RE: @ura-soul: Analysis of Organisational Structure Proposals for a Steem Foundation

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: @ura-soul: Analysis of Organisational Structure Proposals for a Steem Foundation

View the full context

impactn in #foundationproposal • 7 years ago

Dear ura-soul,

many thanks for this overview, which hopefully many people will read in course of finding their favorite proposal. If possible, I'd like to pick your brain a little bit more:

We've proceeded in two ways:

making purpose and goals more precise, which as a consequence leads to less interpretational freedom in applying rules
developing a basic set of rules for setup and interaction of working circles.
We try to keep the number of rules at a minimum, coping with the possible 'con' you've mentioned without being overly idealistic. What do you think about the new version of DeCentraSteem?

Second thing we'd love to have some exchange on, is legal structure. Our proposal gives every working circle the freedom to choose its legal form. One could be a coordination group without legal status, one could be a foundation following the ideas of @bluefinstudio and another one a company in a tax haven à la @jackmiller sharing profits with the foundation. This setting leaves one question open: is the network of working-circles a legal entity in the FIAT-world itself? I think, this won't be necessary. Instead, we could introduce a peer2peer-funding scheme, working in the following way:

A sponsor/donator/member decides to give money to be distributed within the foundation.
Money is transferred to an account, being administrated by trustees (a working circle). At this stage it is still owned by the giving party but already subject to the rules of distribution within the foundation.
As soon as a working circle asks for money according to the accepted plans, the trustees perform the transfer of the money. Legally this would be a direct transfer between giver and receiver.

What do you think about this?

Many thanks @impactn

7 years ago in #foundationproposal by impactn

0.00 JAHM

1 vote

Sort:

Trending

[-]

ura-soul 7 years ago

Ahoy! You are welcome - thanks for linking me to your follow up post.
Some people might say that I am too 'negative', but I don't think that's true - I think that I have just dug deeply enough into our world (and seen with my own eyes behind closed doors) that a frustratingly high percentage of our planet are either quite happy to deny the real needs of others or are apathetic to such imbalances.

Trust people, and this will work.

This basically means that when I see an idea that is primarily based on trust, I shiver ;)
Human history is littered with projects and entire empires where people trusted in people who broke everything ;)

We are always trusting something, we might be trusting that someone is honest, or we might be trusting that they are dishonest - however, maybe neither are as true as we think.
Given that your model begins with a stake weighted vote to decide on the initial members of the trustee group - who then go on to decide so much, it essentially means that rather than trusting people (in general) so much, we are trusting that those who hold the most stake are also the ones who are best placed to decide the future of the foundation and it's actions. This issue is essentially why I didn't make a proposal - since I don't have a way to bypass stake weighted voting and no matter what structure is created, the outcome can always be that those with the most stake get to decide the future of the entire project, forever - unless perhaps there is some kind of super veto built in.. However, what is to stop the founding members from removing such a rule later on?

It's not that I specifically think that those with the most stake are dishonest, I just look to design systems that can't fail - which means looking to the weak points and preventing any threats from getting through - now or in the future.

In this case, I feel that what is needed is a very specific definition for how conflicts will be resolved on a practical level.

is the network of working-circles a legal entity in the FIAT-world itself?

I am not a legal expert, but I imagine that if the legal form is chosen by each circle, then they would be their own legal entities interacting with each other voluntarily. I don't know if a legal entity definition exists that would cover all of them together.

Again, I don't know enough about the legality of financial transfers and ownership - but I imagine that if money is being transferred from a donator to another group's account, there would need to be a legal contract in place in order for the donator to truly be able to rely on the money still being under their own control. I'm not sure of the functionality that is available in the smart contracts system that is now running for Steem, but maybe it could be used here.

Overall, although I like this idea more than a traditional corporate model - I still see it as centralised at it's core - I'm not sure how it can be improved in that regard, though.

0.00 JAHM

5 votes

[-]

impactn 7 years ago

Many thanks for your comments and the opportunity to pick your brain. Concerning the legal entity we've found a solution with two advantages:

Direct transfer from donor/sponsor to recipient with the trustees being only in charge of checking whether the distribution follows two rules:

two working circles have given their OK for a proposal
the funds, being asked for, are part of the budget within the proposal.

No need for a FIAT legal structure of the network of working-circles because it won't receive the funds or join in any other legal contracts.

