LookAway

@HiiiPowerRevo @TheRealWeb3Kat @HolgerCardano24 Why wouldn’t it be ok? I’m so confused by this stance. HiiiPowerRevo explain to me how it’s unethical? Don’t these ambassadors hold ADA? That is the only constitutional requirement to participate. Open and permissions-less is the expectation, the rest is web2 not blockchain

A short timeline. Just what happened, in order. Decide for yourselves. 1. A DRep (@NaVi_GaT0R) asked whether DReps with paid IO-linked roles should abstain on IO's treasury proposals. A normal conflict-of-interest question. 2. Charles did not answer the question. He went after Iagon - publicly, repeatedly, over days, to his 1M+ follower account, with IO employees and IO-aligned accounts amplifying. He said Navjit had "lost the plot," called the concern "objectively wrong," and publicly stated Iagon's leadership should be replaced or the project could collapse. 3. IAG fell ~32% in 24h. Holders - who are also ADA holders - lost real money. 4. As IAG was crashing, the price-crash chart was posted at Charles. He replied with a video clip of Bane: "Your punishment must be more severe... not of your body... of your soul." 5. Charles began describing the conflict-of-interest question as an "attack on his ambassadors." It was not. No ambassador was attacked. A DRep asked, in public, whether DReps with paid IO ties should abstain on IO's proposals - a standard governance question. Reframing a question as an "attack" is what made everything that followed look justified. 6. On that false premise, Charles hosted an X Space and said, about the token holders of a project in his own ecosystem: "I don't give a shit about your token holders... I don't give a shit about your bag holders... If you attack my ambassadors, I will burn you to the ground." He also said the way out was to "apologize" and "back the fuck off." 7. When a community member said I was "obsessed," Charles replied that I have "CDS," that it is "incurable," and that people should "let him go." CDS - Cognitive Dysfunction Syndrome - is a veterinary diagnosis: age-related dementia in dogs and cats. So a sitting DRep raising sourced concerns was described in the language a vet uses for a deteriorating animal. 8. Charles then posted a unity video: the only thing that can destroy Cardano is internal fighting. 9. When some Japanese DReps voted against IO's research proposal, Charles posted directly to the Japanese community: if the proposal did not pass, "Cardano will lose its scientists" and "our lab will be forced to close." He then asked the community to "delegate to dReps who support Cardano's research agenda" - in other words, to move voting power away from DReps who voted the wrong way. When that pressure did not deliver the result, the threat hardened: approve the proposal, or be responsible for ending Cardano's research entirely. Only after this also failed to work did the tone suddenly soften. 10. As hundreds of holders engaged with these concerns, Charles shifted tone - "#strongertogether," inviting conversation. 11. I took that at face value. Then I did something he never did. After he attacked Iagon, after the "burn you to the ground," after his words helped wipe ~32% off a token held by thousands - I was the one who extended a hand. I publicly offered him a private, no-recording, one-on-one call. Man to man. Not for me - for the ecosystem. The person who was attacked took the first step toward peace. 12. His public answer to that olive branch was the pattern again, in one post. He said: "Tell him to go to hell." He demanded I issue "a public apology FOR EVERYTHING he said" before he would even speak. He said: "You don't treat me like a human toilet." And then, in the last three lines: "He's trash. Everyone can see it now. We move on." Read that ending again. I offered him a private, calm conversation - and his response was to call me "trash" and tell the audience that this proves something about me. He attacked, and in the same breath framed the attack as evidence against the person he attacked. That is the reversal in its purest form: be the aggressor, then announce that the aggression exposes the victim. That is the sequence. I offered a calm, private conversation - and that was the response to it. One more thing worth seeing plainly. Not days apart. The same afternoon - roughly two hours between these two posts. First, in public, to the ecosystem: "Cardano is alive. The community is engaged... You are not passive holders. You are owners." "Let me show up the way I should." "I am inviting all of you to sit down and have a real conversation." "I am 100% focused on Cardano and Midnight. #strongertogether" Roughly two hours later, to me, after I publicly offered exactly that - a private, calm, one-on-one conversation: "Tell him to go to hell." "Have him issue a public apology FOR EVERYTHING he said." "You don't treat me like a human toilet." "He's trash. Everyone can see it now." That is the gap. "Stronger together" for the audience. Two hours later, "go to hell" and "he's trash" for the person who took him up on it. A real invitation to talk does not come with a demand to grovel first - and it does not curdle into "go to hell" within the same afternoon. Look at the whole shape of this. He attacked. He did not answer the question - he went after the people who asked it. When the damage was done and holders were losing money, he posted about punishment and souls. He said in public he would burn people to the ground. He pressured an entire national community to vote his way or be blamed for the end of Cardano's research. And then, step by step, he became the victim. The question became an "attack." The critics became aggressors. The man with 1M followers and the treasury proposals became the wronged party defending the vulnerable. When I - the one who was attacked - offered peace, he framed himself as the one owed an apology, and called me "trash" for asking. That reversal has a name: DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is not a diagnosis. It is a pattern, and the record above is the pattern, step by step, in his own words. So the practical question stands: Is this conduct - the attacks, the Bane clip aimed at people losing money, the "burn you to the ground," the pressure on the Japanese community, the false "victim" framing, the rejection of a good-faith olive branch - the conduct of someone who should be trusted with hundreds of millions of ADA from the community treasury? Cardano does not have a "leader." It has a community, a treasury, and contractors who ask that community for funding. IO is one of those contractors - currently asking for hundreds of millions of ADA, with a track record of missed timelines. A contractor asking the community for money does not get to attack the members of that community for doing the exact thing the governance system was built for: participating, voting, and asking questions. Respect for ADA holders is not optional for someone requesting their treasury. It is the job. Screenshots of every quote above are attached. Read them in full, and decide for yourselves.👇👇👇

BIP 361: Welcome to ShitcoinLand, Bitcoin x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

I've begun a comprehensive governance review of over 11,000 DAOs and a decade of literature in and out of our space to study executive function, roadmap, and strategy setting. The goal will be to propose some ideas to add new features to Cardano's governance via the constitution and new technology that will resolve much of the conflict we are facing. I'm considering if it is prudent at this point to become a Drep and to host a new mini-convention to get it done in time for the 2027 process. More on this later. #CardanoUnityAndClarity