[Proposal 952][PASSED] Declaration of No Confidence in ICF Leadership & Call to Action

Hub Proposals Signaling/Text
61

At minimum, the ICF’s 2023 Annual Report must match the level of detail provided in the 2022 Annual Report. That’s a decent baseline reference for the ICF’s reporting obligations to the community.

The foundation initially committed to releasing the 2023 Annual Report “early 2024”.
However, it is now early August of 2024, and the report has yet to be published.

The foundation has now proposed a delivery timeline of mid-August 2024, following a draft proposal submitted in this forum aimed at petitioning the ICF’s supervisory authority.

More ideally, the ICF should aspire to deliver financial reporting that’s commensurate w the exemplary standards established by the @Web3Foundation in their H-1 2024 report, which can be accessed here: 2024-H1 Polkadot Treasury Report - Governance - Polkadot Forum

Furthermore, the foundation has failed to publish annual reports for the fiscal years 2017-2021, as well as the Q1-Q2 2024 period. The ICF is hereby asked to remedy this deficiency immediately and publish comprehensive annual reports for all previous years and the current fiscal year.

Regarding the composition of the ICF’s Foundation Council (FC), new members should be nominated by the ICF, preserving the ICF’s discretion to select finalists from the application pool. These nominations should then be ratified through consensus governance of the Cosmos Hub.

At minimum, there should be at least one (1) FC member who is elected and added to the council via direct democracy utilizing Cosmos Hub governance.

@ebuchman I respectfully request the ICF’s consideration of all of the above and ask for your timely response to my suggestions. Can you also ask the other FC members to join the forum please? I can’t find Maxime Monod or Josh Cincinnati in here.

1 Like
62

@ImmutableLawyer I’m glad that you applied, as it contributes to the much-needed diversity within the applicant pool. Imo, the FC has been adversely affected by an overemphasis on technical and or academic expertise in cryptocurrency at the expense of other vital competencies.

There exists an urgency for expanding council membership to individuals who possess experience with sustainable/responsible foundation management. With expertise evincing organizational compliance with industry standards that define good governance for the non-profit sector.

Endowment-driven, mandate-given entities such as the ICF necessitates a specific set of soft skills that are not typically cultivated in technical roles, irrespective of a dev’s seniority in an org or their engineering achievements.

Effective execution of mandates demands individuals who fully comprehend the very real legal and fiduciary obligations that form a Swiss foundation, with acceptance of the fact that the given purpose is immutable. I think lawyers are more inclined to get this.

While understanding that the job to do is non-negotiable — the next gen of FC members must be inclusive of persons with experience navigating and brokering solutions within complex human organizations while addressing the inherent challenges of resource allocation.

Your professional background as counsel to protocols and DAOs indicates (at least on paper) a more fitting predisposition towards comprehending not only the logic and relevance of the proposal at hand — but also the meta and micro issues that contributed to the regrettable impasse that is context for the reform demanded by many community participants.

Extending my best wishes for your application.

4 Likes
63

It’s extraordinarily difficult to “disband”/dissolve a Swiss foundation. Please see:

64

Yeah I saw it and I agree, I was saying it as one of the options. My point here is that changing the action items of this proposal in any way (like, firing some people or whatever it might be) without having the audit result might be just a witch hunt, and we should wait for the audit’s results first before thinking about other possible actions.

1 Like
65

Hi, seeking clarification bc autism.

  • Given that the ICF Foundation Council (FC) member position is designed for individual occupancy and cannot be held by a team or entity.
  • Your use of “we” in your comms is presumed to refer to yourself as an individual.
  • The reference to “we” is understood to indicate Axis Advisory.

So, my interpretation of your message is as follows: Based on internal discussions within Axis Advisory and consultations with active contributors in the Cosmos ecosystem, a decision was made recommending that you, @ImmutableLawyer, submit an application for FC membership. Is that right?

2 Likes
66

Totally.

