Delegate Violations: Investigation Into disruptionjoe.eth to Determine Suitability for Managing Grant Program

Reading time saved: 9 minutes

18 replies, 939 views, 95 likes


The Arbitrum community is divided over a proposal by NFTEarth to investigate DisruptionJoe and ZER8's management of grant distributions, with allegations of bullying, denial of funds, and ignoring complaints. Counter-accusations question NFTEarth's credibility, alleging scamming and fake engagement, creating a hostile environment that could harm Arbitrum's reputation and contradict its principles of decentralized finance.

What is this about?

This discussion revolves around a proposal by NFTEarth for an investigation into the actions of DisruptionJoe and ZER8, who are responsible for managing grant distributions on Arbitrum through Plurality Labs1. The proposal was motivated by a desire to maintain a non-toxic governance culture on Arbitrum, following incidents during the Gitcoin Funding Round Fest that deviated from the platform's values of inclusion, diversity, and innovation1. The investigation aims to address alleged incidents of bullying, denial of rightful grantee funds, and disregard for repeated complaints1.

How is the community reacting?

The community's reaction is mixed. Some members, such as Mummy and ZER8, have raised concerns about the credibility of the NFTEarth team, suggesting they are known scammers from L2DAO3,6. GrantScams also alleges that Weston Nelson, who controls the NFTEarth account, has been using alt accounts to create fake engagement on his personal and NFTEarth posts and to attack those who speak out against his behavior5.

On the other hand, 0xMaestro acknowledged the active community engagement of DisruptionJoe on Optimism, who received over $3000 worth of OP with minimal ecosystem interactions14. Dicaso defended DisruptionJoe, stating that anyone who delegated OP would have been eligible for the airdrop15.

Why this is positive?

The proposal for an investigation into the actions of DisruptionJoe and ZER8 is a positive step towards maintaining a non-toxic governance culture on Arbitrum. It reflects the community's commitment to uphold Arbitrum’s core values and ensure a positive growth environment1. The discussion also highlights the active engagement of community members in the platform's governance, which is crucial for the health and growth of the ecosystem.

Why this is negative?

The allegations and counter-allegations have created a hostile environment within the community. Accusations of scamming, fake engagement, and misuse of the platform for personal gain have been made against various members, including NFTEarth, DisruptionJoe, and ZER81,3,5,6. This could potentially harm the reputation of the platform and discourage new members from joining. Furthermore, the accusations against the Arbitrum DAO of being a closed cartel of delegators deciding everything contradicts the principles of decentralized finance4.

Posted 2 months ago

Last reply 2 months ago

Summary updated a month ago

Last updated 08/12 04:40