ACC Q1 2026 Payment – Issue with Retroactive Application

General
22

hi @CJorgeSaez

Thank you for your response.

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the ambiguity around Ref #54 and that this discussion has led to improvements in future governance processes.

That said, I think one point continues to be misunderstood: I have never argued for a correction that would apply only to me. The ambiguity affected all contributors whose work was performed before the referendum and subsequently subjected to its retroactive application.

My disagreement is also not with the principle of consistency itself, but with how it is being applied.

If consistency is the principle being protected, then consistency should also apply to the compensation framework that was in place when the work was performed, especially when that framework was the only one whose scope had been explicitly defined at the time.

I also do not believe the only available options were either maintaining the status quo or imposing a correction on contributors who did not want one. Applying the originally established framework to all affected contributors, while allowing individuals to voluntarily return any additional compensation if they wished, was also a possible path.

What I continue to find difficult to reconcile is that everyone now agrees there was an ambiguity significant enough to warrant procedural changes going forward, yet the conclusion is that the consequences of that ambiguity should remain entirely unchanged.

To me, acknowledging a problem, implementing safeguards to prevent it from happening again, but refusing to remedy the consequences it had for those affected, is not consistency — it is avoiding accountability.

That remains the core of my disagreement with the outcome.

23

Hi @Mouthmouth68

Thank you for taking the time to further explain your position.

I believe your argument is clear, and I do not think our disagreement stems from a misunderstanding of the facts or even from a disagreement about the existence of the ambiguity itself. As you pointed out, there is now broad agreement that the implementation of Ref #54 contained enough ambiguity to justify procedural improvements going forward.

I also appreciate your clarification that your position has never been about seeking a correction exclusively for yourself, but rather about how the ambiguity affected all contributors whose work was performed before the referendum and later became subject to its implementation.

I understand your view that acknowledging the ambiguity could justify corrective action for those affected, and this was in fact one of the main options discussed throughout our deliberations.

To be completely transparent, my own reading at the time was that the new compensation framework would likely take effect starting in Q2, given that the referendum was approved near the end of Q1. However, as you know from your own experience in governance, the discussion was not simply about whether compensation should be adjusted for those affected by the transition.

Each potential course of action had to be carefully weighed against its broader implications, not only for the ACC but for all governance bodies and contributors impacted by the implementation of the new framework. For that reason, after evaluating the different options and their consequences, we concluded that maintaining the implemented governance outcome was the most appropriate path, while also acknowledging that the process itself lacked sufficient clarity.

From my perspective, this was not an attempt to avoid accountability. On the contrary, both the ACC and the Main Council have publicly recognized that the implementation process created ambiguity and that improvements were needed. The decision ultimately reached was not based on denying that ambiguity existed, but on determining how it should be addressed after considering all available options.

While I respect that others may weigh those considerations differently and arrive at a different conclusion, both personally and as an ACC member, I believe the decision reached was the most appropriate one under the circumstances.

Regardless of where each of us stands on the outcome, I believe this discussion has been valuable for the ecosystem. It highlighted an area where governance processes could be strengthened, encouraged important conversations around clarity and implementation, and ultimately led to improvements that should help prevent similar situations in the future.

Thank you again for raising your concerns, for your contributions during your time on the ACC, and for engaging constructively throughout this discussion. :astr: