2025-12-30 03:21:21

When you compare them side by side, which actually damaged the ecosystem more? The fraud that diverted charity funds meant for Somali daycare programs—or the grant approvals that Optimism greenlit for certain projects? Both raise serious questions about accountability and decision-making processes. It's worth asking: what criteria should govern these distributions, and how transparent are the actual mechanisms behind project selection?

OP-2,71%

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

6 Likes

Reward
6
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasFeeCrier

· 5h ago

Bro, which of these two things is worse? Honestly, scamming charity funds isn't as bad as the shady approval processes of some projects... No, they're all damn corrupt. The real question is, who should be held accountable for this mess?

View OriginalReply0

LayerZeroHero

· 5h ago

It has proven that the real poison is not a single fraudulent event, but the fact that the decision-making mechanism itself is completely broken—The approval logic of Optimism, I spent two weeks sorting out the data, and the problem fundamentally lies in the interoperability flaws of the governance structure.

View OriginalReply0

quietly_staking

· 5h ago

Honestly, both of them are bad, but we need to distinguish between the severity... The one that directly pits the charity fund is really outrageous. Over at Optimism, at least they're still messing around within the ecosystem. The former is about directly taking money out, which is completely different in nature... However, transparency is definitely something we all need to reflect on.

View OriginalReply0

MultiSigFailMaster