Let me put a disclaimer on here first: I am aware that this is likely going to be a controversial post. I had decided to wait until after the long July 4th weekend, in order to not add any more fuel to the fire. Everybody in the US was probably looking forward to a weekend of celebration with their loved ones, instead of having to deal with even more hassle after what has certainly been a very stressful number of weeks and months for the team. Still, there seems to be a lot of pent up frustration on both sides of the forum, so I think it’s best to actively use this opportunity and clear the air, instead of kicking things under the rug.
For context, we’ve had a somewhat heated discussion in the TG chat on July 3rd. People were warned, muted, unmuted, apologies were made, explanations offered, and so forth.
I don’t want to revisit all of the drama of that day, but there are a few points from Adam’s pinned response over in the TG chat (link if you need it: Telegram ) that I needed to address, as these go to the core of what I believe(d) this project to stand for.
I’ve had other people reach out to me, voicing their disappointment and how they feel like some of the things said that day have rubbed them the wrong way. Like I said, I’m not looking to pass blame or point the finger at anyone, even if much of this post is a direct response to Adam’s comment in the TG chat. Instead, this will hopefully serve as the kick-off for a more collaborative forum.
So here it goes.
Shut up and participate
Adam, you mentioned that you want people to be more involved in the DAO, submitting voting proposals and possibly developing additional utility via community-driven side projects. Fair enough.
On the other hand, the Telegram horde is probably the best informed part of the community outside of the core team, but even so, we don’t have much of an idea where things are at or where they are heading.
Case in point, last month, I believe, people were asking the question if the swap is still being developed, if it is still part of (y)our plans at all, and how BAM tokens will be utilized moving forward. That is a lot of confusion for what seemed to be a central part of PP’s plans last year. You offered an abbreviated high-level breakdown answering some of the questions that were posed at the time, which was highly appreciated. But if even the very core of the active community doesn’t have a rough idea of what the current plans are and how things might have pivoted over the last few months, then it is at the very least “challenging” to organize a meaningful community-driven project that actually benefits the token.
So how do you suggest we do that?
Only an idiot would say I’m being passive-aggressive
It’s possible that the intended recipient of the general tone and overall saltiness was a small minority, but the way it was phrased and the context in which it was published make it sound like you’re addressing the community as a whole.
I can understand that being constantly bombarded with requests for updates and having the same questions asked every day can be annoying (and it is to us, too) and even toxic, but frankly, you make it sound as if the community itself is a point of annoyance to you merely by its existence.
Of course we’ll talk about the project within the community. Of course we’ll look forward to dates when there has been an announcement. That doesn’t mean we expect a daily rundown, an apology if things don’t go according to plan, or a closer look at the inner workings of the BAM office. But naturally, we’ll speculate on what’s going on based on the limited information we have and ask for guidance when possible.
Regardless of the question if this was the case here: don’t punish the whole class, just because one or two idiots are screwing around in the back of the room. Penalize the agitators, not the group as a whole. Passive-aggressive language and salty responses to reasonable discussions are not at all conducive to inviting user participation. It stifles activity, instead of encouraging it. And it is one possible reason (although by no means the only one) why activity in the TG chat has been weirdly subdued in recent times.
Investor Second Class - reporting for duty!
This point, more than anything, is crucial to me.
Adam, you make it sound like we are only second-class investors to you. Good enough to provide capital and liquidity for the token, but otherwise supposed to keep quiet and be content. Don’t ask questions, “unless you sink a sizable accredited investment into the company,” but please do participate in the DAO. You were quick to label people as backseat-drivers, if all they did was invest in the token without otherwise contributing. It may not have been your intention, but you do make it seem as if our investment in the token is not good enough for more than the occasional scrap of information, and certainly nowhere near on par with investing the same amount of money in the company.
What does ideal user participation and community activity look like to you? Keeping in mind that as individuals, we have little control over “wenwenwen” spammers and scammers within the community ourselves.
This also goes back to the issue of communicating with the community. Both Adam and Josh have mentioned that Adam has had considerable expenses relating to the migration and audit, which he paid out of his own pocket. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be, to see the same questions in the chat each day, help those that screwed up the process by migrating them manually and covering the added cost yourself - only to go back in the chat and have a “where are my tokens?! I have filled out the form 2 days ago!!!” flung in your face.
That sounds like a mind-boggling stress factor and huge financial burden.
I’m in the TG chat quite a bit, but you and Josh mentioning the personal expense issue was the first I heard of it. Perhaps it had been mentioned before and I just missed it?
But again, how should the community ideally have acted without being properly informed on this? I could have seen reimbursing Adam for the migration expenses as an issue to be put to a DAO vote asap (and it still should be imo) - but for that we need to know about it in the first place!
In any case, returning to the matter at hand, is belittling those that choose to invest in the coin without actively participating in the community really a good move for BAM? Those small investors make up the vast majority - and considering the target group of the app, that number will certainly only grow larger, provided we actually manage to increase the number of holders.
This issue, more than anything, is a potential breaking point for me. If our support, both monetary and as regular community members, is somehow being regarded as inferior to accredited investments into the company, then that means I’m out. Everybody has invested according to their own means (and hopefully not beyond), but if all this does is at best “elevate” us crypto-peasants to the status of subpar investors, then I have made a grave error in judgement in coming here and want no more part in it.
After last Saturday and in response to Adam’s comment, I had made the commitment to be more vocal and proactive in the DAO from here on out. This post is part of that commitment to help shape the DAO in the direction that I want to see us grow. It is made in good faith and not meant to offend or otherwise criticize the team or any individual, including Adam. On the contrary, as I’ve said many times before and I’m sure I’ll keep saying many times in the future: I’m thankful for all the hard work, appreciative of the leadership and dedication, and proud to be part of this community. But if we can’t have an open and constructive discussion about the good as well as the bad, then I don’t think we’ll be around for the next bull market. Though I’ll do my part to make sure we will be.
Adam, you’ve once said your approach is to underpromise and overdeliver - I think everybody is fine with that, clear announcement dates or not.