This is why I'm really interested in Tezos. The promise of Tezos is that the governance will happen on the Tezos blockchain via voting by holders of Tezos. Decred is also doing something similar, but I don't think Decred has smart contracts, whereas Tezos will.
There's a complicated legal situation around Tezos that seems to be causing development delays. There is infighting among the founders concerning the legal structures established to hide^H^H^H^Hprotect the ICO money [1], and also a class-action lawsuit [2].
Yes, this is an unfortunate situation. Basically before the ICO happened a Swiss non-profit was formed called the Tezos foundation. The foundation would receive the ICO "donations" and then the foundation "may" provide the donors with Tezos coins when Tezos launches. I think this whole setting up a Swiss non-profit is just to get around the know-your-customer laws in the USA and also to avoid the SEC's rules about selling securities to unaccredited investors.
So now the Tezos foundation controls the ICO funds, which are now valued somewhere around $500 million, and according the Tezos founders one of the board members (Gevers [3]) has gone rogue and tried to grant himself a bonus that the founders say is not warranted.
What I've always found strange is that the other two board members of the Tezos foundation have never really been discussed publicly in any way. One of them is Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons [1] and the other appears to be a company formation agent, Mr. Schmitz-Krummacher [2]. I've been unable to find out how these other two board members were selected, which is a bit odd considering the fate of about $500 million and perhaps Tezos in general hangs in the balance of how these two people vote. Gevers formed the "crypto valley" in Switzerland, so I can understand he would be on the board, but I'm still not clear on how the non-profit was formed and the first place and how the board members were selected.
Edit: This whole situation actually proves Tezos' point to me: that a cryptocurrency should not be controlled by a small group of individuals. In this case, the small group (the foundation) doesn't control the cryptocurrency, _just_ the ICO funds.
1. Foundations probably need multiple directors, this depends on the jurisdictions.
2. The people behind the project wanted to sell a US company to the foundation for $20 or $30mm, and I think this Gevers guy basically said that was excessive.
I think the foundation probably is legally required to have multiple directors, but you would think that a foundation that raised $500 million from "donors" would give out some information about who two of the three board members are and why/how they were selected.
Regarding your second point, can you provide a source for that? What I've read has alleged that Gevers tried to take a bonus from the ICO funds.
"The Breitmans said Gevers had sought to pocket a bonus from the ICO proceeds, whose value had swollen to as much as $400 million because of a rise in the value of bitcoin, and then lied about it to his foundation colleagues." [0]
I didn't see anything in the article you linked to where Gevers says that the amount ($20 million) the Tezos company would sell itself to the foundation for is excessive. As I understand it, that was always the arrangement. The amount the company would sell itself for was a percentage of the ICO funds raised, I believe.
Great! Start with the Federal Reserve and SEC settings rules in a somewhat transparent process, run by people appointed by democratically elected governments.
But people started doubting monetary policy, rule-making around securities, and the democratic process in principle. Lo and behold: someone creates a system with all of its ideology baked into an algorithm that cannot be changed.
But that leads to rather obvious injustices. And where, previously, these were settled in the open court of law, now the response was a faint shrugging: "That's how it's supposed to work. Shoulda audited the 43,563 lines of code underlying your really smart contract", said one unnamed cryptobro incapable of distinguishing ex ante and ex post fairness[0].
So now we get yet another blockchain, which is almost like a democratic government. Except your wealth determines the power of your vote. (Plus, of course, it's also untested, and throws away everything the concept of democracy stands for except the faint resemblance of something not entirely unlike voting).
[0]: Example: your parents decree in their will that their $100,000,000 fortune shall be distributed among your sister and you according to the following rule: Flip a coin. Heads: Jane gets everything. Tails: Bob gets everything. That process is fair ex ante because you enter with equal chances to win. But the result it produces is decidedly unfair. Good thing it doesn't matter, though: Your mother lost that fortune somewhere in the blockchain, which lead to that horrible horrible murder-suicide that brought you two here today)
Now a bunch of people with quite a good amount of ETH have their accounts frozen. Of course (I assume) they'd vote for a change that allows unblocking these accounts. Incidentally, who created the bug is also inside this group (if I'm not wrong).
Questions are:
1. what should the community as a whole think, to change and unlock, or to not allow any change?
2. what would the power of the community be wrt to these bigs, it this was Tezos?
I think some sort of painful event is necessary for certain types of change. Like the Titanic encouraging safer ship specifications and processes. Contract safety needs to vastly improve before smart contracts can be relied on.
Forks should only happen IMO when all sides have merit, when each side is right in their own way. The DAO situation may be justified in that not doing so would have damaged the community too much. Like forcing a kid to forget truly traumatic events but letting them remember broken arms while skateboarding.
Once a child grows up though all actions are irreversible and there is no longer a parent figure to ameliorate mistakes. I'm uncertain what "age" to consider ethereum but I'd tentatively consider it a pre-teen skateboarding incident.
Comments
This is why I'm really interested in Tezos. The promise of Tezos is that the governance will happen on the Tezos blockchain via voting by holders of Tezos. Decred is also doing something similar, but I don't think Decred has smart contracts, whereas Tezos will.
Here's a recent Tedx Talk by the CTO of Tezos. https://youtu.be/SbaVNkyGT3M
PS. I did not contribute to the Tezos ICO and I don't hold any Decred.
There's a complicated legal situation around Tezos that seems to be causing development delays. There is infighting among the founders concerning the legal structures established to hide^H^H^H^Hprotect the ICO money [1], and also a class-action lawsuit [2].
