Time flies. With this post in period 1369, death_wish shall be activity-bumped to Member rank.
then maybe you can start a thread or even start your own fund?
Is that your suggestion, Jay?
it's a possibility..
I want to make this clear up-top:
That was NOT on my mind when I raised this discussion.
In the past, it has happened that I was privately solicited to do such a thing. At the time, it was partly a thinly-veiled way to try to make me stop wasting time, and work on Core myself. The implication from the one with the money was that I would be eligible to take a grant from the fund—
hint, hint, write some code! That looked like a fiduciary COI to me; and moreover, although I am competent to evaluate hypothetical grants, I am frankly intimidated by the idea of coding for Core myself. I have a very high opinion of my own abilities, but I also know my limitations. Dunning-Kruger cases are unable to evaluate where they stand—I know perfectly well where I stand. I am
not an experienced C++ coder (C, yes—C++, no, and it is
a very different language despite the similarity of names). Some of the leading Core devs are like rock stars to me. And “mission critical” barely even begins to describe the importance of supreme competence in Core.
What it boiled down to is that I did not want to undertake that level of commitment and responsibility. Not as a fiduciary, and not merrily making COI payments to myself to write code in an environment where my self-confidence is so shaky. All in all—it was flattering, but the idea went nowhere.
That was NOT on my mind when I raised this discussion.
Now that you raise it, I want
to emphasize this in BIG BOLD LETTERS: At this particular point in time and circumstances, the
only way that I would start such a fund would be if (a) I could show a solid commit history myself, or (b) I had a private source of nontrivial funding, before asking the public for anything.
In the latter case, I would NOT be starting a thread in the manner of, “I have nothing, I offer nothing, but I am talented at evaluating grant applications to hand out Other People’s Money—please, please, please contribute!!!”
Rather, it would be: “Here is a fund, with not-insignificant provable assets. I am now evaluating grants, and paying out money. Core developers are welcome to apply, so that they can get paid to devote more time and effort to Core. HODLers are welcome to chip in, if they trust my honesty and my absolute executive discretion in deciding who should get what for which type of work. Grants from my starting source of funds will develop a track record for my handling of Other People’s Money. If nobody else ever contributes, then fine—I will simply spend the existing money until it’s gone, then put the whole thing on pause unless/until more money is available.
Surely it seems more credible to begin to solicit funds once a system is already in place and surely if there are already funders and some monies have already begun to get distributed. Accordingly, then it may well depend upon the credibility of anyone person, also it could provide value if there were a team, too.. so that there is potential for checks and balances.
Sometimes there are benefits in having checks and balances, but if there is a tight nit group of funders, they might not feel that it is necessary to have checks and balances... I could not really speculate that there would ONLY be one way to set up such funding things, and I suppose that whether checks and balances are included as part of the system or procedures to be followed would depend on how far outside of a tight nit group that the fund administrator might be soliciting funds.
Those who don’t believe in my integrity are free not to give; if you don’t know me, I do not take it personally. Those who wish not to believe in my integrity, but wish to smear me and spite me, can go piss up a rope; I will rain hellfire on them, to the extent that I deign to notice them at all.”
If you feel like turning the matter into combat, then sure. fine..
Jay, one of the advantages of never being a beggar is that I never need to beg.
It seems that we should not want to put ourselves into a position in which we need to beg, if it can be helped.
I have gotten myself into pretty bad pickles in the past, and surely sometimes people (even strangers) are helpful and generous.
I remember once being in a really bad situation in which a guy gave me a ride, and I obviously put myself into such bad position and the guy knew it too.. but he held his tongue for the most part, and it was pretty clear that the guy was not very well to do, and when he delivered my lame ass to my destination, I said let me go inside and get some money for you. He said. Don't worry about it. this is on me. I felt bad in some kind of way, but the guy was being charitable to me - even though I really did not deserve it.. and he had gotten me out of a pickle in which it was pretty clear that I was not a very deserving person.
In terms of known interest, my best contacts for this purpose disappeared years ago. Nonetheless, I do know some people who have money on a “does not waste time on Internet forums” level, who care about Bitcoin because they are deeply invested in it. I could ask if they are interested. Of course, that would be up to them; and given that the types of people who could afford this tend to have cut-and-dry savvy and careful planning, I think a bad bear market is an unlikely time to get support for suddenly starting such a project. The bigger question to me is whether I should even be thinking of such a thing right now, instead of working for my own profit in a healthy way.
I heard that it is better to put your own mask on first before worrying about if others are wearing their masks or even able to get to a position to put on their masks.
And that leads me to:
Yes, it seems to make some differences regarding how much help that you have.... and maybe even how long you (or your organization) has been in existence. You must have at least 3 assistants D_W.. hahahaha
Maybe part of the reason that many charitable groups are criticized for having so many administrative costs would be that sometimes it can even take some time to figure out how money is going to be given, but at the same time, once systems are in place (and criteria) established it likely becomes somewhat easier to keep doing what you are set up to do.
I generally detest the “nonprofit” world. Generally.
