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

Me too.
While focusing on ATOM and its immediate products is important, it’s crucial to recognize that ATOM’s success is intrinsically linked to the health and function of the foundation. The ICF plays a significant role in the hub’s relationship with the eco, and by extension, ATOM’s long-term viability and success.

The ICF, having conducted an ICO for ATOM and having received substantial genesis tokens, has a fiduciary duty to ATOM holders and the Cosmos hub community in particular. Ensuring proper governance and transparency of the ICF is not a distraction from ATOM’s success, but rather a necessary component of it.

I hope you come to understand that this proposal is not as a diversion, but an effort to ensure that the fundamental support structure for ATOM – the ICF – is functioning optimally. A well-governed foundation is more likely to contribute effectively to ATOM’s success and the products built around it.

1 Like

Again, if the foundation focus is ecosystem tech, what Atom has to do with this. The others cosmos chains don’t want to be associated with cosmos, everyone is talking about this. And atom just keeps dumping, because alll new investors see that anyone around atom is not focused on success. I’m speaking too much already, I’m tired of this proposal that has nothing to do with atom. Do you all smart people realize that no one is speaking about permissionless consumer chains and hydro, because you capture all the attention. People ouside the ecosystem only talk about the foundation and how toxic is the atom community, no one talks about all the consumer chains coming. You and all the people involved in this, are not making atom successful, and push people like me away, and newcomers will never join in this. Good luck with moving everyone focus away from atom development. I don’t have anything else to say.

and we wonder why

This is totally accurate.

Asking both, @jacobgadikian and @tom to take this somewhere else. While it’s an ICF topic (because one single tweet by an employee…), it has nothing to do with the proposal.

Jacob, please take it to X, another thread, or DMs. For the sake of this greatly written proposal.

Welcome to argue about it in MY DMs.

1 Like

they are mixing the work comments and the personal comments.

in this case the comment by Ethan should be also held accountable as a work comment, in how he continues to delegate responsibility to Jae and Jae has over a year out of the Cosmos ecosystem.

don’t you think it’s really insulting for anyone in the eco to keep blaming him for “all” problems in Cosmos?, it works because he does not care and he is not here to defend himself

they blamed jacob, jae, etc, etc for all the problems in Cosmos and inside the ecosystem most people believe them but from the outside everyone can see the things clearly as they are… that narrative is not working anymore, so now Grace is the issue?, please

the front that represent the ICF and their allies constantly find scapegoats for everything, while i don’t blame them (anyone in a leading position is only trying things and those thing fail or succeed) it’s very laughable and childlike that they continue to blame everything instead of just saying “hey look, we tried this and did not work, anyone is got more ideas?”, there is almost no self critic at all.

the narrative used against people who are challenging their work is simple to dismiss it as wrong, non relevant, angry, violent, jealous, etc, etc while a few of them benefit by nepotism, that’s the issue and that’s why we need clarity, they are using anything as an excuse to avoid being accountable and transparent about the job they are doing and the community is only asking for clarity for a long time

anyone who cant see the problems is clearly being benefit from the current status quo on the ecosystem and while this is more than normal, we should not amplify the voices of the few who deny vs the many who question

6 Likes

Cosmos Hub is not the Cosmos Network, but the ICF is selling ATOM all day and thus hurting its price while contributing nothing to ATOM. Why should Cosmos Hub or ATOM shareholders subsidize pro bono the ICF? I am really confused.

Did anybody on Coinbase tell me that I am buying an ATOM token who is being dumped by some unrelated foundation to develop unrelated to ATOM products?

This sounds like gross false marketing. Exchanges are marketing as a Cosmos network token, yet it turns out ATOM is not tied at all to the growth of the Cosmos ecosystem.

What a shitshow.

2 Likes

What ATOM has to do with this is that the ICF has ATOM on its balance sheet and it is selling it all day. The ICF didn’t raise money in fairy dust, it raised them by selling ATOMs in an ICO and at present is not fulfilling its fiduciary duties towards ATOM.

It’s basically clear cut fraud. The ICF has clear cut responsibilities to make sure ATOM and the Cosmos Hub are succeeding and if they are not focused on that, we have a problem Houston.

