We would like to inform you that Beergang DAO will resign from the Kaia Governance Council effective 30 April 2026.
The Kaia Foundation will proceed with the necessary offboarding process to ensure continuity and stability of the network.
Thank you for your understanding and continued support.
Beergang DAO의 사임 공지를 보았습니다.
하지만 단순히 "사임합니다"라는 공지로 끝날 문제가 아니라고 생각합니다.
Kaia Foundation에 묻고 싶습니다.
Beergang DAO는 GC 활동 기간 동안 재단으로부터 위임받은 물량을 기반으로 검증인 역할을 수행해 왔습니다.
그렇다면 사임에 앞서 커뮤니티는 최소한 다음 사항들을 확인할 권리가 있지 않습니까?
GC 신청 당시 제시했던 공약과 목표는 무엇이었습니까?
그중 실제로 달성한 내용은 무엇입니까?
달성하지 못한 내용은 무엇입니까?
위임받은 물량을 통해 발생한 보상은 총 얼마였습니까?
해당 보상은 어떤 용도로 사용되었습니까?
Kaia 생태계에 어떤 구체적인 성과를 남겼습니까?
현재 구조에서는 GC가 들어올 때는 화려한 계획과 비전을 제시하지만, 나갈 때는 성과 평가 없이 조용히 퇴장하는 것처럼 보입니다.
이것이 반복된다면 커뮤니티는 GC 제도의 실효성을 신뢰하기 어려울 것입니다.
특히 재단으로부터 위임받은 자산을 기반으로 활동한 GC라면, 사임 시점에 반드시 성과 보고와 평가가 함께 공개되어야 한다고 생각합니다.
신규 GC를 계속 선발하는 것보다 먼저 필요한 것은 기존 GC들이 무엇을 약속했고, 무엇을 달성했으며, 생태계에 어떤 가치를 남겼는지 투명하게 공개하는 것입니다.
Kaia Foundation의 공식적인 답변을 요청합니다.
I have seen the announcement regarding Beergang DAO’s resignation from the Governance Council.
However, I do not believe a simple resignation notice is sufficient.
I would like to ask the Kaia Foundation the following questions.
During its tenure as a GC member, Beergang DAO operated using Foundation-delegated stake.
Before its departure, doesn’t the community deserve clear answers regarding its performance and contributions?
Specifically:
What commitments and objectives did Beergang DAO make when it applied to become a GC member?
Which of those commitments were successfully fulfilled?
Which commitments were not fulfilled?
How much validator and staking-related reward was generated during its tenure?
How were those rewards utilized?
What measurable value was created for the Kaia ecosystem?
At present, the process appears one-sided.
GC applicants present ambitious plans and promises when joining, but when leaving, there seems to be no transparent review of what was actually delivered.
If this becomes the norm, it will be difficult for the community to evaluate the effectiveness and accountability of the Governance Council system.
Particularly for GC members that operated with Foundation-delegated assets, a public performance review should be a minimum requirement before offboarding.
Before adding new GC members, the community deserves transparency regarding what existing and departing GC members promised, what they delivered, and what value they ultimately created for the ecosystem.
I respectfully request an official response from the Kaia Foundation.