What I had been saying does not even need to fit within "non-profit." It's just a matter of whether you have a system and practice in place and how many assistants you might have for carrying out the goals and objectives that are set forth in the mandate. Sometimes non-profit seems to fit the description of how everything is arranged including the goals since it might be difficult for the endeavor to have goals of making money if their mandate is to carry out duties of distributing funds.... I am not sure how you make money on that, unless you might include a NFT.. hahahaha.. The whole objective does not seem to be designed in a way that has a money-making purpose.. just distributing money and maybe paying for the efforts of those involved in "gettin ur dun.".. so in that regard it would most likely fit a definitionary objective of not aiming to make money as its central purpose.
There are some good people doing good work with honest motivations; I do not want to broad-brush here. But generally, “nonprofit” attracts corruption. In the past, I personally knew some people who drew six-figure salaries in executive sinecures spending Other People’s Money, at famous-name, highly-trusted organizations. Their behaviour made me sick. Much sicker to me was how highly they were hailed for their personal “altruism” and “philanthropy”.
Sure.. that kind of shit happens.. I am not sure if "non-profit" is the blame.. but of course, people can end up getting into positions in which they end up milking systems and then there is no one really able to throw them out.... so surely that does happen quite a bit. How can it be fixed?: Can there be meaningful checks and balances designed from within?
For that reason, anytime I aim to do some noble deed, I attempt to self-fund.
Well, if you set something up, and then you want it to continue beyond your abilities to do the work and/or maybe beyond your death.. how do you set up your system in a way that allows it to continue to operate within your own established objectives and does not become a milk cow for bad motives.. Absent real strong visions and even the placement of good people within (difficult to know in advance), not easy to accomplish, I would imagine.
Even if you have a $10 million fund, your whole operating budget would only be about $400k per year (assuming an ability to draw 4% per year on the principle funds). You might be able to spend half of that annual budget on administration and half on distribution to targets.
If you are administrating the fund yourself (since you funded it), maybe you could purposefully choose to have slimmer administration costs and draw a lower salary. a $50k per year salary for you and a $50k for an assistant (if you need or want one), but there are operating expenses too, no? It's hard to imagine a fund (even self-funded) smaller than $10 million being able to potentially perpetuate itself beyond your inability to continue with the work or your death... but if you are administering a fund long enough, you could still strive to continue to grow the fund to become larger than $10 million, and if it is starting out by growing itself by being invested in bitcoin and even holding most of its wealth in bitcoin, then it may well be possible that the fund will be able to grow on its own beyond the amount that it is spending each year.
Even devoting my time and effort to writing about issues I deem important—I so fiercely guard my integrity and independence that I even dislike putting out a tip address like yours, even though there’s nothing wrong with that; I may want to reconsider such extremes.
I question whether I should even say anything beyond having a public bitcoin address can be used as a means to verify identify if a forum account ever gets hacked...You really speculate that I am begging or could be understood (misinterpreted) to be begging? right.
Suffice it to say, I now have some problems with an abject lack of self-funding resources. I currently have a project I deem important under another identity, not on this forum, which is stalled since my BTC got almost wiped.
Maybe I could revise my idea that a minimum self-funded program directed at funding others to be at least $10million in order to have a $400k budget per year.
I don't consider a project that does not sustain principle to really be operating in a sustainable way, but if you are wanting to self-fund yourself, then surely you would not necessarily need $10 million for that. If you were bare bones then you probably could have $500k in principle, which would generate $20k per year (of course a 4% withdrawal rate) - if you believe that you could be self-funded for $20k per year. Again, I do not believe drawing into principle is a good idea, and I believe that it is poor asset management, unless you happen to be just wanting to use up all of the money in the fund..
If someone gives you $100k and they say that they want you to spend all of it over 5 years, then you might agree to those terms in which you are spending all of the funding.. principle and everything. If they tell you that they are giving you $1million, but they ONLY want you to spend from the income generated off of that $1million, then you may well conclude that assuming a 4% per year withdrawal rate your budget its $40k per year or $3,333 per month.
Whether you generate the money yourself and then set the terms or you get the money from someone else and they set the terms (that you agree upon), there surely can be differences in how it is set up and if it is just some kind of a short term fling or if it set up in a kind of sustainable way in which you are spending off of the passive income rather than having to spend from the principle.
If I were to do something like a Core development fund, then insofar as practicable, I would want to avoid or minimize spending it on reimbursing myself for my own time and effort. Even to the extent that that would be justified, I dislike that idea. That leaves a practical problem right now. I probably should not even be thinking about this right now. “Ruthless mercenary capitalist” is supposed to be my agenda!
It is not bad to think about those kinds of things, especially since my earlier responses seem to be describing several of those kinds of scenarios about whether you are completely self-funded in terms of generating your own funds to fund your own efforts, whether you receive outside funding to fund your own core developing efforts or if those funds are supposed to be distributed to others (not yourself), of course, it could be both and it could be sustainable or not sustainable and spending all of the principle in a proscribed period.