4 Likes
  1. The apparent lack of ATOM’s central role in Cosmos’ growth could be viewed as a failure of the ICF to fulfill its mandated responsibilities.

  2. If the ICF is perceived to be distancing itself from ATOM and the Cosmos Hub, this action may be interpreted as: a) A departure from its original mandated purpose b) A potential breach of the terms and conditions set forth during the ATOM Initial Coin Offering (ICO)

  3. It’s important to note that the Foundation Council (FC) does not have the authority to unilaterally alter or deviate from the mandate that was originally established. Their role is to execute the mandate, not to fundamentally change it at their discretion.

3 Likes

Notice of Proposed Amendments

Hi everyone:

I want to notify the community of some changes to the draft proposal concerning the signaling measure.

After due consideration and in response to feedback received (esp with communications from ICF FC President), the following modifications are proposed to enhance the pragmatism and efficacy of the on-chain proposal:

  1. Summary Report Requisition: In lieu of contesting or questioning the comprehensiveness of the ICF’s annual audits, the amended proposal will request summary reports derived from audits purportedly conducted as part of the ICF’s routine statutory filings. The premise being that if such audits are indeed as comprehensive as the ICF asserts, and if “ordinary audits” are really undertaken annually, the ICF should be capable of furnishing informed summary reports for fiscal years 2019-2023.
  2. Financial Disclosure: While acknowledging the ICF’s prerogative to safeguard sensitive financial information, the proposal will still explicitly request disclosure of:
  • Aggregated assets held in the treasury annually, including fiat currencies, securities, and cryptocurrencies.
  • Annual expenditures on grant-making, vendor engagement, and investments, delineated by economic value and recipient names, and recipient funding categories and funding purpose.
  1. Scope Clarification: The proposal will incorporate a provision requiring the ICF to explicitly identify any areas within the requested scope of summary reports that fall outside their annual audit purview. This provision aims to ensure transparency regarding the limitations of both the available information and the limitations of the audits the ICF says are performed in compliance with statutory filing requirements.
  2. Compliance Timeframe: A 60-day period shall be stipulated for the ICF to provide the requested summary reports.
  3. Contingency Measure: In the event of non-performance wrt petitioned summary reports within the specified timeframe, the proposal will include a provision to directly petition the Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (FSAF) for a comprehensive audit as a remedial measure.

Rationale for Proposed Amendments

The changes are proposed for the following reasons:

  1. Procedural Efficiency: Engaging in discourse regarding the comprehensive-ness of annual audits is counterproductive. More constructive to redirect the focus towards obtaining actionable information based on audits the ICF purports to conduct annually, from the ICF directly.
  2. Pragmatic Approach: The requisition of summary reports derived from existing audits seeks information that should be readily available, predicated on the veracity of the ICF’s assertions regarding the comprehensiveness of their audit practices. It’s effectively an information request for what the ICF says exists already, as information.
  3. Equitable Disclosure: The proposal seeks to balance the imperative for transparency with the ICF’s need to protect sensitive information, offering an opportunity for the foundation to demonstrate what it says will be its new posture for “proactive comms” and enhanced transparency. Let’s test this new commitment and give them something tangible to deliver.
  4. Escalation Protocol: The contingency measure provides a clear course of action in the event of non-compliance, which will also potentially strengthen any subsequent case presented to the FSAF. This will also appease the hardliners who prefer a petitioning request to the FSAF, as initially proposed. We can still do it, if necessary.
  5. Balanced and Reasonable Disclosure Expectations: I think the changes enhance the proposal’s feasibly and actionability while addressing the community’s fundamental concerns regarding transparency and governance at the ICF. The proposal establishes reasonable expectations for disclosure by focusing on information that:
  • Should be available based on Swiss “ordinary audit” auditing practices for organizations of similar nature and scope;
  • Is purported to be available, as per the ICF’s own declarations regarding their audit practices; and
  • Can be reasonably derived from existing statutory filings and audits without compromising the confidentiality of private documents.
  1. Audit Scope Clarification: If the audits performed as part of the ICF’s statutory obligations are more limited in scope than the comprehensive version required by “ordinary audits,” it is imperative that this fact be discoverable by the community. This information is crucial for understanding the depth and breadth of the ICF’s current auditing practices.
  2. Reasonable Solution for Confidentiality Constraints: Recognizing the limitations on publicizing private documents such as statutory filings, the proposal puts forth a reasonable solution: the ICF shall share findings in the form of summary reports, as defined and requested via this governance proposal. This approach strikes a balance between the community’s need for transparency and the ICF’s obligation to maintain the confidentiality of certain documents.
6 Likes

제안된 신호 조치에 관한 초안 제안서의 임박한 수정 사항에 대해 커뮤니티에 알리고자 합니다.

