asking for an audit is fair,
but why this “declaration of non confidence” part?
it’s quite sad you have some good ideas and they’re always hided behind the strong resentment you have towards the ICF and Informal.
btw no one is talking about both Grace and Jacob’s past jobs that put them in some kind of conflict of interest.
this initiative should come from anybody but the two of you.
It’s because we have no confidence in the leadership of the ICF
That’s the definition of permissioned.
I did not author the proposal by the way.
The total extent of my involvement with it is to populate numbers.
A day or two ago I wrote code, referenced in my remarks, that counted the number of BTC and eth donated in the fundraiser.
Thanks @jacobgadikian if this is so then i still conclude the Yes vote is still convoluted
Really appreciate the feedback.
I’m not the author of this proposal, so I can’t modify it, but if you do have any suggestions about how to improve the text on the yes vote, I that would be very good
Hi Govmos,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
To be clear, petitioning the FSAF to initiate an audit is not “threatening to take legal action.”
The community is simply submitting a sentiment – signaling it’s desire to the relevant supervisory authority as to why a comprehensive audit is warranted.
The term “legal audit” is imprecise and potentially misleading. All audits conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations are, by definition, legal. The legality of an audit is presumed unless proven otherwise.
In Switzerland, auditors operate under the purview of the Audit Oversight Act (AOA). This legislation imposes strict professional standards and legal obligations on auditors. Any intentional misrepresentation or material inaccuracy in audit findings could expose the auditor to criminal liability under Swiss law.
To clarify, an audit becomes “illegal” not due to its nature or designation, but rather when it fails to adhere to established auditing standards or when it involves fraudulent practices. This might include falsification of financial statements, deliberate omission of material information, or other actions that compromise the integrity and accuracy of the audit process.
It’s more appropriate to discuss audits in terms of their compliance with professional standards, accuracy, and adherence to legal requirements, rather than using the ambiguous phrase “legal audit.”
There is no better statement to summarize our standpoint. We endorse a no-confidence vote as one option in the future timeline, we just believe the timing isn’t appropriate for now. We sincerely hope this initiative will come from the ICF itself, which would deliver more effective results. We acknowledge that some older historic actors in the Cosmos, like you, may be “sick and tired of waiting”, but this may not be representative of the general community, among which some may have less opinionated visions. This is where we position ourselves at this moment in time, we remain open to aligning with your perspective at a later stage. In the meantime, allow us to remain optimistic!
Thank you for your comments.
The decision to combine a vote of no confidence with a petition for an audit of the ICF is rooted in strategic and pragmatic considerations.
First, a standalone vote of “no confidence”, while expressing dissatisfaction, lacks enforceable outcomes and may be perceived as lacking substantive utility. There is precedent for governance proposals that, while morally resonant, fail to effect tangible change.
The proposal submitted by Notional last April, demanding full financial disclosures from the ICF, serves as a case in point. Despite its passage, it did not materially alter the foundation’s behavior or transparency practices.
Moreover, the ICF’s repeated delays in fulfilling commitments to financial disclosure - such as the still-unreleased 2023 annual report promised for early 2024 - underscore the inefficacy of mere requests or expressions of dissatisfaction.
The combination of a no-confidence vote with a petition for an audit serves multiple purposes:
The structure of the proposal aims to empower the community with both voice and agency, transforming a potentially ineffectual expression of disapproval into a mechanism for initiating substantive examination and potential reform of the ICF’s practices.
In essence, the reasoning for the proposal’s approach is such – we are seeking to address the pattern of non-disclosure and non-responsiveness to community concerns alongside an opportunity to petition for actionable change through an intermediary that possesses the legal authority to exercise intervention.
100% agree. That would be the best outcome and a really positive signal.
who is we?
no, that’s the definition of: when you claim being a conflict of interest’ hunter, you step aside and let the true and neutral community do or not do this kind of proposal targeting people you used to work with/ people you have professional resentment for.
both Grace and you are not proposing this in good faith. you’re settling scores again and again with former colleagues waaaay more than act for the good of the community.
a simple audit seeking would have been enough. but when egos are talking…
you’re not even aware you’re part of the problem Atom has.
mutes thread
This is a huge paradox my friend =)
Firstly, can we not collectively thank Cosmos_Nanny for the hard work in attempting to fight for greater accountability/transparency? It is clearly needed.
Through the election of a new council board, I agree that there is definite possibility for the lack of confidence to be cured, however as Jacob G. stated:
I also recall a post reminding the community that the annual report has still yet to be seen.
I don’t believe any one account can speak/represent, let alone claim this phrase, “entire community,” as there are clear cliques (completely normal, not complaining) within the ecosystem.
Looking forward to this prop going on chain. A full vote of confidence in this signal prop.
I’m all in for this proposal in its current form, as we indeed need more transparency here.
Not sure if I’d vote differently or not if it would include other items such as disbanding ICF or something similar, as for that we need the numbers which we do not have yet. But the audit seems like a nice step that can be used by the community to decide what to do with this audit result later on.
Ideal approach here though would be for ICF to publish the audit by themselves, that would also show the desire of them to be more transparent, but if that won’t happen, requesting for the audit in the official way is the way to go I’d say.
On behalf of Quokka Stake validator,
Sergey.
(Just to say, for me it’s not about pointing fingers or blaming or something similar, this is about getting more data about ICF internals.)
I think an audit is necessary. I’m sorry to see devolve to this point, but, I think this is the only way we will see an audit come to pass.
We waited how long for the 2022 report and the 2023 report is still outstanding?! Where’s the report, “Bucky”??
Hey everyone,
Joseph here (Immutablelawyer),
I wanted to update you all that after several contributors reached out privately and encouraged use to take a more active role within the Ecosystem, we have decided to apply for the council member position at the Interchain Foundation (ICF). Given the critical issues discussed above relating to a myriad of deficiencies, we believe it is essential to take proactive steps toward meaningful change. This audit should be the first, our participation (should we be accepted) will be our second.
Here’s a summary of what we aim to achieve if selected for the council member role, which has been also forwarded to the ICF Leadership via our cover letter.
Enhance Transparency: We will work to ensure that all operations and financial transactions of the ICF are disclosed regularly and comprehensively. This includes making information easily accessible to the community to foster an environment of openness and transperancy on a regular basis, and not in a piece-meal fashion.
Strengthen Accountability: Implementing independent audits and robust oversight mechanisms will be a priority. We will advocate for stringent checks and balances to ensure all actions align with the foundation’s mission and ethical standards, whilst also ensuring that the underlying Cosmos community (the literal heartbeat of this ecosystem) are always kept abreast with any and all updates relating to the ICF.
Promote Ethical Governance: We will push for clear policies that enforce ethical behavior and decision-making processes within the ICF.
Foster Community Engagement: Encouraging active participation from all ecosystem stakeholders is vital. We will aim to create channels for diverse perspectives to be heard and considered in the governance of the ICF. The Cosmos community shouldn’t be treated as a far-away voice to consider, but as a partner in how the ICF operates.
If chosen, we are committed to driving these reforms and working collaboratively with the community to restore confidence in the Interchain Foundation. We do not aim to be dormant and passive, but will strive to re-establish trust and community confidence in the ICF.
Best regards,
Joseph (Immutablelawyer)
Here’s a response from Josh, President of the ICF:
He sure got some nice pretty words, but we’ve all heard those before.
Audit now pretty words not again.
Is Josh Cincinnati, the current ICF Foundation Council President in Forum? I can’t find his handle.
