Transparency, The Foundation, Business, and Life in general.
The thread definitely seems to be shifting out the abusive smackdown phase and into the phase of the long-and-thoughtful post. All give praise, to the evolving collective consciousness that is Blackcoin. More humor, a lighter and more respectful tone, diminished 'ego', more focus on substance. I truly hope this thread is never shut down as it is an incredibly rich document of the new and largely uncharted social and monetary experiment called crypto.
As succinctly as I can, here are a few thoughts to consider on the questions of transparency, Foundation, insider ops, and running Blackcoin in a healthy, fair, and effective manner:
Absolute transparency on all fronts and at all times: not realistic, nor even possible. Furthermore, beyond certain limits it is not desirable. Closed-doors are to some extent a 'necessary evil'. They are inevitable, and with all their obvious dangers can nonetheless benefit the currency and its investors AS A GROUP. The negative aspects and risks can also be mitigated considerably through proper management and oversight. How well that goes will, yes, depend somewhat on the ethical standards of certain individuals, as well as on the general level of cooperation and orderliness within community as a whole. You need to consider end results, as compared with those of an 'absolute' democracy, with 'absolute' transparency (scare quotes here because these are only possible hypothetically).
Anyone with experience in the corporate world knows that there are things that stay protected within upper management, at least for a time, and for good reason. Planned innovations and other initiatives can be destroyed, lose all their power, be stolen, copied, even turned against one if released prematurely in the name of transparency. YES, the same closed door does create possibilities of abuse. It happens when individuals involved are of low character and sufficient mechanisms are not in place to stop them.
And please, let's not hear the childish refrain that "this is not corporate, this is not a business, this is decentralized!" Some of the same people who objected to my corporate analogies in the past are now making free use of them. Crypto is different from business in the traditional sense, but it also has a great deal in common with it, and every effective plan that been executed for the benefit of Blackcoin to date has been successful due to the business acumen and business-efficacy of the person/people responsible. The analogy largely holds, and we are too early in crypto's evolution to fully grasp where the analogy breaks down and fundamentally different thinking is required. This is largely uncharted territory, and we are the vanguard. We are the first settlers.
Coming back to the Foundation specifically, I strongly approve of its existence and its demonstrated level of conduct and efficacy thus far. I applaud its stated purpose, and its promise as an instrument for good. It's still evolving, and I recommend giving it a chance to do so. That said, if it does not have one already, it should have a charter and by-laws. That should be in written form and available to everyone. And it should be drafted in full view of the community, with all its inputs taken into account. The possibility of an elected oversight committee could also be considered. But these things all take time. Let's allow for that, and in the meantime not hobble ourselves from present action by demanding perfection by 6pm tonight.
Hi thank you for your deep and thoughtful insight. The very nature of crypto is to be decentralized and give "power" to the many. That is why it was created in the first place. If we start going down the path of centralization, then what is the point of crypto? We might as well just use FIAT. Now I agree we must follow some practices used by Corporations, but closed doors is not one. Transparency is key, realistic, and practical in this environment of mistrust and skepticism. If someone wants to steal or copy an idea then so be it, let them. Anytime you have a few speaking for the many, especially when there are millions at stake, it will always lead to disaster. This has been tried before and failed miserably. As soon as BC starts to reach $1.00 and greed kicks in, people true colors will quickly emerge. If friends & family have become bitter enemies over money, what do you think will happen with strangers who have only known each other a few months? Greed, ego, or thirst for "power" will not be a factoer if everything is decentralized. However, any Foundation with multiple people "running" it will inevitably collapse on itself. The major issue with that is by the time the "Foundation" implodes it would have been established as the central core of the community. If it collapses everything around it will collapse. That is why it is key not to give too much control to one entity. Very good example of that is the US government. We have different branches of government for a reason. There has to be checks and balances to prevent absolute control or absolute collapse.
This question is directly for anyone, which we don't know who they are yet, but some we do, that is on or going to be on the foundation. Why not lets just let this issue rest for 3 months. I think as a community we can all agree that BC has been doing well without a foundation. That doesn't me stop doing PR fundraising, but not under a foundation name. I've never been against any ideas like this, let try them all.
Soekip, and others, can you see the wisdom in putting off the foundation for now. Let revisit this idea in 3 months if people still want this. I think for now we should just continue as we are, we are only 2 months old, and by time 3 more months roll around, it won't even be 6 months old.
I think this is a valid compromise for all here. Can you guys address my question here about putting off the idea of the foundation now for 3 months. I think that's fair.
and 60 comments in it. And 5 of them are new (I know this thanks to RES ( 
