Hi All,
Wearing my oDAO hat today, and wanting to get the pDAO on the same page.
It was great having Yorick on the oDAO. He was an active and visible member.
It is my understanding that Galaxy acquired CryptoManufaktur mainly for its Lido validators. As a byproduct they also purchased a seat on the oDAO.
I am not a fan of inviting a soulless corporation to the oDAO.
It will be the second corporation that has purchased a seat on the oDAO (the other one being Coinbase Ventures).
The oDAO charter targeted 15-18 members. There are still 18 members because the team refused to reduce their 4 seats. So we don’t need to necessarily fill the seat again.
From a security point of view, we should consider whether an oDAO seat can be transferred or bought. Since the keys were lost, it makes no sense to keep Yorick onboard, and I will vote in favor of removing Yorick.
Regarding the re-invite, we should again consider from a security point of view if an oDAO seat can be transferred or bought. My personal opinion is no.
So the oDAO has enough members for security so no urgency to make any decision outside removal. I think a post-mortem evaluation is warranted for what happened, what were the terms at transfer to galaxy, and what were the other oDAO members aware of-preferably open to the pDAO.
I agree generally that the basis on which oDAO membership is offered should be non-transferable to another entity without scrutiny of that entity (like any new oDAO member). If galaxy is the best next member, they should be added to the oDAO. Otherwise the oDAO has no particular debt to them…
Yorick’s keys were misplaced and those keys ought to be removed. This oDAO vote is a vote to remove those keys. This vote ought to have full support and I’m not aware of any contention.
After Yorick’s lost keys are removed, we have the opportunity to replace that key with a new key in the Galaxy name. We’re not under any obligation to do that, and while I initially assumed the default would be to rotate, I now believe the default behavior is to reconsider whether adding Galaxy is in our shared interest.
There’s some tendency to make these things highly contentious, but I don’t believe there’s much drama here: 1. Remove the old keys, 2. Decide if we want to invite Galaxy as an oDAO member.
Removal is logic of course. Nobody is against that when the key is lost anyway.
Galaxy shouldn’t be in the oDAO at all. They bought cryptomanufaktur for the Lido validators. Talk about misalignment with Rocket Pool… They probably don’t care about our governance at all.
I think Galaxy should be required to submit an application and a new RPL bond if they really want to stay on the oDAO.
I’ll add some thoughts:
I’m not sure if Galaxy is the same company as this one (https://www.galaxy.com/insights/research/), but, if so, I highly value their research, particularly the reports by Christine Kim and the ACDx calls. I would strongly encourage them to apply as a new oDAO member, as their involvement could add significant value to the oDAO.
However, I don’t believe that acquiring CryptoManufaktur’s assets guarantees their induction into the oDAO.
Regarding Yorick, I have always highly valued his expertise and contributions in the Ethereum space. He is an outstanding member and contributor to both the Rocket Pool and EthStaker communities, I propose outside of Galaxy reapplying, considering the idea of establishing a second node for the Rocket Scientists, operated by a different node operator than rpscientists-1. This second node could allocate a portion of rewards to both nodes and to Yorick as a Rocket Scientist member.
Yes, that’s the Galaxy Digital that acquired CryptoManufaktur assets.
It seems fairly clear. Yorick was oDAO and now the keys will be removed. A new entity wishing to be on the oDAO follows the same path anyone else would have to. Application, bond, etc.
This vote has been concluded and the Cryptomanufaktur keys have been removed from the oDAO. As the person who initiated the vote, I want to make it clear for the sake of history that I am a HUGE fan of Yorickdowne and will always consider him a dear friend.
Hey all - I thought I would offer some transparency into why Gitcoin voted the way it did to remove Yoickdowne (and it follows the sentiment of everyone else 
).
Give the keys were lost, we want to help support an active oDAO membership. No need to keep him in when he cant restore or participate
Also, Yorick has been great and supportive when we have run into problems, so I have appreciated him being in the oDAO previously.