신중한 검토와 커뮤니티 피드백에 대한 응답으로, 온체인 제안의 실용성과 효율성을 향상시키기 위해 다음과 같은 수정 사항이 제안됩니다:

  1. 요약 보고서 요청: ICF의 연례 감사의 포괄성에 대해 이의를 제기하거나 의문을 제기하는 대신, 수정된 제안서는 ICF의 일상적인 법정 제출의 일환으로 수행되었다고 주장되는 감사에서 도출된 요약 보고서를 요청할 것입니다. 전제는 ICF가 주장하는 대로 이러한 감사가 실제로 포괄적이고 "일반 감사"가 매년 진실로 수행된다면, ICF는 2019-2023 회계연도에 대한 정보에 입각한 요약 보고서를 제공할 수 있어야 한다는 것입니다.
  2. 재무 공개: ICF의 민감한 재무 정보를 보호할 권리를 인정하면서도, 제안서는 여전히 다음 사항의 명시적 공개를 요청할 것입니다:
  • 법정 화폐, 증권, 암호화폐를 포함한 연간 보유 자산의 총계
  • 경제적 가치와 수령인 이름, 수령인 자금 지원 범주 및 자금 지원 목적으로 구분된 보조금 지급, 공급업체 참여, 투자에 대한 연간 지출
  1. 범위 명확화: 제안서에는 ICF가 요청된 요약 보고서의 범위 내에서 연례 감사 범위를 벗어나는 모든 영역을 명시적으로 식별하도록 요구하는 조항이 포함될 것입니다. 이 조항은 이용 가능한 정보의 한계와 ICF가 법정 제출 요건을 준수하여 수행한다고 주장하는 감사의 한계에 대한 투명성을 보장하는 것을 목표로 합니다.
  2. 준수 기한: ICF가 요청된 요약 보고서를 제출하는 데 60일의 명확한 기간이 규정될 것입니다.
  3. 비상 조치: 지정된 기간 내에 요청된 요약 보고서를 제출하지 않을 경우, 제안서에는 구제 조치로서 연방 재단 감독 당국(FSAF)에 직접 포괄적인 감사를 청원하는 조항이 포함될 것입니다.

제안된 수정 사항에 대한 근거

앞서 언급한 수정 사항들은 다음과 같은 이유로 고려되었습니다:

