Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/citynouns
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
SwarthyHatter
@swarthyhatter
## 🟥 P1 Cohort Response to Exit Negotiations Hey everyone, We need to be perfectly clear about our position on the exit proposal given the direction these discussions have taken. @zamees , we have been patient, and are beginning to tire of the heel dragging. 1 post to the community server every 3 days does little to show you are prioritizing our cohorts desire to exit in good faith.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
SwarthyHatter
@swarthyhatter
--- ## P2 ✅ Concessions We Have Already Made Let's be honest about the major concessions we have **already** made in good faith: * We **agreed to send tokens to the Grants Wallet** instead of burning them, even though that choice fundamentally **undermines our original goal** of preventing governance centralization. * We **agreed to return the citynouns.eth ENS** at cost (0.1 ETH), despite it representing months of our work in branding and community-building. * We have **kept these negotiations private**, shielding this conflict from the wider DAO to preserve cohesion and reputations. We made these concessions to show we're reasonable partners. But let's be absolutely clear: these were not minor or costless compromises. They were big sacrifices intended to move us toward resolution. ---
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
SwarthyHatter
@swarthyhatter
## ⚠️ P3 Our Concerns About Those Concessions These concessions have *serious* implications: * **Grants Wallet Transfer:** Risks consolidating power in the hands of those we no longer trust, literally handing over voting weight to the very structure we're exiting in protest of. * **ENS Transfer at Cost:** Returns a foundational asset with no premium or markup, despite its clear symbolic and strategic value for City Nouns' identity. * **Keeping it Private:** Allows leadership to present a false front of unity while ignoring the real, unresolved fractures in governance and trust. We have bent over backwards to demonstrate compromise — but these points are not without real cost or risk. ---
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
SwarthyHatter
@swarthyhatter
## P4 🔎 Bob’s Objections — and Why They’re Flawed **1️⃣ The Playbook Payment is “Overpaying” or Lacks Value** * The Playbook was explicitly commissioned, delivered, and *used* by City Nouns. Bob himself has cited it as valuable in the past. Now that payment is due, it’s suddenly worthless? That is **textbook bad faith**. * The DAO used it to prepare for launches. It was a deliverable under the Builder Prop. This is not a negotiation — it’s settling a debt.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
SwarthyHatter
@swarthyhatter
# P4 cont. **2️⃣ Tax Complexity and W9 Requirement** * This is *Bob’s LLC problem*, not ours. * The .1 ETH payment is *below* the IRS 1099 threshold. There's no legal requirement for a W9 at that amount. * Even if Bob's accountant wants it, that's an administrative task **he** can resolve *after* paying what is owed. * **And let’s be clear:** The reason this cohort is exiting is precisely because of Bob’s demonstrated bad faith behavior. We will *not* put Mary in the position of handing over sensitive personal information to someone acting in this manner.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
SwarthyHatter
@swarthyhatter
## P4 cont **3️⃣ Suggesting We Drop or Split Payments from the Proposal** * We negotiated *as a unified cohort* precisely to ensure no one is left behind or singled out. * Splitting out the Playbook payment would guarantee delay, complexity, and risk of non-payment. * It's also a tactic to reduce transparency and accountability. We won’t play along. **4️⃣ Administrative Changes to the Grants Safe** * Bob is now pushing administrative changes to the Grants Safe **before** this exit is even resolved. * We will *not* approve any changes until an exit proposal is finalized **and** governance safeguards are in place to ensure *all* grant and founder treasury distributions require **on-chain voting**. * Given the lack of trust that has led to this exit, demanding we enable even more unilateral control is absurd.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
SwarthyHatter
@swarthyhatter
--- ## ✅ P5 Our Firm Position Moving Forward * **Mary’s 0.1 ETH payment will remain in the proposal.** Non-negotiable. This is work completed and used, formally recognized by the DAO. * **We will not require Mary to complete a W9** as a precondition for payment. We refuse to force any cohort member to share sensitive financial information with someone whose conduct has made them unwilling to trust him. * **We will not split the proposal into individual invoices.** We negotiated collectively and will exit collectively. * **We will not sign off on any Grants Safe changes** until the exit is finalized, with clear terms requiring on-chain voting for all distributions. ---
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
SwarthyHatter
@swarthyhatter
## ✅ Our Ask of Bob and the DAO If you want a clean, good-faith resolution: * Pay people for the work you commissioned and used. * Stop manufacturing bureaucratic hurdles to avoid paying contributors. * Accept that administrative complexity is your responsibility as the organization — not ours. * Recognize that if you want cooperation on the Grants Wallet, you'll need to prove you're willing to govern it with transparency and collective accountability. We have demonstrated flexibility, made real concessions, and kept this private to preserve your reputation. But make no mistake: **we will not compromise our principles or allow anyone to be short-changed on the way out.** We are ready to finalize this exit in good faith — but we will not negotiate away integrity, fairness, or respect for the work that made City Nouns possible in the first place. **Consider this our line in the sand.**
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
