sharp
February 14, 2026, 3:03am
10
@AranaDigital @PGov regarding my recent allegations of unethical conduct by the members, why should this incident not be treated as a malicious conduct? Given the paid interest for PGov in such a role that would extend till 48 months, there are overarching questions of your independence to Foundation and conflict of interest
Furthermore, failure of the very purpose of CGWG if CGWG members start defending a unilateral action by compound foundation, without dialogue with sufficient time of months in hand
There appears to be the case where the Compound foundation has proposed an-onchain vote before posting a discussion on Forums. The proposal in question, grants 8 people key authority for the next 48 months, removing the 12 month limit of their term
@AranaDigital Post on defending the actions that led to this post
the timing of the recent proposals and the opacity around these proposals, furthermore the avoidance of community messaging around proposal is not clear to me.
Honestly the Guardian proposal was the only acceptable proposal to me in the recent proposals, but thanks to @cylon bringing this to my attention, has identified another instance of Compound Foundation centralizing its actions and CGWG turning a blind eye to DAO and governance breach
@AranaDigital @PGov as mentioned on one of the last community calls any proposal not following the due processes of the forum (2 weeks min of forum etc) warrarnts cancellation by the guardian multisig. It has come to my attention the Compound Foundation may have posted an onchain proposal without posting any forum posts.
Why has the CGWG not considered it essential to itself notify this action to the community? Does it not defeat the whole purpose of CGWG existing to avoid any potential DAO capture?
Why is the CGWG defending the proposal? even blatantly defending the absence of communications from the Compound Foundation?
Had the foundation even made CGWG and the signers aware of such a proposal?
If there was sufficient timing of information relayed to the signers and CGWG? If yes why did none of the 8 multisig owners consider it essential to update the community, instead of quietly agreeing to a 48 month paid term?
If there was not sufficient time of information being relayed to the signers and CGWG members and assuming in this case Compound Foundation posted the proposal unilaterally, does the CGWG and signers even have any say in this?
Only precedent of posting such a vote is by humpy, even humpy posted on Compound forums. Why has Arana overlooked and intentionally tried to justify past multisig actions to current unilateral vote
I already have listed out multiple incidences where delegates, CGWG members all have conflict of interest and unethical actions going by how they have undisclosed financial interactions with the Foundation - which I earlier termed as Unethical but not malicious.
The current proposal which shares its member with the CGWG proposal, has clearly defined act of maliciousness with a potentially paid component that itself was kept hidden, the haste to put this proposal for 48 months has no proper explaination.
Wake me up when september ends
There is enough time of months to do deliberation and discussion around the topic and still be able to vote before september, what’s with the hurry? At this point what defence does CGWG even have against itself acting as a centralized profit seeking entity, conflicts of interest, colluding with Compound Foundation?
1 Like