Thanks for the timely reply. My comment was only directed at creating a timing expectation, not a further accusation. There are a few issues to address here:
Issue 1 - Was there wrongdoing?
Ramses made a quick response and it seems legit. However, I am not the guy to go to if you have questions on MEV or LVR. We can allow others with expertise, such as Entropy, to chime in here.
Issue 2 - Every grant program should have someone responsible for identifying and communicating about (potential) fraud.
Entropy received the accusation message and decided it would be best to default to full transparency. This seems reasonable.
Ramses would have liked a dm prior to posting because a message like this could severely hurt their business - even if just an accusation.
There is no policy for how we handle accusations of fraud. There isn’t an official community flagging function or dropbox with a standard process. Entropy received this information because there was a vaccuum where a responsible party should be. They defaulted to the option most well-meaning DAO contributors would - they opted to post for transparency.
We should have a consistent policy on how these accusations are approached. Just because you’re a delegate and he could dm doesn’t mean that it is the fair and equal approach (it likely is tho).
I’ve offered to facilitate a workshop to design a policy for community detection, reporting, and transparency with the parties involved. So far we have not set a time - update hopefully coming soon. Comment if you would like to join.
In the future, the policy should be what we argue about - NOT the decisions of well meaning actors.