We would introduce a peer2peer-funding scheme, working in the following way:

A sponsor/donator/member decides to give money to be distributed within the foundation.
Money is transferred to an account, accessible only through multisig by the sponsor/donator/member and the trustees (working-circle). At this stage it is still owned by the giving party but already subject to the rules of distribution within the foundation.
As soon as a working circle asks for money according to the two above mentioned rules, the parties (donor and trustees) perform the transfer of the money together using multisig (there already is a multsig-transaction app on steempeak I just learned from @sorin.cristescu). Legally this would be a direct transfer between giver and receiver.

Concerning your second point of centralisation through stake-based voting, maybe this could be a solution.

If a working-circle (e.g. the trustees) repeatedly doesn't act in favor of the purpose (e.g. refuses to sign transfers w/o reason), five Steemians step up and ask the working circle to stop work completely.
If the working-circle refuses to do so because its members think, they have done a good job and two rounds of mediation between the parties don't lead to a result, members of all working circles vote on the future of this particular working-circle.
This voting process is not stake-based but one (wo)man/one vote. To ensure it, a voluntary KYC-process is performed. Only those envealing their identity may vote.
If the result leads to dissolving the working-circle (in this case the trustees), any five Steemians with 2000 SP may set up a new working-circle with the same topic.

If things are done this way, we start with stake-based voting but would move away from it step by step if there are reasons to do so.

Finally, how to secure rules from malicious actors? I don't think there is a completely safe way to prevent this. But the rule, that every working circle may be stopped by 5 other Steemians shoul be quite good in preventing this. Probably, we'll have to add, that the piece of work leading to contradiction may not be executed until an agreement has been found.

It would be great if you - and others interested in this discussion - would join our discord https://discord.gg/H9FVAKU

0.00 JAHM

1 vote

[-]

ura-soul 7 years ago

You are welcome. Here are my thoughts:

You wrote:

Direct transfer from donor/sponsor to recipient with the trustees being only in charge of checking whether the distribution follows two rules:     two working circles have given their OK for a proposal

Maybe I misunderstand here, but if the donator is donating directly to a project, why would they be bothered when a working circles tries to say 'no' for some reason? Wouldn't they just donate anyway?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by 'multi-sig' - does that mean that the money can't be moved unless both parties agree and sign? What happens if there is a dispute and the donator can't get it back?

I'm also not sure I understand your suggestion regarding the removal of the trustee working group. Isn't the trustee working group the key, foundational group that has the most power?

If the result leads to dissolving the working-circle (in this case the trustees), any five Steemians with 2000 SP may set up a new working-circle with the same topic.

This sounds like anyone with 2000SP can just take that position.. What happens if 10 groups all want that position?

Also, the idea that working groups work together as a whole to upkeep the integrity of the network/system/foundation makes sense, but aren't the trustee group and initial founding members the ones who ultimately decide which working groups get established? What's to stop them from only authorising their friends, for example? Maybe I have lost some of the details of your previous post - if so, please remind me. :)

0.00 JAHM

[-]

impactn 7 years ago

Sorry, I missed this comment of yours. Many thanks for replying.

Maybe I misunderstand here, but if the donator is donating directly to a project, why would they be bothered when a working circles tries to say 'no' for some reason? Wouldn't they just donate anyway?

The donator/giving party would not assign his donation to a specific project but to the foundation as a whole. Through the set of working-circles and rules the foundation decides where the funds should go. The final step is transferring the funds. At this final step the giving party/donator and the trustees circle jointly transfer the funds. (In writing this, I realise we need a different rule if we are dealing with many small donations.)

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by 'multi-sig' - does that mean that the money can't be moved unless both parties agree and sign? What happens if there is a dispute and the donator can't get it back?

Yes, multi-sig is a technical means requiring signature of multiple parties. Concerning dispute, I'd suggest to apply a (new) rule, quite similar to rule no 1:

In case of a dispute a mediation process is initiated, which in the worst case leads to a voting process amongst the members of all active working circles how to decide.
If a malicious actor decides to run away, taking his keys with him, this is a problem which cannot be solved within the foundation. What would you think of a KYC-process for members of the trustees working circle?

This sounds like anyone with 2000SP can just take that position.. What happens if 10 groups all want that position?

If ten groups want the position, there will be a very healthy competition concerning aproval of the other working circles. But you're right, we should have a general rule for unforeseen cases putting in place a voting procedure for decisions.

aren't the trustee group and initial founding members the ones who ultimately decide which working groups get established?

The initial working circles will be voted on by the community. I thought, this had been written down somewhere....This has to be clarified for the final proposal.

0.00 JAHM