The conflict of interest is that, you (and the others) being board members of the proposed "Foundation" and therefore privy to inside information of all kinds, would of course have a serious conflict of interest since you are invested in the coin and could (would) act on that information to either buy or sell the coins with an unfair advantage. I am pretty sure you are aware of the laws that prevent such things to happen -or are designed to- in the real world, so surely you also see that inevitable conflict of interests, don't you?
Thanks in advance for addressing the matter.
It's possible. I can't discredit the notion. But the foundation itself started as a group of investors who pledged to each other that they would hold and build a better coin. It's sort of like going to reddit.com/r/bitcoin and calling it inside information. It's really just a bunch of excited people trying to promote an idea.. The only inside information we have is that we are trying really hard to make our holdings worth more.
That's about the only way I could address that. I mean if you think it out there aren't that many examples of things we could take advantage of. Unless we were actively trying to pump and dump the coin and manipulate prices, but if this was another pump and dump group we certainly wouldn't be paying for a PR firm, or addressing community concerns... I can't convince you to trust us, only our actions can..
I hope this helps.
I though we were trying to be clear and honest. And nice. No, sorry the analogy is very poor. I have gone some lengths to explain to you what an insider is and what are the legal limitations imposed on them. I will further point out the really stern discipline measures the SEC -and even the FBI- dispenses to those who violate those laws. This is a coin worth $0.13 but, in the future we all hope it will be worth much more. But even right now, you already are in possession of privileged information that only that group knows about- i.e. the name of the PR Company-, that could mean an important push of the coin's price when made public, so why wouldn't you, your friends and families, as well as those of the rest of your group, buy cheap and dump what you bought, at or near the top of the range once the news hit the street? There are no laws in crypto that would punish such actions so, why wouldn't you and or your co-foundation buddies do it? Today, for instance, I have read Arigard brag about his trading on IRC, so I imagine he is quite the active trader and maybe in sizable amounts. He is also in this foundation of yours, isn't he?
It isn't a matter of trust, unfortunately. Not even a matter of trust... but verify. It is, in fact, a matter of there not being a need at all for a controlling foundation and one being rammed down every investor's throat, which is quite a different matter. Nobody, but those 15-20, will benefit from the existence of the foundation (if you guys want some actions, you could just the same present them and even sponsor them is you feel strongly enough about them... including the notion of the PR firm hiring). So, once again, why a foundation for a coin that is doing very well indeed without one and that is only 2 months old.
Lets forget about being disingenuous, shall we? This is clearly a political land grab to ensure the control and centralization of BlackCoin. Nothing else.
And very well could prove to be it's undoing.
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.
? 
