Huge Risk for the Free TON Decentralized Governance Principles: Stop this practice!

I appeal to the entire community to review consensus decisions in Ambassador Subgovernance in a decentralized and fair manner.

Yesterday (October 29, 2020), Ambassador Subgovernance approved by a majority vote of Initial Members a proposal to split Ambassador Subgovernance into two independent teams. This decision was supported by 5 active members out of 7. Here they are:

  • Dmitry bitjudge, Ilona amalfica, Anesthesia V., Alexandr Vat - YES
  • Michael Shapkin supported this decision in words but refused to vote. The correspondence has been saved and can be published.

#7 Ambassador Subgovernance Proposal: Split of Team and Budget - Status: PASSED

Forum topic with this proposal here Ambassador Subgovernance Proposal: Split of Team and Budget

A few hours later, I learned that Michael Shapkin had prepared a proposal that ignored the team’s previous proposal and decision. Here is this document:

I will explain the essence of what is written there:

One person proposes to the main Governance to annul the held and adopted consensus (vote of the Ambassador’ Team for the Split of Team and Budget), and by a strong-willed decision from above to approve the new membership of Ambassador Subgovernance members WITHOUT the team’s consent. In fact, it is coercion instead of decentralization.

It is very bad that the following definition is used as the argument in the draft document:

Several of the initial members taking it upon themselves as a small collective to make decisions for the entirety of the sub-governance based solely on their own collusive interests, and in less severe cases, simply treating it as a means to an income in exchange for little or no reciprocity.

Such a language is extremely dangerous because it undermines the foundations of decentralization. Here the fair majority of votes is replaced by the words “collusion of a group of persons”. If this practice becomes widespread, then the entire Free TON and ALL voting procedures can be considered in the future as “collusion of a group of persons”.

These are huge risks for Free TON’s decentralized governance principles. If accepted, you can say “Goodbye, decentralization.” Then any consensus and any independent vote with a majority decision can be overturned by main Governance forcibly. It is even more terrible than such a “solution” is proposed by one person in pursuit of his own personal interests.

Stop this practice before it starts.

Agree with the independent decision of the Ambassador Subgovernance team.

Act in the interest of Decentralization.

@Alex @XLR25t @p.prigolovko @Roman_D


I will duplicate my questions and thoughts here:
"Its a pity that it was too late for me to see what was happening. Colleagues, what is this? What do you mean “two separate teams”?

I don’t even want to get into details of what was happening there between you. But if you are not able to find consensus between 7 people, how are you planning to manage such a massive unit?
How many people participated in the subgovernance split vote? (signed with a key)

There is an impression that the only way out is disbandment of subgovernance and new nomination of a minimum 11-13-15 primary members."


I think you are misinterpreting this somewhat. The Ambassadors sub-gov’s budget was suspended due to internal turmoil that is well public by now. It is no longer up to your sub-gov to determine how a budget you are no longer owed gets split. Instead it is up to you to make new proposals to the global governance. That’s the part you skipped over. At this moment the vote isn’t the sub-govs, it’s global govs.


Вот краткий пост, который описывает, что произошло. На деле, все гораздо хуже. Грубость, хамство, маты, крики на созвонах со стороны Михаила и Дарьи - это то поведение, которое они считают нормальным. Сложно работать в подобной обстановке. Я тоже напишу свой пост.

Here’s a quick post that describes what happened. In fact, everything is much worse. Rudeness, rudeness, obscene vocabulary, screaming on the phone calls from Mikhail and Daria - this is the behavior that they consider normal. It is difficult to work in such an environment. I’ll write my post too.


I told you yesterday that you are not fully aware of the whole situation and are missing important details. The most important. Therefore, you create proposals that are not suitable in this particular situation. I supported your “decision” and will repeat it again here. To just move forward in a given situation. But voting for wrong things is not my forte. And no one has the right to force me. I can agree when I am left with no choice, why not. No problem.

In Free TON, anyone can suggest anything and discuss it with the community and any other people. Nobody has the right to prohibit this. We do not have an army and there is no need to attend a report. There is a forum, there are different chats and meetups. Come and discuss anything and with anyone.


I don’t know the situation from the inside, especially from both sides and objectively, I can only watch from the outside, especially since I am relatively new to the project. I hope that the conflict will be resolved soon in a mutually beneficial way and will not interfere with further work and development of the project and community.


Guys, who told you that you have to like each other? We are not on Tinder, for Christ’s sake.

Our community is continuously growing and more different people appear in it: with different origins, nationalities, beliefs and views.

You took on a great responsibility and you have to carry it with dignity. You have to be able to find common grounds, look out for compromises and reach consensus. An you did not even reach the stage of collaboration, but already started the “these are my toys, I brought them to the sandbox” talk. Are you serious?

And you are still keeping on talking about your interpersonal issues.


What if Ron and Roman had a fight tomorrow and tell us: guys, we can’t stay in one community anymore, therefore we will have two separ community FreeTONs) Lefts and Rights))


Why not solve conflicts with onchain community voting?


The problem is, it’s much worse than just a fight.

This isn’t a big deal, this voting should be globally and not subgovernance. All we need to do is to good alternatives to ease the situation. No need to take report hae same/equal right to do the thing that best solve the problem. @bitjudge


It’s simple:
Interested parties call.
The interested parties resolve their issues.
The subgovernance is not split.
If necessary, you need to create a proposal on fines for insults in the official circles of the community, since the participants consider this very reason one of the reasons for the conflict (in which the jury can vote, the fine is awarded by a majority vote)
There is a motivation to live in harmony and smooth corners and send your strength to the benefit of the project.
Although, I repeat, this scandalous PR campaign is cleverly invented. We need a similar scandal with Free TON. Type:
mass brawl on red square:
in the Free TON community, the participants could not find a consensus and started a massive fight. No casualties, the majority won :smiley:


This is of fundamental importance.
I do not want to offend you, but you probably do not fully understand the principles of Free TON decentralization.


Can you enlighten me on that? As far as I know, the nature risk of blockchain is 51% attack and it sounds similar with this decentralized governance principles. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m still new to this forum.

1 Like

Ребята, все очень легко решается нормальной прозрачной децентрализованной структурой.
А сейчас как было 8 месяцев назад централизация решений так ничего не изменилось особо. Пожалуйста давайте сформируем хорошую структурную основу, которая станет хорошим фундаментом для большого децентрализованного сообщества да десятилетие в перед.
Если вы согласны что система нуждается в улучшении нажмите “Yes”, если вас устраивает существующая система “NO”.
По опросу мы сможем определить насколько тема актуальна!!!

Guys, everything is very easily solved by a normal transparent decentralized structure.
And now, as it was 8 months ago, the centralization of decisions has not changed much. Please, let’s form a good structural foundation that will become a good foundation for a large decentralized community for a decade before.
If you agree that the system needs improvement press “Yes”, if you are satisfied with the existing system “NO”.
According to the survey, we will be able to determine how relevant the topic is !!! Thank you!!

do you agree that the system needs improvement?
  • Yes
  • NO

0 voters

As a topicstarter, I think it makes sense to close this thread due to the loss of relevance and limitation period. Anyone can start a discussion in a new topic.