  1. 절차적 효율성: 연례 감사의 포괄성에 대한 논의에 참여하는 것은 비생산적입니다. ICF가 매년 수행한다고 주장하는 감사를 기반으로 실행 가능한 정보를 얻는 데 초점을 맞추는 것이 더 건설적입니다.
  2. 실용적 접근: 기존 감사에서 도출된 요약 보고서의 요청은 ICF의 주장의 진실성을 전제로 쉽게 이용 가능해야 하는 정보를 구하고자 합니다. 이는 실질적으로 ICF가 이미 정보로 존재한다고 말하는 것에 대한 정보 요청입니다.
  3. 공정한 공개: 이 제안은 투명성에 대한 필요성과 ICF의 민감한 정보 보호 필요성 사이의 균형을 맞추고자 하며, ICF가 커뮤니티 인식에 관련된 정보 공유와 중요 정보 공개에 대한 개선된 입장을 보여줄 기회를 제공합니다.
  4. 확대 프로토콜: 비상 조치는 미준수 시 명확한 행동 방침을 제공하며, 이는 잠재적으로 FSAF에 제출될 후속 사례를 강화할 수 있습니다.
  5. 균형 잡히고 합리적인 공개 기대: 제안자의 주장에 따르면, 이러한 수정 사항들은 ICF의 투명성과 거버넌스에 관한 커뮤니티의 근본적인 우려사항을 다루면서 제안의 실현 가능성과 실행 가능성을 향상시킵니다. 이 제안은 다음과 같은 정보에 초점을 맞춤으로써 공개에 대한 합리적인 기대를 설정합니다:
  • 유사한 성격과 범위의 조직에 대한 표준 감사 관행을 기반으로 이용 가능해야 하는 정보;
  • ICF의 자체 감사 관행에 대한 선언에 따라 이용 가능하다고 주장되는 정보; 그리고
  • 비공개 문서의 기밀성을 손상시키지 않고 기존의 법정 제출 및 감사에서 합리적으로 도출할 수 있는 정보.
  1. 감사 범위 명확화: ICF의 법정 의무의 일환으로 수행되는 감사가 "일반 감사"에서 요구되는 포괄적인 버전보다 범위가 더 제한적이라면, 이 사실이 커뮤니티에 의해 발견될 수 있어야 합니다. 이 정보는 ICF의 현재 감사 관행의 깊이와 폭을 이해하는 데 중요합니다.
  2. 기밀성 제약에 대한 합리적인 해결책: 법정 제출과 같은 비공개 문서를 공개하는 데 있어서의 제한을 인정하면서, 이 제안은 합리적인 해결책을 제시합니다: ICF는 이 거버넌스 제안을 통해 정의되고 요청된 대로 요약 보고서 형태로 결과를 공유해야 합니다. 이 접근 방식은 커뮤니티의 투명성 요구와 ICF의 특정 문서 기밀 유지 의무 사이의 균형을 맞춥니다.

이러한 접근 방식을 채택함으로써, 본 제안은 법적 및 실질적 제약을 존중하면서도 Cosmos 커뮤니티에 ICF의 운영과 거버넌스에 대한 가치 있는 통찰력을 제공하는 의미 있는 공개를 위한 프레임워크를 수립하고자 합니다.

提案された信号措置に関する草案の差し迫った修正について、コミュニティに通知いたしたく存じます。

慎重な検討とコミュニティからのフィードバックを受けて、オンチェーン提案の実用性と効率性を向上させるために、以下の修正が提案されます:

  1. 要約報告書の要請:ICFの年次監査の包括性に異議を唱えたり疑問を呈したりする代わりに、修正された提案書はICFの通常の法定提出の一環として実施されたと主張される監査から導出された要約報告書を要請いたします。前提として、ICFが主張するようにこれらの監査が実際に包括的であり、「通常の監査」が毎年確実に実施されているのであれば、ICFは2019年度から2023年度までの会計年度に関する情報に基づいた要約報告書を提供できるはずだということです。
  2. 財務開示:ICFの機密財務情報を保護する権利を認識しつつ、提案書は引き続き以下の項目の明示的な開示を要請いたします
  • 法定通貨、証券、暗号資産を含む年間保有資産の総額
  • 経済的価値と受領者名、受領者の資金提供カテゴリーおよび資金提供目的で区分された助成金支給、ベンダー契約、投資に関する年間支出
  1. 範囲の明確化:提案書には、ICFが要請された要約報告書の範囲内で年次監査の範囲を超えるすべての領域を明示的に特定するよう要求する条項が含まれます。この条項は、利用可能な情報の制限とICFが法定提出要件に準拠して実施すると主張する監査の制限に関する透明性を確保することを目的としています。
  2. 遵守期限:ICFが要請された要約報告書を提出するために、60日間の明確な期間が規定されます。
  3. 緊急措置:指定された期間内に要請された要約報告書が提出されない場合、提案書には救済措置として連邦財団監督当局(FSAF)に直接包括的な監査を請願する条項が含まれます。

提案された修正事項の根拠

前述の修正事項は、以下の理由により検討されました:

