Formal Appeal – Request for Review of Refresh Decision #407 (Coinsummer Channel)

[Fortneo]

Hi all,

I’d like to formally raise an appeal regarding the outcome of my latest refresh review (#407) for the Coinsummer channel.

In the previous review, governance explicitly instructed me to:
1. Sunset our other channel (MinerDAO).
2. Focus solely on Coinsummer with improved diligence and metrics.

I complied fully — including:
• Completing a GitHub account transition and team restructuring.
• Within the new channel scope, onboarding and engaging two new clients — both meeting gov standards for retrievability and redundancy;
• Passing the latest Watchdog review with no critical flags on clients or operations.

However, this refresh was still rejected — primarily citing historical on-chain data from clients no longer under my responsibility. This contradicts the intent of the refresh process, which should reflect the current operational state of a restructured allocator.

I publicly clarified this transition and the removal of legacy clients, but it appears this context was not considered in the decision. Given that all requested corrective actions were implemented and verified, this outcome feels inconsistent and unfair.

Key governance question:

Should a refreshed allocator that has restructured and passed current Watchdog standards still be judged by legacy data unrelated to its present operations?

I respectfully request that governance members review this case and provide clarification — and that my significant improvements in meeting installation standards and operational outcomes be reasonably reflected in the evaluation.

Tagging: @Kevin-FF-USA @galen-mcandrew

Thank you for your attention.

Relevant link：
Slack：https://filecoinproject.slack.com/archives/C06MTBZ44P2/p1754545115069339
Previous review： #333 (comment)
Github changed : filecoin-project/Allocator-Registry#421
Detailed clarification : #407 (comment)

[Amin-Foundation]

Thank you for your appeal and for the steps you have taken to restructure your operations under Coinsummer!

That said, the compliance review must take into account both current and historical activity tied to the allocator. Those include:

• Legacy client performance (in reference to your first refresh request in May
• Unresolved documentation gaps (preventing the community watchdog team to conduct spot audits both in your first and second refresh request)
• Previous governance concerns (e.g., DataCap hoarding, duplication of allocation operations, etc)

Those elements continue to weigh heavily on the overall evaluation. While improvements are recognized, they are not yet sufficient to reverse the recommendation.

We encourage you to continue strengthening transparency, client diligence process and to reapply in a future cycle when new pathways are required. In the meantime, there are 100+ pathways available for DC to any clients/datasets you wish to support. We are confident that with sustained improvements, Coinsummer can return as a stronger allocator with a strong team at the helm!

Cc: @Kevin-FF-USA