*The following comments reflect my personal opinion and may not represent the Council’s official position.
@Rizk: I hear you. Change is uncomfortable — it pushes us out of familiar patterns. I’m grateful to those who’ve served in Committee roles; their work remains part of our community. But the legacy signatory layer has been drawing budget without clear delivery value, and that requires resolution. Let’s stay grounded in the community’s mandate and address concerns directly.
Here’s the reality: the DAO elected a Council to provide oversight and strategy, and created Regenesis Labs to deliver. The chain is simple: DAO → Council (oversight) → Executive arm (delivery). As Maraoz noted, execution stalls when a legacy signatory can override Council-approved direction. Our goal is to end this deadlock, ensure continuity, and align authority with the mandate — without eroding accountability or exposing the treasury to undue risk.
This is not a “power grab.” The Council isn’t centralizing power; it’s formalizing accountability while leaving the community as the ultimate check. To reinforce this, we’re introducing a community veto: a clear, time-bound mechanism for objections, ensuring oversight without re-introducing the same deadlock we’re solving.
This won’t be the Council’s last proposal. Next, we’ll tackle the Aragon DAO Treasury setup, exploring options that strengthen DAO control while keeping security and balance.
On specific claims:
-
“Funds moved irresponsibly/untracked.” All movements are on‑chain and tied to the published Executive Arm budget and program. If any transaction seems unclear, point to the TX and we will make sure public context is added in the corresponding monthly update. For clarity, as Gino communicated: the Operational Wallet was part of the original 18‑month operating budget. The first treasury→operational transfers happened in June, requested by Regenesis and approved by the Council, and signed by two Council members plus Regenesis. All movements are on‑chain. All vendor payments are invoiced and paid on‑chain via Request.finance; Regenesis Labs will link invoice references in monthly updates where helpful.
-
“There were no votes.” The Council Charter, strategy, and budget were published for community review. No objections requiring escalation were filed under the process in place at the time. The pending veto proposal makes a clear objection path explicit going forward.
-
“Treasury plan ‘dumps 60% at any price.’” That’s a total mischaracterization. The Treasury Management Strategy is an ongoing effort for careful, staged diversification over ~18 months with liquidity awareness and stability as priorities. It strengthens resilience; it doesn’t abandon MANA. We are setting up the needed structure and working closely with third‑party providers on a well advised set of actions that will be disclosed in a timely manner to the community. In addition to this point: Regenesis does not set DAO Treasury funds. The Council sets strategy; Regenesis only facilitates the third‑party provider relationship. Custody remains outside Regenesis.
On your transparency concerns:
-
A community veto adds a real check without overlapping approvals.
-
The Council is a board, not an ops team; we approve strategy, not invoice-level audits.
-
A public dashboard and quarterly reports (first due in October) provide visibility.
-
Publishing Council votes is fair, and we will move toward that.
Let’s keep this constructive. If you think I’ve lost community trust, you can call a poll to replace me. If you see a better governance model than a Council, draft it for community approval.
We can disagree on tactics, but the direction is clear: resolve the deadlock and keep improving delivery.