It’s also important to know that I don’t think the community, and its consensus expressed through Cosmos Hub governance is acknowledged with any rights to participate in and or influence the composition of any of the foundation’s governing bodies (FC, BoM). To definitively ascertain if such authority exists, it would be necessary to examine the ICF’s charter and bylaws for any provisions granting such rights to the community via Hub governance mechanisms.

FYI, I have asked ICF to publicly share their charter and bylaws And @crainbf indicated this can be done. But unfortunately he was removed.

Given the presumed absence of community authority or influence reserved in charter, the proposal has been structured in its current form to address potential scenarios where eg the FSAF may uncover conflicts of interest or misconduct warranting the removal of an FC member. In such instances, it is anticipated that the FSAF would exercise its supervisory authority to reconstitute the FC if it deems it to be necessary.

Also note that the full extent of the ICF’s internal processes and potential vulnerabilities are likely inadequately captured or conveyed in the foundation’s statutory filings submitted annually.

Whatever is submitted in the form of compulsory reports and statutory filings does not produce an accurate picture of foundation gov and operations.

This lack of accurate or more comprehensive reporting obligations to the FSAF, underscores the necessity for the proposed audit, its defined scope, and the rationale behind it.

The proposal aims to establish a framework for addressing urgent and qualified concerns while respecting the current legal structure of the ICF. This is important.

We must be realistic.

Therefore, the proposal is a petition that asks for the kind of comprehensive audit they need to exercise proper oversight.

And the audit we need, without overstepping the boundaries of the community’s authority as currently understood.

4 Likes
67

I appreciate you addressing my point.

Upon further reflection I now agree with your argument. I support this motion

2 Likes
68

Author of the mentioned Polkadot Treasury Report here. Just one factual correction: This report pertains to the Polkadot On-Chain Treasury and not the Web3 Foundation.

While I personally believe that transparency is an important value to hold up for common good initiatives/organizations, the rules of the game for foundations and on-chain entities are defined by the competitive landscape.

Without having any understanding of the current situation in Cosmos and the debate around the ICF, I recognize the reasons of foundations deciding to not disclose their financials if they are not legally obligated to do so. They are private entities after all.

Work to progressively decentralize and hand over all essential functions to on-chain Governance. Foundations are only an intermediate solution. On-chain then, go for full transparency and accountability.

Love!

PS: I am looking for Cosmos/Comet SDK teams that are interested in cooperating on building connections between Cosmos and Polkadot chains. Can offer to help with securing funding.

PPS: Follow me on Twitter - @alice_und_bob

2 Likes
69

:thermometer::rotating_light:GRACE YU IS BEING ACCUSED OF “VIOLENT LANGUAGE” by an icf team member! :rotating_light::thermometer:

1000005996
10000059961008×4025 342 KB

Thus, I will now publish a conversation between myself and @ebuchman concerning my P2P storms security report.

1000005992
10000059921008×2244 293 KB

1000005993
10000059931008×4321 340 KB

1000005994
10000059941008×2244 216 KB

I will remind everyone again, slack is backed up.

All of my emails with amulet are here:

this is a clear pattern of behavior on the part of the icf

If, as is claimed, my report was taken seriously:

  • I would not have needed to spend $10,000 on legal fees to get my company’s name off of an inaccurate report originating with amulet and informal systems
  • I would not have needed to disclose by demonstration in coordination with Seal911, an auditor of last resort
  • Berachain testnet would not have exploded and maybe they could use vote extensions as planned
  • Every chain in the ecosystem would have been made more secure

I received thank you notes from numerous teens for my disclosure by demonstration. Some teams found it frustrating and I do apologize for that but I do not feel that I had another choice because I am aware that P2P storms could be used to steal money and I firmly believe that it or something similar was used in conjunction with large financial moves to take out Luna classic.

