Lots.
Unfortunately they weren’t meant to be Non-Profit affairs…
3 Likes
Seriously though, depending on the jurisdiction in which the Foundation will be head-quartered, this may be helpful…
I have been on the board of a couple of CICs but I was only there to make up the numbers, my input was minimal and really all I did was verify the probity of the guys handling the money.
1 Like
Not sure if we need separate people for this or if both duties could be done by one person. maybe a bit of a check/balance if one group has the keys but just does what the deployment team says unless it seems they were corrupted and new ones needed to be elected.
anyways I’ll nominate @neo and @Traktion since they seem to be more interested in the project then the money for sure, so hopefully that means its safe they won’t rob the thing the like more for the thing they like less 
I’ll volunteer for this weather you like it or not lol. Question to be determined by vote is if I am the judge or the lawyer 
2 Likes
I’d like to see a member of the MaidSafe Foundation since above all else they have the interest of the network at heart and covered by UK law for Foundations. Have others but one member of Foundation (if they allowed by law) to ensure security and also have the appearance of security
4 Likes
It would be too risky, OSCR (Scottish charity regulator) already has fits about anything crypto related at all. It makes sense, but not to OSCR unfortunately. They may change when the network launches and the foundation is swimming in cash and maidsafe shares, who knows? The main thing for that foundation is kids and innovators get support and so far Margret there is doing a great job going round schools. It’s a real quagmire in Scotland right now though, best not to rock that boat.
9 Likes
Fair enough, and thought there might be a problem. Thanks for letting us know.
4 Likes
What would be good is a contract for those involved that they cannot personally benefit from their actions in a manner that benefits them beyond any token holder. So no preferential decisions etc. If that was an international contract, say by odroit rules or similar then I think folk would be happier to contribute and be audited for their actions.
11 Likes
Exactly. I think the more checks and balances, the better. In addition, I think it’s good for at least two (sets of) people to know the private keys, so there isn’t a situation where the keys get lost.
Sounds good to me 
Thanks for being willing to make the first nominations @andyypants!
For holding the keys or deploying the funds when requested: @neo, @Sascha, @Traktion. For determining marketing strategy: @TylerAbeoJordan, @Southside, @nigel, @JPL
5 Likes
good suggestion but I think most around here trust you just as much! So do you accept my nomination? You can either do the (fairly easy IMO) job of just send money to addresses the deployment team directs you to and keep an eye on them that they aren’t directing you to send it to their personal accounts. Or you can do the a bit more intense job of find out where the money needs to go to and send the orders on over to the people in that first role I described.
@Sotros25 I think the thing to do is have the key holding group all have part of the set of keys required for a multisig. Like maybe 3 people with 2 out of 3 signatures required. This group needs that for the security of the funds. I think the other groups could use a few members of a voting council to just because they will be dealing with more complex problems that benefit from several viewpoints.
1 Like
actually I would say it kinda increases as you go down the list. for keyholding 3 is good. For actually directing money around I would say like 5. For tactical planning really the sky is the limit but just to pick an number maybe 9
… sorta pulling numbers out of my ass but my thinking is the more work we are talking about the bigger numbers we should think. I mean its going to be volunteer I presume so don’t expect people to put in 8 hour days tracking down all the appropriate accounts payable. of course someone will prove me wrong and do just that lol. But we have more chance of getting them on the team if the team is bigger.
I guess it really depends on how many people are interested. I mean a larger organization SHOULD do better then a smaller one in theory haha. I say yes take nominations but basically we should try to make sure at least most people interested in a um job (that pays nothing lol) get at least a job of some kind!
1 Like
Agreed. I think there shouldn’t be a cap on how many members are in the SAFE Community Foundation (SCF). I also don’t think a person needs to be nominated to be a member of the SCF (or whatever it ends up being called). Anyone who wants to pitch in should feel free to do so. However, for certain posts like wallet and key management, I think there should be a nomination process and a smaller number of “seats”, so to speak, to minimize risk.
3 Likes
I’d have to think about it and see what affects it might have on me legally, if any. That means knowing what is expected.
4 Likes
ok totally understandable. I am not sure we have fully hashed out how this um mini government is going to work so stay tuned!
@Sotros25 ya I would say make the first two positions kinda limited because they will actually be moving money around. If any one wants to pitch a strategy and help organize it I think that should be passable by just a popular vote of all members.
2 Likes
@andyypants So are you suggesting those who do the spending according to the will of the people would build a transaction and those holding the keys would sign it and submit it to the network?
3 Likes
OR something like
“@Neo pay @southside $100 for MeetUp expenses in Edinburgh July”
2 Likes
yes exactly so generally the group with the keys just signs transactions and goes back to relax on the beach. Notwithstanding needing to respond to a popular uprising against those setting up the transactions of course. The people in the group setting up the transactions have a little more work because they will need to cooperate with the sponsors of popular motions to make sure the appropriate amount of crypto ends up in the right hands.
1 Like
This precisely. To be clear, just signing transactions includes insuring that they are valid (I.e. who ever has authority to sign off on deployment of funds has done so). However, I don’t expect the signer to have to be involved in strategy discussions unless they wish to be.
1 Like
I would expect those who sign the transaction has been watching the discussion and thus double check. Rather like in the old days where the chief accountant counter signs the checks that the finance department generate. They know if the check is valid to be paid
2 Likes
ya definitely that is true. The key holders job is partially to make sure nothing is out of the ordinary. What they don’t have to be bothered with is actually figuring out the nitty gritty of how to make sure the popular motions are properly funded. Just have a broad view and do something if everyone is complaining about some kind of corruption/incompetence.
2 Likes
So I do like the model we are leaning towards but do want to point out limitations. The way I see it if the key holders are corrupt we are F***ed so this should be the most limited position we take the most care to make sure we have people of maximum trust. If the people actually doing the day to day deployment of funds suck the key holder still has veto and can demand we elect new ones. I mean even if the new ones are elected by popular vote you still need that key holder group to be good people and initiate the process.
That said I am pretty confident we can find like 3 really good people. Just wanted to point out how important this is we find people with maximum trust. While the other positions sure just fill them with who you think is “cool” lol.
1 Like