So long as foundation mandate remains unchanged, the hub stays in funding scope imo
I’ve found ICF transparency reporting from 2017-2022 to be frequently misleading.
In ideal world, there would be enough publicly available information for Ash to satisfy his regulators.
Typically reports are without context on what was founded and why.
The 2022 report doesn’t mention the failure of Tendermint team, the collapse of Interchain Berlin and how that led to many of the current funding dilemmas.
The opacity is so unnecessary.
3 Likes
I am asking myself why we don’t have an accounting chain/accounting rollup, we are all involved in the crypto industry and we still don’t have a publicly open solution. This would solve so many problems…
Definitely stays in funding scope for the ICF IMV.
I think ICF allocating a part of the budget to the community pool to be used for Cosmos Hub development is a great solution. It increases decentralization, reduces reliance of ICF on Cosmos Hub and still provides financial support to continue growing the Cosmos Hub.
1 Like
Definitely agree that for most of the ICF’s history, public reporting was not sufficient. I thought the last report was very good, though your points are fair and maybe should have been included.
1 Like
To your comment about founder having nothing to do with a foundation – I think that depends on what kind of rights are enshrined in the charter and bylaws.
A Swiss foundation has no owners and shareholders, and the reason serious mandates married to serious money choose the legal form of a Swiss foundation is the foundation board’s job is to strictly adhere to the use of funds to realize purpose.
When you review the special privileges a founder retains under Swiss code, I don’t think it’s correct to say a founder has nothing to do with it after it’s made.
So you are correct that the bylaws could specify some ongoing role for the founder after the foundation is established. But this is not the case for the ICF. There was no ongoing role specified for the founder. So in this case, indeed, the founder had no rights and obligations any point after establishment.
1 Like
I agree. It feels a bit cart before horse, however. While the ICF says the hub is “ready” to keep teams accountable, my observation is it is not. It’s more aspirational and wishful thinking. This proposal has become unreasonably contentious and confusing bc the objective merit of the ask from Informal is difficult to establish with no meaningful information or context re: how much ICF has spent supporting Informal over the years. For what and how much (with exclusion to 2022 report) is unknown.
I’ve said this in other threads and channels, and forgive the redundancy. If you want the hub to become a partner in your distributed development and funding model, empower us with information.
To Zaki’s point, what has been made available is selective and at times misleading. We can reduce the volume of controversy with more complete transparency actions from the foundation.
Just put the stuff on chain… seriously… why can’t we track the funds reserved for the HUB on a chain, 90% of the stuff has to be solved with smart contracts
- you apply for grants
- you get the grant
- deposit money in a smart contract
- money gets vested over time, you have to reach certain milestones
Everyone can follow the development
2 Likes
The foundation doesn’t have any reporting requirements to SK government, but the founder of ICF does.
The relevant SK authority does not inform or notify the ICF in this case. Notice of, and standards for reporting requirements are conveyed to Ash directly, the founder. What they’re trying to establish is to what extent, if at all, has he gained an economic benefit from creating Interchain Foundation?
The SK government is presuming that as founder, Ash has access to the information you are denying him.
I don’t get it. It seems unnecessarily hostile withholding information when the information request derives from a person’s need to be in compliance with his country’s laws.
Why can’t you put it under the cover of an NDA and just share and be done with it?
2 Likes
You say that Ash was under the impression he has been on the board then entire time.
Why would he apply if he believes himself to already be on the board/council?
I find it hard to believe he actually thought he was on the board. Certainly he didn’t attend a single meeting, sent an email or did anything else that a board member usually does.
3 Likes
According to @crainbf : “Ash claims that some promises were made for him to be added to the Foundation Council 6.5 years ago. But no current FC members have any knowledge of this and, again, he was never added.”
Hi Ash, thank you for sharing your statement.
If possible, can you clarify what you mean by “contractual request?”
As far as your expectations for FC seat, is this belief predicated on a “request,” a “promise” or a contract?
1 Like
If your objective is to minimize the influence of ICF on the hub, your validator Chorus One should have abstained, rather than voting YES on 839.
Your pro 839 lobbying can be perceived as exerting influence on how the hub spends community pool’s funds. Your many statements re: 839 funding request expresses an unambiguous managerial interest (from the ICF), ser.
Mere sharing of development/maintenance cost does not translate into sufficiently decentralized influence or authority. You’re using the reach and pulpit of your role as President of FC to induce an outcome; and you’ve added 1.52% vp from your validator to secure it.
Does not sound or appear to be decentralized.
1 Like
so Notional will vote NO or abstain?
This reply should be pinned!
Someone thinks they have a job, doesn’t say or do anything for 6+ years, and then comes and says “yo, wat up”…gtfo 
I say GTFO with all due respect - I’m sure he was a key person back in the day…but seriously, 6 years later you notice you’re not on the board?!?
I don’t even know how to fit this storyarch in my Netflix Cosmos Drama show…
To be fair it doesn’t sound like he asked for a “job.” And we should wait to hear both sides.
What has been confirmed from both sides is that there was an information request for financial reporting and it was denied.
The ‘someone thinks he’s got a job’ was the translation Brian made, Ash was only requesting the documents for SK’s regulator. Like Cosmos_Nanny mentioned ICF’s public documents should have been sufficient for this SK requirement but they weren’t, hence the request by Ash. You need to ask ICF why cannot them give him such documents as the funding documents itself should be transparent. Someone also mentioned putting the funding on chain and Brian has yet to respond. I’ll hold my vote until all these are clear.
1 Like
I will believe this as soon as @crainbf or @Ash_Han posts the actual emails sent.
Otherwise it is totally possible that this isn’t the case.
Folks, this is why you’re always seeing screenshots from me.
@crainbf if dude showed up after 6.5 years thinking he had a role, prove it.
@Ash_Han I don’t know what you need to ask of the icf, but my recommendation to you is to place as much information about your requests to the icf in the full public domain as possible because it then enters the record of events around the hub.
Folks if this is a simple situation where @Ash_Han just needs some info for a new reporting requirement then it makes no sense not to give it to him.
Additionally, refusal to give @Ash_Han information means the foundation has financial information that is has not released.
Proposal 787 stipulates full financial transparency.
2 Likes
Unfortunately it is looking more like veto.
- Amulet continues to make false claims about what notional reported
- Informal continues to attempt retaliation against notional for making a security report
@ebuchman @crainbf Do my comments there look like Spam?
Because I think those comments are a bunch of links that are directly related to why we are removing the mempool.
Bucky, you’ve been retaliating as well. Unless of course you can prove, as you claimed, that I was making threatening statements. Prove it @ebuchman , prove it now!
… I have asked you numerous times in public and in private to prove it. Did you hallucinate it? Were you high on acid? I really don’t know how else You can come to these conclusions.
In a sane software ecosystem, when somebody makes a bug report on something enormous, you say “thank you”.
-
Notional feels it is in the hubs best interest for informal systems to have nothing to do with the cosmos .
-
Notional feels that continued funding to informal systems puts the entire cosmos at risk. Their CEO and some members of their engineering teams have not been honest.
-
Notional feels that the ICF is in fragrant violation of proposal 787, and if it were in compliance with 787, all of this information would already be public and Ash would have no questions whatsoever.
1 Like