Please note that my mention of Celestia in the conversation with Bucky is present because they were fully aware of the issue. That is why it should have been possible to discuss the issue among many teams. I knew all along that the people that I was submitting the issue to were not getting it right because they could never explain it back to me. They always expressed it as a configuration problem and while there are mitigations available by configuration, ultimately, this issue was solved by @valardragon and Adam from the osmosis team, who chose to believe that it was actually a real problem.

robb stack should retract his statement or cite specific examples

Given that @Cosmos_Nanny most certainly did not call for harm to anyone, I cannot imagine that she made any call to violence at all.

Just because you don’t like what someone is saying, or think they’re wrong, does not make their speech violent or abusive.

in my opinion these are perfect examples of the abuse and misconduct occuring at the foundation

I actually sat down with @mpg at last year’s Cosmoverse event, and I asked her to find violent or threatening language in my comms. She did not identify any.

I was simply making a security report.

I think that it is absolutely necessary to speak with more than just the reporter and to have an understanding of context when dealing with security reports.

My reports were made entirely in private and in compliance with guidelines.

For years, there were perfectly valid transactions that would result in chain downtime. These transactions should not have been valid. No one, to my knowledge, has any legitimate reason to have a 600kb IBC recieve address or memo field.

70

Hey @Cosmos_Nanny !

Firstly, thanks for extending your best wishes for our application!

I have applied in my individual capacity and will take the seat as an individual should I be chosen. However, I will definitely be leveraging our team’s collective skill-set and contribute resources from our end to ensure that we achieve our intended goal should I get the seat.

Hope that clarifies the matter!

Best wishes,
Joseph (immutablelawyer)

2 Likes
71

I think it’s fair to expecting a web3 organization to be more open. Cosmos was supposed to be a better place. But why need this Cosmos Hub governance proposal? if ‘‘The mission of the ICF is promoting and develop new technologies, especially in the areas of open and decentralized software. The focus is on Cosmos Network, Polkadot Protocol, and related technologies’’. Cosmos Hub is not the Cosmos Network and the cosmos hub has been focus on its own ecosystem and the Atom economic zone, so it’s not anymore the center of Cosmos. I’m a Atom holder, and I think this is why people start blaming the ATOM community. We don’t have say in the ecosystem technologies anymore because we are not neutral now. This situation is hurting Atom brand and pushing consumer chains away. I thought Jacob left the Hub after we revoke his funds. Does he need more from us, or we are his last boat.

72

why no one is addressing this? because who is right is always ignored

73

Frankly, that post should not be dignified with a response.

But I guess it’s time to make a statement that addresses and refutes certain allegations and misconceptions that have been circulating regarding the authorship and motivation behind the proposal.

  1. Authorship of the Proposal:
    The proposal in its entirety was solely authored by me.

Last year, I published an unofficial guide re: the history, incorporation, organization, governance and operations of Interchain Stiftung, AG and GmbH. This proposal is a product of my ongoing belief that we urgently need a functional and responsible foundation at the core of our ecosystem’s recovery and growth.

This proposal is an an extension of faith and belief. It’s not cynicism.
The cynic builds nothing.

Any allegations of co-authorship, particularly those suggesting Jacob’s involvement, are categorically false and without merit. Jacob’s contribution was limited to tallying the total amount of Bitcoin and Ethereum raised during the ATOM ICO (public sale).

  1. External Influence and Lobbying:
    I’ve also been asked if I hired @ImmutableLawyer for “lobbying” purposes. Again. Completely absurd and patently false. I’ve had no communications or any interactions with @ImmutableLawyer prior to his public comment in this forum regarding the draft proposal.

  2. Independence of Action:
    There are also allegations I’m working at the behest of Jae Kwon and or All in Bits (AiB). Again. Erroneous. False. I am not employed by AiB or by Jae Kwon. I haven’t spoken to Jae since May 24th when he congratulated me for winning the AADAO oversight election. I have had subsequent interactions with him in group conversation contexts via the AtomOne working groups. My involvement there is minimal. And I haven’t joined their working groups since the first week of June. Perhaps @Adriana can confirm (GM of AIB) these facts. I joined the working groups out of curiosity, and bc I’m an incorrigible decentralized governance nerd.

