As a holder of $ROOK tokens, I want to express my concerns arising from the discussions that have taken place within the community in recent weeks. After the post made by IconiumBCV (KIP: Improve ROOK Token Model), greater attention was sparked within the community regarding the current situation of the ROOK token within the protocol. This has led to various discussions among members of the community, and the effect has been, in my opinion, positive. In addition to benefiting from a slight rise in the ROOK token, the community has become active in pushing the team to focus on a necessary update of the project’s tokenomics. An example of this is the second proposal made by @rhizobtc (KIP Draft: Rook DAO Acquisition of ROOK). While the community has demonstrated a proactive demand for change, the team, and in particular the CEO @hazard, has had a rather questionable attitude.
In the past few days, two proposals were voted on:
- KIP-42: Extend KIP-26 Through Q2 2023 (Extend the leadership)
- KIP-43: Q1 and Q2 2023 Labs Budget Request
The voting results clearly show a part of the community that is not satisfied with the results obtained by the leadership.
The proposals have gained viral attention on Twitter, and particularly, the focus of the outside world is on the community’s dissatisfaction with leadership that has access to substantial budgets but fails to deliver meaningful results. This has resulted in a negative market reaction in terms of the price action of the $ROOK token.
Following this, there has been a large influx of new users on Discord, and while this should be a benefit for the project, the CEO’s reception has been questionable, as shown in the attached responses from the public Discord.
Honestly, I believe that the responses provided by the CEO represent a red alert for both the current community and external observers who are monitoring what is happening within this DAO. This attitude reminds me of something… Terra’s Meltdown and the Humbling of Do Kwon
The opinion of both the community and the market is clear, and such an attitude from a CEO who describes the governance token as valueless and insults the community by calling them a bunch of stoned individuals who do not understand the mechanism of a governance token and the protocol itself is neither professional, useful, nor promising for the future but instead is just creating a toxic environment.