This has been a long time coming and looks great!
A few questions:
Is there a reason to incorporate in Texas versus Delaware (beyond the residency status of the lead dev)?
Will the DAO function where the President oversees but only votes in case of a tie, or will the President's role be a normal voting role (both methods are common in the real world)?
If the later, that is the President gets a normal vote, then would it behoove the system to have one more or one less board member to eliminate the possibility of ties?
Will the DAO require positive identities to be made public?
Can a "deadman's switch" be written to release the spork control during Phase 1 or will the emergency key be applicable there as well?
What will the term of the members be? Can protections be written to only allow Sanctuaries of a certain age to be allowed to vote (to reduce the incentive to pop up a bunch at voting time and then drop them after)? Or perhaps could voting more resilient in another way?
All in all, this is one of the last few pieces of the puzzle to push Biblepay to where it belongs!
These are great questions, thanks, and I'm sure the board will be looking to induct you during the next meeting with a vacancy!
On Texas, it was more about the due diligence already done on the legal requirements for minutes of the meetings and quorums and bylaws and conference call requirements, and location of a local bank account (since someone has to be physically present to open the account).
Good point on the tie. We can add a clause in the bylaws that the youngest boardmembers vote be removed in the case of a tie.
The DAO does not reveal positive IDs if the boardmember chooses to be private, but the founding corporation documents do contain positive IDs for all boardmembers- and in the case of a lawsuit the identities are revealed in court.
Yes, on the deadman switch it is possible. It's a good idea, and something we should consider implementing within 7 months.
The term of the members is 1 year. Most likely the first board meeting will be around Christmas (as these are quarterly) but this will be the organizational meeting - the annual meeting where the board replaces other boardmembers would most likely be Next Christmas. On changing the voting behavior of the prod code for the sancs, its true that right now a new sanc has the same weight as a venerable sanc. Those rules would require modifying the time tested govobj code in prod, and could result in other unforseen consequences we have not thought of (IE related to superblocks and things). Its a matter of weighing if something like that is worth it (IE risk/reward). As it would be an expensive attack to pull that off. Someone would need to spend $4500 per vote on the short term, and if our price rises that may be an even more expensive attack with questionable ability to sway a vote. My gut feeling is its not worth monkeying with the business logic at this time as the economies-of-scale rule applies here as well.