducting due diligence. There was a sarcastic comment Telegram: Contact @ambxpert that I had made in the Ambassadors Open Forum Telegram: Contact @ambxpert Telegram group that he sarcastically said he liked the most, which was clearly a sarcastic comment but he decided to take it seriously and blow it out of proportion. It wasn’t even relevant to my DV remit since the HA proposal was on the Polkadot program, but I only had DV for the Kusama program.
- I have not yet managed to recruit any members into my political club x.com.
- I was unsuccessful in renewing a coretime core due to a misunderstanding, and I was not able to complete the political and procurement pallets.
- I cannot risk being rewarded for my work voting with delegated DOT, because even if I conduct due diligence and write questions to proponents to cover as many edge cases as possible, the community could say that they weren’t happy with my comments and that my time was not valuable, and demand that I return the rewards even after I have incurred a tax obligation, which ultimately results in a negative reward. This actually happened to me during DV Cohort 2. I was involved in the establishment of the AMI Bounty Program AMI Bounty Program | Polkassembly, and I had rightfully earned some DOT tokens from the Polkadot Treasury during the financial year 2022-2023 through justified establishment tasks that were entered into timesheets, where those tasks were within an agreed budget that had been approved by Polkadot OpenGov, but because they were labelled as a “sign-on bonus” rather than just a “post-establishment milestone payment”, which is what they represented, false rumours and accusations were circulating that suggested mismanagement and the funds being spent badly, as highlighted at 1:41:40 by Max is this AAG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDiS6Frf3kk. It started with this tweet x.com. The way it was phrased “Asking for a fren”, came across as if they were suspicious about it and trying to make a mockery of it by posting it publicly. Adam Steeber who created our team later responded to that here x.com, and posted this video x.com. Then a team member said they were DMed by 0xTaylor about the hours I had billed, saying they were very suspicious about some of my entries and suggesting that I DM them. Only a few minutes after that, 0xTaylor posted this x.com and referred to me as a “Dude”. I eventually responded to him by extracting the relevant posts that I had made in our private AMI Bounty Program Telegram channel and posting them here Response to 0xTaylor - HackMD. I contacted 0xTaylor multiple times via X and Element asking him whether he was satisfied with my response to his question about my timesheet and if there were any other items in my timesheet that he was concerned about, but I was not able to bring closure to the matter as he chose not to respond. After that Shawn Tabrizi jumped into the conversation and incorrectly implied wrongdoing by saying “you should return your bonus no matter what
@ltfschoen”, demanding that I return the sign-on bonus x.com even though he hadn’t adequately looking into the issue in depth himself either. Upon receiving that demand I reluctantly returned my 500 DOT sign-on bonus to the Polkadot treasury, even though that happened in the following financial year 2023-2024, causing me to incur a tax obligation for the previous financial year without any revenue to show for it. Then Adam Steeber got stuck into Shawn Tabrizi and demanded an audit of his Fellowship ranking and an apology x.com, to which Shawn Tabrizi apologised to Adam Steeber x.com. After that and after seeing this proposal approved Tip for exposing Michiko Watanabe | Polkassembly, I thought it wouldn’t be any more ridiculous for me to submit a proposal asking for a 500 DOT tip from the Polkadot Treasury to refund me the 500 DOT of remuneration that I had rightfully earned in the previous financial year from the Polkadot Treasury.
I may comment and vote independently anyway, and I would be interested in applying for future cohorts.