Topic: [ANN] Swarm Fund 1.0 - [OFFLINE THREAD] - page 3. (Read 139876 times)

Not that I know of..

Is Joel Dietz involved?

Watch out for SWARM scam 2.0 - https://cofound.it/

Incredible.  He's morphed swarm.fund from the defunct crowdfunding project we all know into some kind of a closed investment group referenced in his blog.  It takes balls to use the same domain.  I guess he didn't want to lose the link juice.

Good news! SWARM will be accepted in exchange for CoinProLite (CPL) during the U$10M PoB ICO thanks to this post -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18902373.

All we'll need from the SWARM community is a valid SWARM address sans a private key.

Follow the link above or in my sig if you hold other schitcoins wishing to burn for CPL.

Bruno (Chinese name: Luŏ Xióng; 裸熊)

Interesting. This guy is still blogging and apparently the Swarm website (http://www.swarm.fund/) is still up.

https://medium.com/@Swarm/five-simple-principles-for-managing-your-crypto-portfolio-c9a0a691eb8e

No word about what happens with all the money people invested in their fund. 

gurghet, this isn't that Swarm.  This is the Swarm that Joel Dietz mismanaged and ran into the ground.

there are no news about swarm from year.

Just wrote an article about Swarm coin: https://www.sales4k.com/blockchain/do-you-really-need-a-blockchain/

Is SWARM totally dead, or is there a new thread, or something?

I assume nobody will care about delisting of the coin from Poloniex....

the coin seems dead for a while..... and I did not really realize about it

this project is as alive as ronald regan

Arize...

I participated in that Bitcoin election and it was a miserable failure, with two different types of technologies explored.  In the end the election was completed, but going in the Foundation had serious deficiencies just in handling the data alone (not to mention that the swarm thing was not workable).  As a matter of fact, the plug was pulled on Swarm mid election and there was a switchover to Helios.  Neither worked very well, however.

At the end of January 2015 ~ Bitcoin Foundation sent e-mails to a large number of persons who renewed with the Foundation, claiming that their membership is expired.

Staff member confirmed that “in order to re-engage with expired members, we send this e-mail to a master list of approximately 300 records inside our CRM... Your record was not manually updated in this DB so it pulled it.”

Prior to the election, 300 members therefore, were (and possibly still are) being misinterpreted by the Foundation's system and even when the members can see that they are paid up at https://members.bitcoinfoundation.org/ (which is no longer accessible) ~ the Foundation was interpreting members as expired who in fact were paid. Subject to correction through manual updating, it is unknown how many members were kept from voting due to this internal error, but it is safe to conclude the following:

1) A report on what happened with these errors was never issued prior to the 2015 election.
2) An unknown, but potentially significant number of errors remains, which would likely either dissuade eligible voters from having voted, or would convince Foundation staff (who had not yet corrected an error) that a certain member is not eligible even if the opposite is true.

Additionally, neither Swarm nor Helios worked to the Foundation members' satisfaction and there were numerous complaints about both.

Finally, the single (trusted!) individual who was granted the (central!) authority to run the elections refused to provide a 'NOTA,' Withhold, or Do Not Approve option in the second round of voting (Helios), even though such an option (Withhold, Do Not Approve) was present in the first round.  This was voter disenfranchisement.  Section 4.8 of the Foundation Bylaws state: "Voting: Each member is entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of the members of the member's membership class. Voting may be by voice vote, written vote (emphasis added) or through electronic means as directed by the Executive Director. Cumulative voting for the election of directors or otherwise shall not be authorized."  Various members attempted to submit a "NOTA" (None of the Above), or alternatively Do Not Approve vote in the second round by written vote sent in via e-mail as is allowed in the Bylaws.  However, the individual granted the authority to run the elections refused to count the votes and the Board refused to answer the complaints about this matter.

In sum, I would submit that Swarm and Helios were not workable (at least, when used as election tools), obviously, Swarm went away somewhere (who knows what they did with all that money they got), and I don't know about Helios.  And of course, as noted, such models are subject to abuses from central "authority" figures and corruption in general.

In light of what we are seeing in the horror of North American politics lately (as just one example), I venture to suggest that "now is the time" for everyone to admit that the system of representation we have is a failure, and it's time to move on to something completely different.

That post is over a year old.  What ever happened with that voting project?

http://swarm.lefora.com/topic/109/SWARM-partnered-with-Bitcoin-foundation#.VwmXU_krLrc


The link is dead, but here's the archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20150228204657/http://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/voting-on-the-blockchain-version-1-0

Name:   fractastical
Posts:   213
Activity:   213
Position:   Full Member
Date Registered:   December 21, 2013, 01:27:52 AM
Last Active:   November 18, 2015, 07:31:30 AM

Has the dev gone?

Are you sure of this?

Whiny rants

Did they produce anything?