Redistribute Savvy's STIP Allocation to Other Approved Projects until It Conducts Ethical Practices

Redistribute Savvy’s STIP Allocation to Other Approved Projects until It Conducts Ethical Practices

As a founding designer of Savvy DeFi, along with over half of the original team members who have since departed, we have not received promised compensation or equity. Despite this, Savvy has utilized our intellectual property to secure multiple rounds of funding. We believe this constitutes a breach of ethical standards.

Our Request:
We urge Savvy to cease these unethical practices and fulfill their financial obligations in good faith. Should Savvy fail to address these concerns satisfactorily, we propose that their token allocation be redistributed to other approved projects that demonstrate greater ethical values and integrity, contributing positively to the ecosystem’s growth.

The unregulated nature of our market, with its remote jobs and contractual challenges, often leaves workers’ rights unprotected. However, this should not be an excuse for exploitation or non-compensation for labor.

DAO governance should uphold social responsibility and foster an ecosystem growth based on integrity, honesty, and fairness. The treasury should reward those who genuinely contribute to the ecosystem’s development, rather than those who simply lobby effectively for funding.

We propose setting up an evaluation mechanism to verify the claims made herein, under community supervision, before the distribution of funds for STIP round 2.

Overall Cost:

Background of the claim:
With more details shared fully on Twitter @cocafish’s pinned tweet & highlights, in accompany with evidence, I hereby also am sending my response to Savvy’s last response.


  • The discussion and claims I shared are extracted from the work chats regarding nothing private, with no intent to selectively fabricate a story but to keep it relevant and concise.

  • Full chats were disclosed to a reputed crypto media with more than 1.9M+ subscribers, should they decide to publish the story, the truth will be revealed through a neutral perspective and I stay confidence to all my claims.

  • I requested a contract throughout the working period, but it was Savvy’s intention to drag the registration process of its entities for months. Every time there was a delay, Roman thanked me for trusting him and the team. This behavior of dragging was used to take advantage of my trust so they could continue to leverage my work, unpaid, and use it against me when I claimed the liability.

  • I have not yet taken any legal actions so far nor did any of them fail. I had intention to start a collective case with the previous marketing leader, he was forced to let go, unpaid. While him being practically also in the States and I’m not, I thought it would’ve been easier to delegate. I later on realized we have different cause (he was let go and I quit), and he never started the case because of the substantial upfront costs.

  • He’s in a better financial position now to restart the filling of case to claim liability against Savvy. I am also actively searching for lawyers to kick off a lawsuit under contingencies. As per legal advice I received, the case is very arguable in court.

  • I have consistently request Savvy to pay off the overdue invoice, amount of $64k, matching the calculation criteria Roman provided and acknowledged in his email regarding the cessation terms. The only time a different amount was offered, was a lowered $45k, as my compromise to settle the case in a timely manner in light of good wills. Roman showed 0 intention to pay and completely ignored the offer.

  • I have left Savvy prior to launch. Everyone is entitled to its own opinion to whether the project can succeed or not. What happens with amount raised before hitting 2M was never clearly communicated or discussed. However, nobody had agreed to work for free.

  • As Roman singlehandedly slashed all my promised equity shares, I see no obligation to be involved in any risks while having 0 upside rewards beyond this point.

  • The relation between me and Savvy upon termination rests as simple as independent contractor, who needed to get paid for the work delivered, irrelevant to the fair launch result.

  • I have received ~$24k on Jan 10, 2023. The agreement for this payment was based on the consensus that it was a partial backpay to my worked salary, since its overdue for 2 months and I had a more critical situation to receive it in time. It was significantly lower than the billable hours.

  • The $24k was NEVER a personal loan. We have requested Savvy’s lawyer to provide evidence to that and they failed to prove it. It was me accommodating Savvy’s lack of funds to backpay everyone, under the premise that this payment can be returned on chain, with Akshay “guarding” it until fair launch. Now that the fair launch is finished, I rightfully own the partial salary, and the rest.

  • In the 9 months of failed attempts to collect my payment, I come to the realization that Savvy team will come up with various excuses, including lies, to explain why they’re not paying. The root issues are not about how much funds they raised, but rather they just do not intend to act in good faith.

In the past 9 months, the project barely showed any progress. Front-end remained poorly implemented and buggy. Marketing team, design team were absent. Half of the farming TVL came from Savvy’s own wallet. The actual real effort of Savvy’s team, seems to go after funding rather than building.

Considerations for Voters:

  1. Will the DAO grants really go into developing the project and benefit the community?

  2. If rugging your community is unacceptable, how is rugging your own team on the contrary, allows you to keep getting funded? For my 3 years of degen life, I’ve never been rugged THIS HARD.

  3. Is Savvy spearheading the proposal of backfund a conflict of interests and biased? Who is there to evaluate the projects to ensure the DAO treasury goes only to trustworthy projects, including evaluating Savvy?

With my recent request in public, I was reached out by a former team member who was a close friend to Roman. He called to show support. And further disclosed that Roman the founder, for most of his time, worked as a Sales in AT&T, was also a Sales at JPM, exit was ugly, while branding himself an ex-banker entering DeFi. Him and the other co-founder worked a full-time job, but while getting paid, they started and dedicated their full time on Savvy instead.

High levels of integrity of Savvy’s founders are in question. It is imperative that Savvy addresses these issues and demonstrates ethical conduct. I welcome any discussion on this proposal and remain committed to seeking a fair resolution.

Thank you for considering this proposal.


I’ve moved this to the STIP report category as there is nothing yet to vote on. i.e., the backfill proposal has not yet passed.

Also, just in case, there is a maximum politeness policy on this forum, so please keep all discussion civil.


Thank you for allowing the publish. Would this be moved into the proposal category if the current voting ends?

Will do. Should you find any statements becoming offensive, DM me and I’ll remove.


To be clear, delegates did not approve Savvy for a grant under the framework adopted by the DAO with the initial STIP.

Any grant given to Savvy will be a part of the backfund proposal which they themselves authored. This proposal is still under vote, as delegates are currently still voting.