These rumours:

  • Undermine my intellectual autonomy
  • Discredits the hard work, research, and personal initiative undertaken by me.

Such assumptions not only throw shade at my efforts but also contribute to rooting cognitive and cultural prejudices that maybe a woman’s work must involve male supervision and guidance.

I respectfully ask the community to reflect on this and avoid giving energy to these things.
We are better than this. Thanks.

3 Likes
74

Can you answer my question? If I deserve you attention of course, since some of us shouldn’t dignified with a response from your majesty. I’m noticing that here anyone is ignored when he has a different view from the proposal author? And most of the conversation is with you and Jacob. This is a governance forum not a hear my feelings place. Why the cosmos hub community has a say on the entire ecosystem? This is exatly like that people pushing for a tax on IBC. Atom should focus on Atom. We have the atom economic zone, a dao and consumer chains, we are not neutral, the first we chagne this idea, the first we have adoption.

75

Thank you for joining.

While the clarification regarding the Polkadot Treasury Report is appreciated, it inadvertently underscores a critical point. The ability to produce comprehensive reports for on-chain treasuries demonstrates the feasibility and value of transparency in decentralized ecosystems. This stands in contrast to the opacity we’ve observed with the ICF, highlighting a disparity in accountability practices.

Your argument that competitive pressures may justify non-disclosure of financials for foundations is not persuasive in this context. The ICF, as a non-profit Stiftung entity has a very specific legal personality that probably eludes you. It’s complicated. But simply, it has a mandate to support the hub and Cosmos ecosystem, and the foundation operates in a different paradigm from purely private entities. Its obligations extend beyond mere legal compliance to ethical considerations of transparency and accountability to its stakeholders and general beneficiaries (token holders, validators, developers, infra providers etc).

Your suggestion to work towards progressive decentralization, while valid in principle, does not address the immediate concerns regarding the ICF’s governance and financial management. It’s not a justification for pathological information withholding and gatekeeping of what reasonably should be public knowledge.

Finally, characterizing foundations as “only an intermediate solution” does not negate the ICF’s current and urgent responsibilities. As long as they hold significant influence and resources, they must be held to high standards of accountability.

I fully understand why you raised the points you did, and I’m a fan of your twitter game – but your general observations here while admitting you lack history, awareness, and context make your statements impertinent.

76

What is your question?

77

I think it’s fair to expecting a web3 organization to be more open. Cosmos was supposed to be a better place. But why need this Cosmos Hub governance proposal? if ‘‘The mission of the ICF is promoting and develop new technologies, especially in the areas of open and decentralized software. The focus is on Cosmos Network, Polkadot Protocol, and related technologies’’. Cosmos Hub is not the Cosmos Network and the cosmos hub has been focus on its own ecosystem and the Atom economic zone, so it’s not anymore the center of Cosmos. I’m a Atom holder, and I think this is why people start blaming the ATOM community. We don’t have say in the ecosystem technologies anymore because we are not neutral now. This situation is hurting Atom brand and pushing consumer chains away.

78

I want atom to succed, and we should focus on funding on atom and its products

79

Your post is difficult to understand. But I will try to respond to the clearest question asked by you.
“Why the cosmos hub community has a say on the entire ecosystem?”

Your question about the Hub community’s say in the entire ecosystem touches on a fundamental aspect of the proposal. The ICFwas established to support the development of the Cosmos eco, with the Cosmos Hub at its core. Therefore, the Hub community has a vested interest in the ICF’s operations and governance. This is not about controlling the entire ecosystem, but about ensuring that the foundation meant to support it is operating effectively and transparently. I encourage you to read the draft proposal carefully and in full. Thanks.

1 Like
80

The Hub doesn’t need a foundation anymore, we have a dao and a develoment team, we are independent. So we should focus our efforts on Atom, I’m tired as Atom holder to see this conversation about the foundation. Let’s focus on atom. Also is it safe to put on-chain a prop connecting the Hub to a foundation, to me seems a very not smart idea. All I see is damage being made to atom, I should just unstake and move on.

1 Like