We’d like to start by emphasizing that the CGWG was established as a governance support mechanism from the get-go, and that remains to be the case. Our core responsibilities include supporting quorum, helping coordinate delegate, facilitating communications, providing research on matters like RFPs, etc.
We reject the allegation that there is some sort of coordinated bribery scheme or unethical effort underway. The DAO made a clear governance decision to select the Foundation as the steward of the protocol. That decision was debated publicly and approved through established governance processes. As members of the CGWG, our role is to facilitate the DAO in the direction that has been communally agreed upon.
The proposals and operational decisions currently being made trace back to that underlying governance determination, where trust was placed in the Foundation. These are actions being taken by a trusted steward, in corroboration with DAO-elected service providers, all of whom have strong track record and public reliability. So this is not a matter of unethical collusion, and the goal is not rent-seeking behavior.
Another decision that the DAO has made, with abundant clarity, is proactive defense against actions that have reasonable cause to impair the state of the protocol and DAO. This principle predates current events and is reflected in prior episodes and public discussions. If you’d like me to be more direct, it means preventing governance capture attempts by entities like Humpy. The community has deemed this entity as a key risk for the effective facilitation of Compound. This is why the community guardian exists in the first place. In the event plausible risks such as high degrees of token accumulation arise, governance must respond with an equal requital. Alpha Growth is of course deeply familiar with this history.
One of the areas that DAO-elected entities had to spend an undue amount of time on during H2 2025 were these security concerns. It was invariably a distraction from building. In fact, right as the previous guardian duration expired in September 2025, a vote to fully disassemble delegate race cycle 1 was pushed. If successful, that would have paved the path for governance attacks akin to that in 2024. This warranted an emergency publication of a 12-month guardian renewal without extended forum deliberation. That vote successfully passed onchain. What happens in September 2026 when the guardian expires again? And what happens in the months leading up to September? And how does that bode for growing the protocol, establishing partnerships, etc?
Putting yourself in our shoes for a moment, if you recognized that the DAO 1) has trusted Foundation as the new steward and 2) are committed to safeguarding Compound against entities who have demonstrated a malicious nature, would you not be inclined to rally the ecosystem around such efforts because they are the most prudent to Compound’s success and sustenance?
If the community believes this outlined stewardship model should change, or that apt defense against the threat of harmful proposals should be recalibrated in some manner, that is within governance’s authority. As a matter of principle, we should approach this with caution as to prevent unwinding much of the existing efforts to stabilize governance. The actions currently being taken with the onchain proposals is respecting the existing will of the DAO.
We remain committed to transparency, accountability, and open dialogue. Strong opinions are part of healthy governance. We are confident that our conduct reflects the standards expected of contributors serving the protocol.