Hi @Megadot! I’m concerned that your recent messages are adding a lot of churn and are coming across as personal toward certain people.
Please keep in mind that W3F is already funding OpenGov.Watch to do this exact kind of oversight. This work can be done in a way that’s more effective and more constructive: by keeping the signal-to-noise ratio high, avoiding reputational harm, and validating claims before making them public. In practice, that means contacting the people you’re raising concerns about via private channels first, giving them an opportunity to respond, and escalating publicly only with clear evidence. Good news for you is that they are the people that can help you do exactly that, also they are funded until the end of the month, so take advantage of that while you can 
.
I strongly recommend collaborating with them and stepping back from public comms. They can help channel your efforts into a process that’s effective, fair, and focused on facts… so it doesn’t come across as personal or adversarial.
I’d love to introduce you to @jeeper: I think you’ll get along well. You both care about protecting treasury funds and improving oversight, and you seem to approach evaluations in a similarly structured way. You even share the same kind of tendencies when it comes to evaluate how functional/dysfunctional bounties are. For example, neither of you had any concerns about the UX bounty. That’s why I think that you two will get along very well. It might be helpful to collaborate and align on a consistent framework for judging bounty performance.
Some folks have speculated you might be an alt of @jeeper because of the many similarities. I asked him directly yesterday and he confirmed that’s not true. He also said he’d prefer people participate openly rather than anonymously. So, please, help each other!
What worries me is the impact this is having on perceptions across the community. The current approach is fueling speculation about whether these anonymous accounts are being supported (directly or indirectly) by the W3F. Even if that’s not true, the optics are damaging and it undermines trust in governance. It also creates the impression that internal capacity is being used to create drama, and then justify a large team to manage said drama, rather than focusing the resources on reducing it and focusing on the important work.
I can understand why the speculation comes up (I even had that thought for a moment) but on reflection I don’t think it holds up. I’m confident W3F has higher-priority work than enabling avoidable drama.
That’s why I’m asking you (and any other anonymous accounts involved) to help de-escalate here 
. @Megadot, please coordinate directly with @jeeper so concerns can be handled through the W3F-funded governance process: gather evidence, reach out privately to the people involved first, and only share publicly once facts are verified and there’s something actionable to report. This will reduce unnecessary drama and lower the risk of unfair accusations.
If you’re open to it, I’d also suggest letting @jeeper be the public point of contact for updates while you focus on the research.
To protect trust in the process, I think it’s important that anonymous accounts stop hiding themselves. Please coordinate with the W3F governance team so allegations are evaluated rigorously and any misunderstandings are resolved.
Thanks in advance for considering my suggestion!