To the ASI & Ocean Communities: An Open Note on Governance and “Community” Assets
An Open Note to the ASI and Ocean Communities on Governance and “Community” Assets.
We’ve read Ocean’s new post. We respect that it is Ocean’s perspective. Rather than argue line‑by‑line, we invite everyone—across the ASI community and the Ocean community in particular—to look at publicly available documents and on‑chain facts, and draw your own conclusions. Ocean’s post itself provides useful starting points.
What Ocean says today about oceanDAO and Ocean Expeditions (OE).
Ocean states that oceanDAO is separate and “not controlled” by Ocean Protocol Foundation.
Ocean further states that in June 2025 the oceanDAO collective established a Cayman structure called Ocean Expeditions (OE), transferred oceanDAO assets to OE, and that Bruce Pon is the sole director of OE (while one of several keyholders).
Ocean’s post also records that on 1 July 2025, 661m OCEAN in the “Ocean community wallet” were converted into FET, and that OE ultimately raised about USD 22.4m for the “Ocean community.”
What earlier public materials said about these tokens.
In May 2023, Ocean’s own technical note stated that 719,100,000 OCEAN (51% of supply) were minted to a multisig “for community incentives,” with another 77,800,859 OCEAN sent to the oceanDAO multisig, and ownership of the OCEAN contract then renounced.
In the joint ASI Vision Paper (April 2024), Section B.4.1 (“Ocean Incentives Programs”) explains that “around 700M OCEAN tokens in multisigs and vesting contracts [are] designed for community incentives” and that post‑merge, those rewards would still be used for upcoming incentives programs. This was agreed upon by all three founding members.
Questions for the Ocean Community (asked in good faith)
When has oceanDAO functioned as a DAO in practice, beyond the grant‑distribution era? Specifically:
What on‑chain governance decisions (proposals, votes, executions) has oceanDAO made since the grants program?
Who selected the keyholders of the oceanDAO and successor OE wallets? By what process were they elected? What are their terms, and when are they up for re‑election?
Ocean’s current post emphasizes separation and independence of oceanDAO/OE; clear, on‑chain answers would help all of us understand how that independence is maintained in practice.
How did the oceanDAO → OE transfer occur, and who ultimately benefits?
Ocean’s post states that assets were transferred to a Cayman entity, OE, with Mr. Pon as sole director. For community reassurance, can Ocean publish: (i) corporate documents, including the shareholder register, (ii) the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO)’s identities and their ownership share, and (iii) the decision‑making and removal mechanisms for directors/keyholders? These are standard transparency items for any structure purportedly “for the benefit of the community.”
Were there community votes authorizing the July 1, 2025, conversion and subsequent dispositions?
Ocean’s post records the full 661m OCEAN → FET conversion on 1 July 2025, and later notes USD 22.4m raised. If these were “community assets,” where is the on‑chain signal (or even an archived off‑chain community mandate) authorizing:
(a) the conversion, and (b) subsequent sales, swaps, or placements?
Do the present actions align with the public commitment that these tokens are “for community incentives”?
The 2023 technical note and the Vision Paper §B.4.1 both characterize the ~700m OCEAN block as community‑incentives fuel, to be deployed for ecosystem growth programs—not as a discretionary treasury for off‑chain control by a handful of signatories. We invite Ocean to explain how current OE activities map to those publicly stated community‑incentives purposes.
What the wider community can check today
On‑chain activity.
Independent analytics (e.g., Bubble Maps and other explorers) have documented wallet flows associated with the oceanDAO/OE cluster around July–October 2025. We encourage everyone to review the data directly and form your own view:
Ocean’s post itself acknowledges the July 1, 2025 conversion and aggregate proceeds; those provide concrete anchors for your review.
Our position and next steps
Principle. Community‑earmarked assets should be governed transparently and used for community incentives, consistent with the shared understanding recorded before and throughout the ASI collaboration. We believe the fairest reading of the public record supports that norm.
Proposal. We invite Ocean to join an independent, time‑boxed community review led by neutral contributors to verify: (i) the governance basis for the OE structure and keyholder appointments, (ii) the mandate for major dispositions since July 2025, and (iii) a forward plan that returns decision‑rights to token‑holder‑driven processes for any remaining community‑earmarked funds.
No trial by blog. There are ongoing legal processes; we won’t litigate them in public. This note is not about blame. It is a request—for clarity, for governance, and for the community’s voice to matter where “community” assets are concerned.
Keep building. We remain focused on delivering open, decentralized AI and on safeguarding community trust. Thank you for taking the time to review the primary sources and reach your own conclusion.
Last updated