Neo Research’s participation in Proposal #152 clearly demonstrates why they should not hold voting power in GrantShares. Their endorsement was issued without any meaningful analysis, due diligence, or challenge to the applicant’s claims.
They did not request clarification, milestones, or measurable outputs. They simply appeared in the discussion to signal approval, even though nothing in the proposal met the GrantShares criteria for ecosystem value, builder activity, or deliverable planning. After endorsing the proposal, Neo Research made no effort to follow up on the promised deliverables, no attempt to verify progress, and no accountability review afterward.
The endorsement served as a rubber stamp, not an evaluation. When a voting member behaves as a passive validator rather than an independent reviewer, the DAO becomes a formality, not a governance system. Removing Neo Research from the voter set is necessary to protect trust in the process and to ensure that future decisions are based on competence, scrutiny, and responsibility rather than casual approval.
Proposal Info 📋
[ {
"target_contract" : "0xf15976ea5c020aaa12b9989aa9880e990eb5dcc9",
"method" : "removeMember",
"params" : [ {
"type" : "PublicKey",
"value" : "02b74c87e111ba8b570ef02a01d832fb7a5b473038992c5882859066ee3c3eb8d9"
} ],
"call_flags" : 11
} ]
👇 React with 👍 if you liked it, or 👎 if you think this proposal can be enhanced!
Neo Research’s participation in Proposal #152 clearly demonstrates why they should not hold voting power in GrantShares. Their endorsement was issued without any meaningful analysis, due diligence, or challenge to the applicant’s claims.
They did not request clarification, milestones, or measurable outputs. They simply appeared in the discussion to signal approval, even though nothing in the proposal met the GrantShares criteria for ecosystem value, builder activity, or deliverable planning. After endorsing the proposal, Neo Research made no effort to follow up on the promised deliverables, no attempt to verify progress, and no accountability review afterward.
The endorsement served as a rubber stamp, not an evaluation. When a voting member behaves as a passive validator rather than an independent reviewer, the DAO becomes a formality, not a governance system. Removing Neo Research from the voter set is necessary to protect trust in the process and to ensure that future decisions are based on competence, scrutiny, and responsibility rather than casual approval.
Proposal Info 📋
Proposal Type:
remove-memberMember Public Key:
0x02b74c87e111ba8b570ef02a01d832fb7a5b473038992c5882859066ee3c3eb8d9Member Address:
NZHQrdpxvNLtikcpibVXBRHhBLF6SAb9WTCreated by: @lock9 🚀
Proposal :
https://grantshares.io/app/details/b70a605a8c733bee373290f001627d2fLinked Proposal:
https://grantshares.io/app/details/1bc359cd073735be06a1d6c2eebe6c48Raw Intents: 👀
[ { "target_contract" : "0xf15976ea5c020aaa12b9989aa9880e990eb5dcc9", "method" : "removeMember", "params" : [ { "type" : "PublicKey", "value" : "02b74c87e111ba8b570ef02a01d832fb7a5b473038992c5882859066ee3c3eb8d9" } ], "call_flags" : 11 } ]👇 React with 👍 if you liked it, or 👎 if you think this proposal can be enhanced!