Formal censure of Batman1241#6915 for taking action to inhibit Marinades Growth

I am initiating a vote to formally censure the actions of Batman1241#6915 for their pushing of actions that will undo the progress Marinade has made as a Defi Protocol. Limitations imposed by Batman1241 directly harm the potential of the Marinade Protocol.

Posting this as required by Tribeca

Note: This message would be the same whether I would support your viewpoint or his.

I don’t think that forbidding someone from talking or suggesting actions is the way to go. If the proposal by Batman1241 is harming the protocol in your eyes, your response should be to argue why and convince other MNDE holders.

The discussion is then taken to the voting booth and the community as a whole can vote and reflect the view they support and think is the most appropriate for Marinade.

I know that you believe this is one way to use decentralized governance, but I don’t support creating a DAO proposal to exclude someone from the discussion or from making suggestions. In a DAO, we fight and confront ideas, not people.


Please note Censuring would do nothing to silence Batman. Rather it documents in Marinades history the either pass or failing of the view. It’s like censuring a senator in the US it doesn’t do anything but log in the records what occured.

1 Like

To be honest I don’t have any ability to silence Batman or exclude him so I am a bit surprised that was your takeaway.

It’s an easy mistake to make, particularly given that the post does not indicate what do you expect to happen, beyond an onchain record of some votes going “tsk tsk” at @CryptoBatman.

Keep in mind that English is not everyone’s first language. The word censure literally means censorship in French, and it’s very close to how the act of censoring something is written in both Spanish and Italian (censura).

Anyone from those languages could easily have parsed this as “block their account”.


Fully agree I did not think from that perspective.


What did this user do? Is there a write-up somewhere with more specifics?

no there is not…but I need 20 characters to post

CryptoBatman posted a proposal that @LtLollipop disagreed with. That’s it.

nah more to it. It undermines and hinders the potential of the protocol. So bit more than not like it.

This proposal has been defeated. The final voting turnout was:

  • For: 2,044,203
  • Against: 10,324,186
  • Abstains: 335,703

I’ll be closing this thread as there are no follow-up actions.