Scope of the Secret Foundation

[mumuse]

@SecretSkrillah

Why would we centralise the Awareness & Education committees to make it appear as though the foundation does more in these areas? That will create more problems whilst only solving this wholly aesthetic issue, if it even does that…

The foundation has the resources to hire professionals with more experience and qualifications than the existent committee leads, and in turn create better structures, simply.

[Brendan]

Some functions maybe, but the majority I doubt you will find someone that cares as much or puts in the effort. Everyone thinks hiring is so easy. It’s not. Especially getting “professionals” up to speed with crypto and nuances of decentralized communities. I’ve been around and seen other projects struggle with it. The evidence to me supports the opposite.

[DannyM]

@mumuse

These committees should once again again be centralized by the Foundation’s leadership and the Foundation should invest in these areas at the same time to increase the number of people working on this, NOT simply rely in the existing structures as contractors and carry on as is.

I don’t think I agree with this. While there is some overlap between the awareness & education committees and the foundation, I don’t believe that more centralisation is the right answer here. The committee leads have done an impeccable job so far and while I absolutely trust the foundation I think they have too much on their plate already (check out everything that @Carter-Woetzel wrote!).

@mumuse

given the Foundation does not have any sort of formal board, a possibility could be using on-chain governance. If the proposal to fund an event passes, the Foundation executes. If it doesn’t, the Foundation does not execute. Thus, the Foundation simply carries on the will of the chain and we remove any potential conflict of interest, accusations of Tor favoring X over Y, etc.

While I agree with this in principle, it isn’t as simple when dealing with anything that requires NDAs. Often such projects don’t even allow mentioning the names of the individuals involved until the deal goes through or a specific milestone is hit. And given that the Foundation has as far as I know never shown any signs of acting behind the shadows or using the funds for personal gains, I believe that a little trust is warranted. If anything happens (or has happened and I’m unaware of it), this might be something that’s worth doing.

@anon60841010

considering that secret was dumped by multiple dollars worth of price by parties who received OTC deals from the foundation

That’s a big accusation, do you have proof of that? I’m not implying you’re wrong, but if this is true, how is it that I’ve only ever heard about this now?

@anon60841010

There are more humans capable of submitting proposals. If somebody submits a proposal on Tuesday there is nothing in the rules that forbids it.

the point is that there was a prior agreement on the 13th to not do so until the governance committee can have a discussion with the scrt foundation and scrt labs. While it’s not necessarily “against the rules”, it does break a previous agreement.

@mumuse

The foundation has the resources to hire professionals with more experience and qualifications than the existent committee leads, and in turn create better structures, simply.

If the committee leads are unexperienced or don’t have the right qualifications in your opinion (I disagree, but that’s not the issue at hand), wouldn’t it make more sense to give those committees more funds so they can hire more experienced professionals? Centralisation is not the answer

@anon60841010

Going into the next phase of growth i think bringing new people into a properly structured foundation is the ideal outcome. So I think I agree with what you are saying.

Has it ever been established that the foundation needs a change of structure or new people besides the need for new employees that every organisation faces? Besides being slow to handle certain tasks, has there ever been any complaint about the way the foundation is run? Does anyone seriously think that the foundation doesn’t have the network’s best interest in mind?

@Brendan

Some functions maybe, but the majority I doubt you will find someone that cares as much or puts in the effort. Everyone thinks hiring is so easy. It’s not. Especially getting “professionals” up to speed with crypto and nuances of decentralized communities. I’ve been around and seen other projects struggle with it. The evidence to me supports the opposite.

Couldn’t have said it better

---

All this being said three separate discussions have started on this forum about lowering the taxes, defining the scope of the foundation and turning it into a non-profit. Those are valid discussions to have but multiple threads and defragmented conversations are not an efficient way to communicate three ideas that are tied together. It only makes it harder to follow the points that have been brought up by both sides.

I’m not necessarily either pro or against lowering the amount of tax that goes to the foundation, but what I can tell from this discussion, is that we just don’t have all the information needed to make the correct decision.

I also don’t believe that going straight to 0% is the right choice, even if we do decide to lower the tax and all of that. No individual or company alike can sustain losing 100% of its income, no matter how well structured they are or how much they have saved in case something like this happens. Going straight to 0% is going to put a lot of psychological strain on everyone in the foundation (especially tor).

[DannyM]

@anon60841010

You mentioned me a few times.

Please don’t take this as a personal attack, I have no ill intentions it’s just that you were the one that made the most claims

@anon60841010

Tor has spent more time since tuesday trying to delay and delegitimize a tax proposal than he has spent in the last year on advancing an NPO discussion or clarifying the scope of his own organization. This is something he has done even after he entered into a social contract with the whole community under the premise that it would be an NPO in proposal 18.

That’s a valid concern, thank you for bringing it forward.

[oljo]

This OTC brag caught my eye as well.

As did this " 1. The Foundation is very conservative with its spending. This is not a bad thing however it can also be a symptom of resources not being efficiently spent. I think the latter feeling is what leads to people considering the foundation is currently overfunded."

The second is nice problem , bigger picture .

[oljo]

@tor

The same emotionally manipulative language as prior conflicts is being used, as well as the same public tactics of deception

@tor

It’s clear that there are undisclosed motivations here from multiple parties. Governance is not about who has more time in the day to sow dissent and make false public statements to turn sentiment.

Fear brings out the big goons, you must be doing big moves to have so many baboons trying to take up your time… The Future is brighter because you, keep shining AND hire a fookn PA ffs …

BTW villains
There are other olden hero’s quietly keeping the privacy fires alive as well.

[oljo]

I read like… Tor has control of the buttons on the flying machine…

SF piloting is very nice gliding while we keep build the friggen wings

[bigpappa]

Tor,
After your recent disclosure of the June 2021 incident, do you still stand by your statement?

@tor

This statement about OTC counterparties of the foundation market dumping is absolutely false. End of story. Never place words in my mouth agai