I suppose over the years, many of us in this thread have seen how bitcoin is broken in x, y or z areas.. and it can be a bit wearing.. so frequently the suggestion would be what you doing to try to fix it rather than just whining about the so many ways that bitcoin is deficient/defective and other coins have some supposedly various better processes and features that need to come to bitcoin.... so sometimes it can end up causing questions regarding what's the purpose to be constantly whining about the so many areas that bitcoin is supposedly broken.. and maybe many of us might not even agree with starting out with such premise that it is broken.. even though maybe some things can be built or more awareness on certain topics.. [...]
I agree with that. I balance that against the need for candor in
constructive criticism, avoiding the problem of yes-men, groupthink, cheerleading, and hollow shilling. Perhaps you and I may balance that differently, but I do try to balance it.
It could be the case. Not saying it is not.. At least not at this specific moment...
A life protip for you: It is possible for a poor person to be friends with a rich person, if the former has the pride never to be a beggar, a mooch, or a cheater. I learned this when young: By a peculiar circumstance, I had lunch with a businessman. He was impressed that when lunch was done, I pulled out my wallet and picked up my part of the tab. I was a youth working odd jobs for low wages. He was rich, and accustomed to people trying to mooch off of him. We became fast friends.
Are you telling me something that you speculated that I did not already know in regards to judgement/character and even things that sometimes might happen in the real world to affect how character/credibility might be assessed by others? A lot of factors come to play in terms of judging the character of others and whether there is trust, and also how much time/testing has to take place before trust develops. there can be a difference between I trust you to do my gardening or I trust you to drive my car or I trust you to do my office work or I trust you to be my personal accountant... or I trust you to take my daughter on a date... hahahahaha thought that I would throw that last one in there for fuuuuuuun..
Another thing I want to make
excruciatingly clear: There is no bigger red flag than someone who gratuitously brags about his own honesty, and demands that others trust him for no apparent reason. There is even a stereotype of a scammer who uses the word “Honest” in the name of his business.
Doth protest too much, methinks.I do not and would not do that. But when others cast groundless, wholly unjustified insinuations
against my honesty (or in the case of some others here, viciously smear me as a liar), then sometimes, I do need to defend my honour. It may involve walking a fine line.
Please recall my initial response when you implied some questions about the veracity of something I had said. I told you that you are free to think whatever you want, as long as you do not defame me with what, in substantial effect, would be an attack on my reputation based on all cynicism and no evidence. I said, in effect, that I do not wish to waste my time discussing anything with anyone who does not find me credible.
That is fair.
I have asked nothing from anyone here. I have spent time and effort contributing posts that some people found valuable. I have friends off-forum who know me and trust me; a part of the reason for my current WO posting spree is to relieve them of an emotional burden
they have been suffering since January. After months of patiently enduring my misery, they didn’t catch the brunt of my grief at catastrophic loss—y’all did, right here.
Why should I subject myself to your questions about my integrity? I don’t need you, and I don’t need
that. Regrettably, due to opsec, I cannot even be tempted by your daughter—not unless you can PGP-encrypt her and send her through Tor to tryst with me.
I doubt that I need to say anything in response to this diatribe... , so I won't.
I have friends who are wealthier than I am. I have never abused their friendship—not even at times when I was personally in much worse desperation than I am now. Because I never abuse their friendship, they respect me as their equal—even if I am flat broke. I have nothing but contempt for the bent of your strawman.
It's too bad that you feel contempt... about my way of attempting to grapple with my perceptions of what might be important and/or relevant points to make in these here interwebs. It could be possible that others might potentially be able to get value from some of our interactions, if they had not fallen asleep half way though them.
Contempt was for the implications of raising an idea that I was neither offering nor thinking about, then shooting it down based on slighting my credibility to do your idea. Not for you personally.
I am not even sure if I was doing it intentionally in every instance, but surely each of us has times in which we do not necessarily accept the frame (or framework) of the other person, so we (royal that is) make a response that provides our own frame (or framework) on the topic.
You can take such frame for whatever it is worth, or accuse me of strawmanning or being insensitive (and cruel), failing to respond to your "honor" or whatever fallacy you believe applies.. which you have already accused me of various fallacies in response to you and I have accused you of various fallacies and misleading ways of arguing your points too.. including irrelevancies and pumping of various narratives/bitcoin naysaying talking points, too.. Sure, you and others complain about me, and sometimes I complain about others including you. Whether it seeps into other posts or there seems to be a pattern that is identified might become part of any response too.
Some issues might continue to come up, and I am not sure if there is any way to resolve. sometimes the issues will just fade away too because they get beaten to death or maybe neither of us is bringing up the issue.. for example, when you unilaterally proclaim that I capitulated on a point merely because you wish to have such reading of what had happened, and then you expect that issue to not come up anymore, then you have likely read the matter wrong (and your expectations are too high)... There surely have been some times that I have let certain issues slide (just like you probably have too), and so sometimes those issues still might come up later down the road... unless you get some statement from me in which I truly proclaim that I am not going to talk about a certain topic again, but I have seen members go back on those kinds of claims/promises too. I might have even done that from time to time myself. I cannot recall
(or at least I cannot represent that I have not gone back on my prior promises.. hahahahaha).