  1. 手続き的効率性:年次監査の包括性に関する議論に参加することは非生産的です。ICFが毎年実施すると主張している監査に基づいて実行可能な情報を得ることに焦点を当てる方がより建設的です。
  2. 実用的アプローチ:既存の監査から導出された要約報告書の要請は、ICFの主張の真実性を前提として、容易に利用可能であるべき情報を求めるものです。これは実質的に、ICFが既に情報として存在すると述べているものに対する情報要請です。
  3. 公正な開示:この提案は、透明性の必要性とICFの機密情報保護の必要性のバランスを取ろうとするものであり、ICFがコミュニティの認識に関連する情報共有と重要情報の開示について改善された立場を示す機会を提供します。
  4. 拡大プロトコル:緊急措置は、不遵守の場合に明確な行動方針を提供し、これは潜在的にFSAFに提出される後続の事例を強化する可能性があります。
  5. バランスの取れた合理的な開示期待:提案者の主張によると、これらの修正事項はICFの透明性とガバナンスに関するコミュニティの根本的な懸念事項に対処しながら、提案の実現可能性と実行可能性を向上させます。この提案は、以下のような情報に焦点を当てることで、開示に対する合理的な期待を設定します:
  • 同様の性質と範囲の組織に対する標準的な監査慣行に基づいて利用可能であるべき情報
  • ICFの自己監査慣行に関する宣言に従って利用可能であると主張される情報
  • 非公開文書の機密性を損なうことなく、既存の法定提出物および監査から合理的に導出できる情報
  1. 監査範囲の明確化:ICFの法的義務の一環として実施される監査が「通常の監査」で要求される包括的なバージョンよりも範囲が限定的である場合、この事実がコミュニティによって発見可能であるべきです。この情報は、ICFの現在の監査慣行の深さと広さを理解する上で重要です。
  2. 機密性制約に対する合理的な解決策:法定提出物などの非公開文書を公開することの制限を認識しつつ、この提案は合理的な解決策を提示します:ICFは、このガバナンス提案を通じて定義され要請されたとおり、要約報告書の形で結果を共有すべきです。このアプローチは、コミュニティの透明性要求とICFの特定文書の機密保持義務とのバランスを取ります。

このアプローチを採用することにより、本提案は法的および実質的な制約を尊重しつつ、CosmosコミュニティにICFの運営とガバナンスに関する価値ある洞察を提供する意味のある開示のためのフレームワークを確立することを目指します。

Effectively, the revision fundamentally changes the target of the petitioning action.
Rather than the FSAF, the proposal asks the ICF to generate summary reports for fiscal years 2019 - 2023.

Much of the proposal structure remains the same.
The largest changes are reflected in RESOLUTION and CALL TO ACTION sections.

BACKGROUND:

addition
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND DEFINITION OF SUMMARY REPORTS WHEREAS, the Cosmos Hub community acknowledges that the ICF has been in compliance with its annual filing and reporting obligations with the Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (FSAF) since its establishment in 2017; and

WHEREAS, the community cannot conclusively determine if the required audits are as comprehensive as what Swiss authorities refer to as an “ordinary audit”; and

WHEREAS, for the purposes of this proposal, “summary reports” are defined as discretionary high-level documents that address the scope of issues specified herein, derived from the audit findings the ICF claims it performs on an annual basis due to its mandatory reporting requirements as a Stiftung under Swiss law; and

WHEREAS, these summary reports are intended to provide transparency to the Cosmos Hub community while respecting the confidentiality of the ICF’s full statutory filings;

RESOLUTION

THEREFORE, the Cosmos Hub community hereby resolves to signal via consensus governance, the following proposal:

  1. DECLARATION OF NO CONFIDENCE

The Cosmos Hub community formally declares no confidence in the current leadership of the Interchain Foundation.

  1. REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF SUMMARY REPORTS

The Cosmos Hub community hereby petitions the ICF to publish summary reports derived from its statutory filings for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, addressing the areas specified in Section 3 of this Resolution.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

While acknowledging the ICF’s right to protect sensitive financial information, the community requests disclosure of: a) Aggregated assets held in the treasury each year, including fiat, stocks/securities, and cryptocurrencies b) Annual expenditures on grant making, vendors, and investments, including economic amounts and categories of recipient entities.

SUMMARY REPORT PUBLICATION TIMELINE

The ICF is requested to publish these summary reports and financial disclosures within 60 days of this proposal passing.

  1. SCOPE OF SUMMARY REPORTS

The Cosmos Hub community hereby petitions the ICF to publish individual summary reports derived from its statutory filings and audit findings for each fiscal year from 2018 through 2023.

