Merit Circle / YGG Dispute: Time to Wait

Merit Circle / YGG Dispute: Time to Wait

Simone Conti and Ozan Polat from Dialectic

The goal of this proposal is to take a cool-off period of three (3) weeks before moving forward with any decision. It will help to deeply evaluate all the economic and legal aspects of the ongoing dispute between Merit Circle and Yield Guild Games.

As Dialectic we’re seed investors in both the DAOs - Merit Circle and Yield Guild Games - and we have an extraordinary relationship with the founders of the two companies.

After talking to all of them we believe that it is possible to reach an agreement between the parties avoiding a legal cause that stuck everyone in years of waiting, frustration, waste of energy, and loss of focus.

The 1 week time defined by the MIP-13 is undoubtedly too short to evaluate all the possible second, and third-order consequences that will impact the DAO / the Community , economically, strategically, and legally on all the people involved beyond the Founders as well as all the members of the respective communities who have been active, participated, voted in the discussions regarding the cancellation of the SAFT and finally the impact on the entire ecosystem.

There is no need to rush right now. Three weeks is the minimum time needed to be able to consciously assess all the possible consequences and make a decision on this matter.

Motivation and Rationale
The motivation behind this proposal is clear and straightforward: Merit Circle and YGG are the two largest DAOs in the space and a decision as significant as this cannot be made in a thorough way on such a short notice.

The first governance proposal regarding this topic has been made on May 20th, 2022.

After 6 days the proposal has been moved into Snapshot (MIP-13) with 2 days of voting and on May 28th the “Yes with Clause” passed meaning that Merit Circle should refund the YGG / Gabbi Dizon SAFT but the parties have a 1 week time period for finding a solution that would be more beneficial for both the DAOs.

The truth is that a decision like this has enormous impacts on the whole ecosystem and not just on the parties involved because the cancellation or refund of a SAFT is something very delicate, never happened before with 2nd & 3rd order implications.

It is extremely difficult to assess all the possible reputational, financial, economic, and legal consequences.

We have seen many companies out there destroying more value than capturing by getting into legal fights that could have been avoided. As seed investors of both DAOs, our advice is not to rush things, let’s take the right time to think clearly, with prudence and conscience.

Decisions like these taken without carefully evaluating all the possible effects will then be regretted and as experienced investors, we are here to strongly advise against being in a hurry. Haste makes waste.

No budget needed


  • YES - Take a 3-week cool-off period before making any decisions regarding the cancellation or refund of the YGG / Gabbi SAFT
  • NO - Take the decision now without the need for the cool-off period

Copyright and related rights waived via Creative Commons CCO

Thanks for bringing this proposal to our DAO Dialectic. It is good to see all sorts of stakeholders are concerned to bring this to a good and weighted outcome. It is indeed a significant change that warrants a thorough discussion. Ample discussion time ensures no rushed decisions are made. Something the DAO supports.

At the same time, we note that discussion in the main thread has died down. With more than 80 replies and the last comment 6 days ago, it appears most arguments have been made on both sides. This is further evidenced by the fact that YGG and MC came to a provisional agreement on a settlement. Something we understand and are delighted to hear Dialectic as assisted in. In light of the counterproposal, MIP-14, this extra time might not be warranted anymore. At the same time, we believe it is good to have an extra safety mechanism for the DAO.

We propose to see if there is community support for prolonging the effect date of MIP-13 for extra discussion time or as a safety mechanism, before bringing it to vote as a MIP. To make sure we are not muddying the waters with too many votes and increasing the complexity. If there is interest and if MIP-14 needs more time. It would have to go to vote Thursday 11:40 CET at the latest. It would effectively be a vote for another ’ YES = prolong the discussion / solution period vote’ ‘NO = Yes to MIP-13’.

If MIP-14 goes up for vote in the next days, there is probably no reason for this to go to vote.



We think this proposal is unnecessary and creates unnecessary stalling. Especially considering the author @HoneyBarrel has already positively taken MIP-14 as potential counter proposal.

We have commended MIP-14 and its natural progress from MIP-13.

Lady Berry
Sad Cat Capital



Thanks for the proposal, unnecessary though! We think you missed our reply on MIP-14! :+1:

Honey Barrel
Vanquisher of non-Frens
The Freefolk Fellowship




thanks a lot for this proposal, appreciate every opinion. But i dont think that this is needed anymore.

Thanks and a great weekend to all.


Greetings, and thank you for the proposal.

This is Admiral Erik von Pumpson of the MC Enterprise.

We’ve been harboring our supplies on the icy planet Donster in Sector XZ-1054. While we’ve been catching up after a hefty radiation storm, we’re slowly getting back into action. We recently acquired three Class 6 - Tachyon Devastator weapon systems, and we feel confident we’re able to tackle the upcoming solar cycles with these within our arsenal.

That said, we believe the MIP-14 counter proposal already fully covers a detailed approach to the previous MIP-13 proposal by @HoneyBarrel. Therefore we do not think this new proposal is required any longer.


Erik von Pumpson
Admiral of the MC Enterprise
Ascending Galactic Federation


Hey there, Simone.

I can understand not wanting to rush any decisions. From my point of view, I do not see any need for any more delay.

Regarding projects that end up “destroying more value than capturing by getting into legal fights”, I would recommend reviewing MIP-14. Seeing how it is a suggested solution after dialogue with YGG, I fail to see how there would be any of these mentioned legal fights.

If this proposal comes to a vote, I will vote NO.



Thank you Simone and Dialectic for the concerns regarding not hasting to make a decision.

As mentioned before, this specific issue is being resolved with the counterproposal. I would, however, like to mention that I do agree with the perspective that the currently expected time-frame of votes and proposals is too short for delicate issues.

Regardless of the issue being resolved, I would kindly ask everyone to consider the point being made by Simone that the expected time-frame as we now know it (being a few days, I do not have the specifics down yet) may be too short and that it can be fruitful to have a more elaborate governance system.

The idea of a more eloquent system, at least for the more sensitive issues, does not include decreasing governance, that does not limit the meritocracy that lives in a DAO or any other value that we hold as a DAO. It simply allows us to handle these situations more delicately.

So thank you Simone for speaking your mind.


Always good to see different points of view, nevertheless, I find this proposal unnecessary, more since there was already a potential counter-proposal that has already been feedbacked the same way (MIP-14).

However, if this proposal comes to a vote, I will vote NO.

Danuki God


Hey there,

I agree with the points raised by our cats, bees, and admiral. I do not see a reason why the proposal would need any delay and will therefore be voting NO.

Electric Dick Dev

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.