Why? We’re talking about a 3 month transition according the proposal. What’s 7 days of discussion?
The most urgent need right now IMO is finding a suitable trustee. The search doesn’t require this proposal to be finalized or approved. I do not support cutting discussion short here. This should be considered carefully now.
I do support Prop 127 going to chain immediately.
Please answer the following questions;
-What is the SF and compensation packages for its single member shareholder.
-What prevented the forming of an NPO as you stated publicly would be the case
-What on going benefit does SF provide SN after this debacle
-What are the benefits to Secret Network of having SecretFoundation, structured as a C.Corp beyond enriching its founder.
-Will the SF C.Corp remain a for profit and does it have tax advantages
-Who was originally and specifically responsible for transitioning the SF into an NPO status?
-What are the CURRENT KPI’s for SF and are those KPI’s linked to your compensation or dividend
-How, if at all, do KPI’s affect executive or employees compensations currently?
-How were you chosen initially or recruited, and by whom? What are your current qualifications?
-If you fail to disclose transparent financials and continue to stall by providing non answers, how do you think we should proceed as a community.
-Are you honest or compromised and here for money?
-Do you have good intentions and will you cooperate fully?
Most importantly, as stated many times on many calls. Will Eric Tor Bair provide audited financial records. Without records and compensation for your c corp Eric, we can not in good faith trust that you are a good actor and I will advise us to treat you as hostile and do everything in our power to rectify.
This proposal is a big step forward and i think i can speak for all people on this !
Community members who are to be appointed to the board will first need to be approved by the community. A single organization within the ecosystem (including SCRT Labs) cannot have more than a single board seat. The board is expected to have at least three members (and most likely more), assuring that no single community related party can control the majority of the board.
This is a very good way to be sure there are no conflict of interests and this will be the right move to go and to get more transparancy!
We at Actilist will vote YES on this proposal! (if it comes to that)
I agree with the proposed course of action. Moving past this situation quickly is essential as it is detrimental to the current and potential members of the network and creates negative publicity. Transparency, planning, and avoiding similar mistakes in the future are key in handling such situations.
The recent vote on chain (#127) shows a near-unanimous loss of confidence in the Secret Foundation, and it demonstrates the community’s ability to come together.
The current situation teaches us the importance of checks and balances. The problem at hand is the concentration of power in the hands of a single self-elected individual, who is unwilling to relinquish their power and act in the best interest of the community. The lack of accountability, despite repeated requests from the community, has led to this situation.
As a community we need to learn from our previous mistakes.
To prevent future challenges, I recommend implementing one of the following measures:
Consensus-based voting, where members vote on proposals for leadership changes.
Rotation of leadership roles, to ensure equal distribution of power.
Performance-based evaluation, where leaders are replaced based on their performance.
Emergency measures, allowing members to vote for temporary leadership changes in crisis situations.
The transition is immediate, but it is only a temporary solution, it has been said that another solution must be found within 3 months.
If you were at the last govarnance call, you’d know that 
If you don’t understand what I wrote then read proposal #127, it’s already onchain and you can vote 
https://secretnodes.com/proposals/127
This is exactly how I feel. 100% support this proposal. I hope @tor acts in good faith, stops trying to be a leader on this and starts working together on the smooth transition to a new foundation.
Just a few proposals -
New Foundation Mission Statement : The Foundation’s mission is to advance the development and adoption of secure and private blockchain technologies that empower individuals and organizations to have control over their data and financial transactions. We aim to foster a thriving ecosystem of developers, researchers, and users who value privacy, decentralization, and open-source principles. Through our efforts, we aim to create a world where people can confidently and securely participate in the digital economy without sacrificing their personal liberties.
creating the NPO in one of the following locations: Gibraltar, Switzerland, Malta, and the US states of Wyoming / Delaware.
Values (in no particular order) :
Once the dust settles it would be good to see dApp teams from various sectors of the network form “guild” DAOs & take seats on this proposed oversight board. PriFi guild, NFT guild, Infrastructure guild as examples.
I’m quite interested to explore the idea of SubDAOs as a neutral Agent with any teams that are interested in this. Trailblazers like MakerDAO are leading the way here & we have some connections there we can bounce ideas off.
If any individuals or teams would like to join a working group on this topic, please reach out to me directly. 
I would personally recommend Gibraltar. Straightforward legislation for set up, tax exemptions, flexible governance structure and more. Crypto friendly jurisdiction.
I think they are both urgent and luckily not mutually exclusive.
A 3 month transition is how long it takes to complete the task. That is different from getting the ball rolling.
(Luckily) the market cares more about whether initial action has been taken and there is a clear path forward than whether the transition is complete. Until this takes place, this narrative will keep festering and harming the ecosystem.
Yeah agree, not exactly what i meant to say.
moreso meant: us complaining about not having these questions answered in the past (when they should have been) wont actually help in making a future plan. So lets stop dwelling on that and aim to answer them and push them forward instead.
Many questions have already been answered by some dedicated people it seems, glad the situation is moving forward.
UPDATE: Please see this thread to get the full picture - Collaborative Effort to Restructure Foundation into a Transparent NPO
As @pmuecke has suggested and given the wide support (and including that of SF as of yesterday), the proposal is now up for a vote.