Specifically:

  • A separate summary report must be provided for each of the following fiscal years: 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023.
  • Each summary report must be based on and reflect the audit findings and statutory filings specific to its respective fiscal year.
  • Providing a single consolidated summary report covering multiple years is not acceptable.
  • Each annual summary report must address the areas specified in Section 3 of this Resolution, to the extent that they were covered in the audits for that specific year.

Each annual summary report shall address the findings of the audits and statutory filings for its respective fiscal year in relation to, but not limited to, the following areas:

  • a) Financial management and reporting b) Asset and treasury management c) Grant allocation processes d) Resource allocation and utilization e) Governance structure and decision-making f) Internal controls g) Strategic planning and execution h) Leadership transitions i) Board competency evaluation j) Community engagement practices k) Compliance with Swiss laws and industry standards
  • ICF must identify which areas were not covered by annual audits for each year, explain why, and describe any alternative evaluation methods used
  • Disclose aggregated assets and annual expenditures, with right to redact sensitive information

GROUNDS FOR NO CONFIDENCE AND SUMMARY REPORT REQUEST

stays the same

CALL TO ACTION

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that upon passing this proposal by simple majority, the Cosmos Hub community hereby:

a) DECLARES formally its vote of no confidence in the current leadership of the Interchain Foundation (ICF);

b) PETITIONS the ICF directly to publish summary reports of its statutory filings and audits for the years 2021, 2022, and 2023, in accordance with the scope and objectives delineated in this proposal;

c) DEMANDS that these summary reports be published within 60 days of this proposal passing;

d) AFFIRMS that this action aims to realign the ICF with its mission and restore community trust, ensuring that the governance of the ICF is mutually affirmed with the values and expectations of our Cosmos community;

e) ESTABLISHES the following contingency measure: In the event that the ICF fails to share the requested summary reports within the specified 60-day period, the Cosmos Hub community will directly petition the Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (FSAF) to execute a comprehensive audit on the ICF, encompassing the scope outlined in this proposal.

This decisive action underscores our commitment to upholding the principles of transparency, accountability, and good governance within our ecosystem. We call upon all stakeholders to support this initiative in the interest of the long-term health and success of the Cosmos Hub and Network.

1 Like

You’re upset, like me, people have been selling atom forever, even when it was $40 or $15, that’s just how things go. But no one crying when price was good. Instead of freaking out about it, we should just focus on success. The foundation is selling, validators also selling atom, proposals for funding selling atom, yes, I’m tired of everyone selling atom. Also on Ethereum is the same, they got people selling all the time, and no one’s focus on that. They keep focusing on success, and that’s why they’re winning. If we keep crying about every little thing, we’re just helping atom go down more. If you cry when price is low, competition pick comments like yours and says look how Atom is bad.

I disagree. Seeking overdue changes with ICF governance and ops is a bullish thing for ATOM.

This isn’t “crying.” Crying and whining is what you’re recommending and doing.
Commiserating; no balls to action.
We are not the same.

I’ve been pushing for changes for years. My views are inelastic. Nothing to do with price.

Yes, winning is what i’m doing, because i also hold solana, they don’t do all this discussion there and they are winning. You know what is bullish, you spend your time saying how good is atom tech, that’s how you win. With a strong community like we had, but only people blaming the price are still here. atom is better than sol, and yet no one is talking about this, atom doesn’t go down and it has more features. But no one knows that, because here we spend our time blaming foundations, blaming validators, blaming funding proposal, we blame and cry every week for a new thing.

Inferior tech wins all the time.
Cosmos tech is good/better is cope.
Culture matters. And matters more.
SOL is winning bc their culture is more inclusive and fun.

And they’re more fun bc they have a very competent foundation that minimizes the cabal shenanigans we have in Cosmos.

1 Like

You speak like an old manager of wall street. ‘‘we need competent foundations to have succeess’’, no we don’t need foundations, we just need a community focused on sucess. Why we voted for a dao, we don’t need foundation, why we have community pool, and what we do instead, we cry everytime someone in the community try to do something for atom. and we cry because a foundation doesn’t save us, or we cry because development don’t do matketing. This is a community that loves to cry. When we stop cry and go everywhere to say how atom is good, we don’t need anything else. Memecoins pumps everyday, they have foundations? No they have community of winners.

1 Like