a bit disappointing upon further review, but again, my guess is that it probably has to do with mastercore. Robby was so right about the importance of a reference client
In December, 2 different parties offered to fork bitcoind to include the master protocol. Both Rob and JR turned down the offers because "JR was going to code the daemon".
Yeah, it might've been my biggest regret as a board member. It was never even really considered though I did ask what it would cost to have Robby (some six-figure stake and board membership, iirc) before never following up (at least, on my part) because JR seemed confident saying we'd be better off without his offer. Water under the bridge and all that, but pride indeed begets the fall. Lost time we can never get back... but progress nonetheless. dev@ has been amazing especially since they now have a sense of (coordinated) direction moving forward.
I'm glad that the mastercore team seems to be on the right track now. What is it going to take for the mastercoin foundation to get on the right track? Does it need the full board to resign and have proper elections? or is it just too late?
Has the board thought about dissolving and handing over the remaining funds to another team like counterparty? The whole point of this project was to get a bitcoin 2.0 protocol off the ground and it's been proven that other teams have been much more successful with much less, if any funding. Just imagine what those other teams can do with the rest of mastercoin's funds!
edit: maybe letting the safe team control the remaining funds and directing the mastercoin development would be more fair to everyone. In a way the mastercoin foundation owes them about 4 million dollars.
In the works hmmstrange! We are organizing at least some of these (most feasible and beneficial) items and some others to be executed upon in the short term (after Mastercore), though, I will allow the relevant voices to share when ready since I don't like speaking on others' behalf. I apologize for being perhaps cryptic and not offering more details, but certain developments have to occur first.
I would very welcome us sharing a summary of any general or specific concerns, grievances and suggestions we have in the meantime—we intend to address everything. My thoughts, which I know many of you probably share that we are currently immediately addressing, include operations, expenditures, and organizational structure.
Commenting on your suggestions thus far, proper elections—very much agreed.
Dissolving and handing over remaining funds, since the members of the board tends to have the majority of the MSC distribution, it seems to me to be unnecessarily risky to hand funds over to any entity that may not have the Mastercoin constituents' best interests first. A better alignment of interests would have to first take place before something like this can be considered. I understand that running lean is a forte of XCP et al., but we would do better to emulate that according to our project's needs rather than giving another entity sudden and full responsibility for said needs. In the works.
And re: MaidSafe, I don't think it'll do their project any good to necessitate distracting them have responsibility for the Mastercoin Foundation on top of their respective efforts. We share a lot of aligned interests yes, but governmentally/operationally it doesn't make sense when Nick and David already have a very respected and well-heard voice working together on our board. We are lucky to have them in that capacity, I would not wish any inconvenience on their part having a day-to-day responsibility past the influence they already have since they can achieve the same ends. Of course, I am not speaking for the good sirs but humbly sharing my point of view: it doesn't seem to be very feasible or optimal, at least at first glance.
where is RON？ JR? 