[1] https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/tezos-derivatives-crash-amid... [2] https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/tezos-founders-hit-class-act...
Yes, this is an unfortunate situation. Basically before the ICO happened a Swiss non-profit was formed called the Tezos foundation. The foundation would receive the ICO "donations" and then the foundation "may" provide the donors with Tezos coins when Tezos launches. I think this whole setting up a Swiss non-profit is just to get around the know-your-customer laws in the USA and also to avoid the SEC's rules about selling securities to unaccredited investors.
So now the Tezos foundation controls the ICO funds, which are now valued somewhere around $500 million, and according the Tezos founders one of the board members (Gevers [3]) has gone rogue and tried to grant himself a bonus that the founders say is not warranted.
What I've always found strange is that the other two board members of the Tezos foundation have never really been discussed publicly in any way. One of them is Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons [1] and the other appears to be a company formation agent, Mr. Schmitz-Krummacher [2]. I've been unable to find out how these other two board members were selected, which is a bit odd considering the fate of about $500 million and perhaps Tezos in general hangs in the balance of how these two people vote. Gevers formed the "crypto valley" in Switzerland, so I can understand he would be on the board, but I'm still not clear on how the non-profit was formed and the first place and how the board members were selected.
Here's a thread asking who is running the Tezos Foundation. https://forums.tezos.community/t/who-is-running-the-tezos-fo...
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/diego-olivier-fernandez-pons/ [2] https://www.linkedin.com/in/guidos1/ [3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/johanngevers/
Edit: This whole situation actually proves Tezos' point to me: that a cryptocurrency should not be controlled by a small group of individuals. In this case, the small group (the foundation) doesn't control the cryptocurrency, _just_ the ICO funds.
1. Foundations probably need multiple directors, this depends on the jurisdictions.
2. The people behind the project wanted to sell a US company to the foundation for $20 or $30mm, and I think this Gevers guy basically said that was excessive.
I think the foundation probably is legally required to have multiple directors, but you would think that a foundation that raised $500 million from "donors" would give out some information about who two of the three board members are and why/how they were selected.
Regarding your second point, can you provide a source for that? What I've read has alleged that Gevers tried to take a bonus from the ICO funds. "The Breitmans said Gevers had sought to pocket a bonus from the ICO proceeds, whose value had swollen to as much as $400 million because of a rise in the value of bitcoin, and then lied about it to his foundation colleagues." [0]
[0] https://www.finews.com/news/english-news/29289-tezos-johann-...
http://www.reuters.com/article/bitcoin-funding-tezos/special...
PS: What a shitshow. These people are amateurs who have been given $500m, and I wouldn't be surprised this project amounts to nothing.
Based on how I'm reading this, I don't think this Gevers character is entirely wrong on how he's acting. But the article doesn't mention any bonus.
I didn't see anything in the article you linked to where Gevers says that the amount ($20 million) the Tezos company would sell itself to the foundation for is excessive. As I understand it, that was always the arrangement. The amount the company would sell itself for was a percentage of the ICO funds raised, I believe.
I do agree that the situation is a shitshow.
Not sure where I read that, can't find it anymore
Great! Start with the Federal Reserve and SEC settings rules in a somewhat transparent process, run by people appointed by democratically elected governments.
But people started doubting monetary policy, rule-making around securities, and the democratic process in principle. Lo and behold: someone creates a system with all of its ideology baked into an algorithm that cannot be changed.
But that leads to rather obvious injustices. And where, previously, these were settled in the open court of law, now the response was a faint shrugging: "That's how it's supposed to work. Shoulda audited the 43,563 lines of code underlying your really smart contract", said one unnamed cryptobro incapable of distinguishing ex ante and ex post fairness[0].
So now we get yet another blockchain, which is almost like a democratic government. Except your wealth determines the power of your vote. (Plus, of course, it's also untested, and throws away everything the concept of democracy stands for except the faint resemblance of something not entirely unlike voting).
[0]: Example: your parents decree in their will that their $100,000,000 fortune shall be distributed among your sister and you according to the following rule: Flip a coin. Heads: Jane gets everything. Tails: Bob gets everything. That process is fair ex ante because you enter with equal chances to win. But the result it produces is decidedly unfair. Good thing it doesn't matter, though: Your mother lost that fortune somewhere in the blockchain, which lead to that horrible horrible murder-suicide that brought you two here today)
Not sure why you're being downvoted for this. Seems like a valid concern for such a system.
It's probably the tone and broken window theory which is embraced by this community.
It would be interesting to put this in numbers.
Now a bunch of people with quite a good amount of ETH have their accounts frozen. Of course (I assume) they'd vote for a change that allows unblocking these accounts. Incidentally, who created the bug is also inside this group (if I'm not wrong).
Questions are:
1. what should the community as a whole think, to change and unlock, or to not allow any change?
2. what would the power of the community be wrt to these bigs, it this was Tezos?
I think some sort of painful event is necessary for certain types of change. Like the Titanic encouraging safer ship specifications and processes. Contract safety needs to vastly improve before smart contracts can be relied on.
Forks should only happen IMO when all sides have merit, when each side is right in their own way. The DAO situation may be justified in that not doing so would have damaged the community too much. Like forcing a kid to forget truly traumatic events but letting them remember broken arms while skateboarding.
Once a child grows up though all actions are irreversible and there is no longer a parent figure to ameliorate mistakes. I'm uncertain what "age" to consider ethereum but I'd tentatively consider it a pre-teen skateboarding incident.