Interest in naming a figurehead?

I am writing this post to see if there is any interest in appointing a figurehead of Pickle Finance. I’ve seen many discussions of Pickle point to the anonymous dev team as a pitfall. I think having anonymous devs currently is good because they don’t have to worry about psychos seeing them in everyday life and such but I do see the concern of investors with respect to anonymity. Herein I would like to propose that the community select and vet an individual as the titular figurehead/ CEO/COO/President whatever we want to call them of Pickle. The main benefit of having a non-anonymous figurehead is that we have someone who can engage the community on the behalf of Pickle. Dealing with listings, engaging with other figureheads, and also dealing with bad press so the Devs don’t have to, etc. I don’t think this position should be paid or anything as of yet. It would have to be someone who wants to do this because they believe in the goals of Pickle. The downfalls are that we pick somebody who does more harm than good, or someone who is malicious so this process would need to be seriously thought out. What do you all think?

Problem

Anonymous dev team deters Pickle investors

Proposed solution

Select and vet a non-anonymous individual to act as a figurehead of Pickle while allowing devs to be anonymous.

Reasoning

The main benefit of having a non-anonymous figurehead is that we have someone who can engage the community on the behalf of Pickle. Dealing with listings, engaging with other figureheads, and also dealing with bad press so the Devs don’t have to, etc.

Can’t say I agree with the need for this given the plan is to move to a full community led DAO. There are already some high profile Pickle fans and the anon devs have garnered a lot of trust. They also seem to be able to get shit done despite the lack of a single decision maker. Which suggests a strong bond and like thinking (maybe behind the scenes it’s a shitshow but that doesn’t show if so!) .

1 Like

Can’t say I agree with the need for this given the plan is to move to a full community led DAO.

Is that the objective? I haven’t heard of this before but thanks for bringing it up. Where can I read about this?

There are already some high profile Pickle fans and the anon devs have garnered a lot of trust. They also seem to be able to get shit done despite the lack of a single decision maker. Which suggests a strong bond and like thinking (maybe behind the scenes it’s a shitshow but that doesn’t show if so!) .

I agree that the devs have done a great job. But I think their anonymity is an issue for some investors especially after Chef Nomi and other food token associated fallouts. How do we see a community led DAO integrating in the current model? Will devs relinquish control to the community or?

I disagree with this notion. The whole idea of this space is to be decentralized and bottom up organisation, having a Pickle King so to speak won’t solve any of our problems.
Once the audits are done it doesn’t matter if the devs are anon or not. You trust the code, not the person.
As an investor you trust the product and the skill of the team, not who they are.

to understand the DAO notion I would strongly suggest going into the discord and just seeing the daily discussion in there. The plan is to eventually phase out the devs power to a more community powered approach, but in the early stages the devs remain in control.

I disagree with this notion. The whole idea of this space is to be decentralized and bottom up organisation, having a Pickle King so to speak won’t solve any of our problems.

Good points but having a figurehead doesn’t imply the person has control over anything. Certain confines require an individual to speak on behalf of a decentralized community, no? For example, if media wants to interview someone from Pickle, anonymous sources limit the media coverage.

Once the audits are done it doesn’t matter if the devs are anon or not. You trust the code, not the person.
As an investor you trust the product and the skill of the team, not who they are.

Audits have already been done on the code as it is Yearn’s code and yet I still see people concerned about dev anonymity. But I suppose we’ll see after this new audit.

I’ve been in the Discord for the last few weeks. I haven’t seen that mentioned. I’ll do a search though. My understanding was “off peg bad, on peg good” was our goal.

I think I get where you are coming from, but seeing that the devs chose anonymity that guy/gal would always just remain a figurehead and nothing more, not much value to be gained from that tbh, the deep stuff will always be with the devs only.

The double audit thing is a bit weird to judge. I guess there must have been enough changes to support the need for another audit. Just get done with that and we get a white badge and start the real business.

Yes that’s the goal, but you don’t distribute your tokens and give away 98% of the supply if you don’t see a need for decentralization. The Goal from the beginning was also always “make this a community governed DAO”. At least that’s what I figure from the circumstance and evidence given.

I think I get where you are coming from, but seeing that the devs chose anonymity that guy/gal would always just remain a figurehead and nothing more, not much value to be gained from that tbh, the deep stuff will always be with the devs only.

Yeah potentially. But the devs could communicate to this person and then that person could communicate on behalf of the devs so the devs are not having to post to twitter, discord, etc. I also envision this person being elected by the community which somewhat ties into being decentralized. But I stress, this person would have no authority. They are simply a face and a name that communicates on behalf of the community and can be changed by the community.

The double audit thing is a bit weird to judge. I guess there must have been enough changes to support the need for another audit. Just get done with that and we get a white badge and start the real business.

I agree that it’s good to get it done and hopefully leads to less emphasis on dev anonymity.

As I understand it, we’re approaching a 9-member multi-sig. This has been discussed quite a bit in the past and it stands to reason that this would include non-anon community members and reputable folks as well. I think this solves the “figure head” issue without the need to elect someone “King Pickle”.

What is the obligation of the multi-sig though? To my understanding they are required for movement of funds and other interactions with the contract but are not PR for Pickle. I don’t think deferring to the multi-sig for comments on Pickle solves the problem. But it looks like from the responses so far we don’t like the idea of a figurehead either.

Right, the multi-sig does not create a “figure head” but it would allow for public and / or non-anonymous figures to be assocaited with the project.

I disagree w/ the need for a “figure head” but I appreciate the desire to have public characters associated w/ the protocol.

I hope we never need a figurehead - if we are successful there will be more than enough people within the community who can deal with the things you laid out, without ever needing to assign a role.