Submitted

#510 Secure Funds

Proposer:

KSM

in Governance

4 days ago

(Edited)

Description

AI Summary

Votes Bubble

Timeline

Evaluation

On Chain Info

Stats

To prevent potential mismanagement of Youdle DAO treasury funds, we propose temporarily transferring these assets to the Kusama Treasury, which is now the safest option.

Rationale:

The Invarch team, which currently controls the funds, has a history of questionable financial decisions, including the transfer of more than 200K ASTAR from the DAO to a CEX without transparency.

Community members have raised concerns and asked questions about fund management, but the team has not provided clear answers.

To ensure responsible management, these remaining funds (400 KSM) should be safeguarded under Kusama governance.

Next Steps:

The funds will later be returned to Youdle DAO holders through a transparent and verifiable process.

We urge the community to support this measure to protect DAO resources.

Evidence:

Rug on virtuals

Polkadot treasury rugs

Youdle DAO rug

Moving DAO funds to a CEX because it's a shared address instead of moving to another on chain address? No answers.

Pink rug

Pink distributed by the pink team to invarch was supposed to get distributed to the community

but instead 2000000 pink were allocated to xcastronaut (invarch founder) wallet

Then went to hydration and got sold.

VARCH rug

$VARCH token launched less than 30 days ago. ICO investors are down -96%

KSM partial rug

Not fully delivered.

Tinkernet rug

Tinkernet (kusama parachain) was shutdown. Investors were given 4 VARCH for 1 TINKER. VARCH was later a rug so this converts Tinkernet in a rug. Before shuting down they made an LBP in Osmosis (Cosmos) which also was a rug.

pandres95

4 days ago

The proposer hasn't yet set (or verified) its identity. They're claiming potential mismanagement, yet no concrete, precise, and indisputable evidence has been given (e.g. plans or written proof that there's a plot to steal resources) besides the fact that the team that's being accused with these charges has failed to accurately meet promised milestones (not very unusual, as many others have in the past in the ecosystem), and using CEXes (something almost every major team that's aimed to secure budgets with stablecoins has done in the past), and raised concerns (from whom? I ask).

If I'm not confident about the proposer's identity, nor is there evidence given, how can I be sure there isn't a conflict of interest behind this series of proposals (a potential retaliation against one or more team members)?

At this point, I'm seeing two potential motivations, neither better than the other:

Generate noise about a team, probably affecting them, again, without concrete evidence.
A personal retaliation against one or more members of the team.

This is a SERIOUS accusation that raises doubts about the proposer's intentions. I should Nay this until have been provided with evidence or at least verified that there are no conflicts of interest behind this proposal.

Final remarks

Another thing to mention is that (again) this proposal probably would have no effects whatsoever (like the previous one) if the proposer's claims are valid. If they are, and the team is trying to steal or mismanage funds, they could get away with the 400 KSM now that they know there's an open proposal to get them "slashed". Of course, there's no other alternative (technically speaking), but still, I see this ref. going nowhere.

Additional note: The proposer doesn't have enough funds to reserve for the decision deposit on this and their former ref. Will someone provide for it?

Hide replies

KSM

4 days ago

@HUf7Nvfhp85yFZm31zV2ux8h1946Bzzmos2jqGGhp3bWXD4

I have no conflict of interest in this matter. I am an active member of the Polkadot community, and my only intention is to ensure that these funds are safeguarded.

I have uploaded new evidence to the original post, which I hope is sufficient to address the concerns raised.

While using a CEX to move DAO funds is not inherently wrong, it is unusual that there was no prior communication or transparency about this decision. These are DAO-managed funds, and they should ideally be handled through on-chain addresses to maintain accountability and community trust. Moving them to a CEX without informing the stakeholders raises legitimate concerns.

My goal is to ensure proper oversight and prevent any potential mismanagement.

I think it's important that people step up and raise their voices when they see potential issues. That’s exactly what OpenGov is about: ensuring transparency and accountability through community participation.

As for the decision deposit, if there is enough community support, I’m sure that a white knight will appear to make it happen.

KSM

2 days ago

I hope you have reviewed the edited post and found the evidence sufficient to reconsider your position. I have demonstrated that your assumptions were incorrect, and I expect a correction from you, as my sole intention is to contribute to the benefit of Kusama/Polkadot. I also ask that you update your original post to reflect this, as it explicitly accused me of creating "noise" or having personal motives against the Invarch team.

@pandres95