[Proposal 952][PASSED] Declaration of No Confidence in ICF Leadership & Call to Action

Change Log • 08-2024-06 : Initial post created: "Declaration of NO Confidence in the ICF, Petition for Comprehensive Audit • 08-2024-12 : Keep “no confidence.” In lieu of petitioning the FSAF directly, make it a contingency measure. Directly engage the ICF to produce summary reports based on annual “examinations” the foundation claims are comprehensive in scope. Future reporting requirements also added to text of proposal. • 08-2024-13 : Removed “Future Reporting Requirements” • 08-2024-20 : Revised Call to Action to include request for Comprehensive Annual Reports, 2017-2023; reserve direct petitioning to FSAF as a contingency measure in the event Reports are not delivered within 60 days. • 08-2024-21 : Added proposal translations in Chinese (Simplified, Traditional), Russian, Korean, Japanese, French • 08-2024-22 : Added Summary and Links DECLARATION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE INTERCHAIN FOUNDATION LEADERSHIP: A CALL TO ACTION The proposal is available in the following languages: Simplified Chinese Trad Chinese French Korean Japanese Russian Summary This proposal calls for a vote of no confidence in the ICF leadership, grounded by serious…

Excerpt (1191 of 10420 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I am in strong support of this proposal.

It is a needed step.

The code I used to count the Bitcoin and ether is here:

• GitHub - faddat/mainnet at faddat/totals

Another item that I want to mention, is to ATOM holders. Please do not wait for your validator to vote on this. Most validators get delegations from the ICF, and the pressure they are under is very real.

I should also note that proposal 787 has not been complied with by the foundation.

• Mintscan

Governance can’t compel the foundation to do much these days, even fund $atom.

So I view this as a 100% necessary step.

To provide perspective on what reporting looks like in other ecos, have a look at web3 foundation’s H1 2024 report.

This report includes not only direct spending details but also a comprehensive income statement and balance sheet, providing a complete inventory of all digital assets in their Treasury.

In contrast, consider the ICF’s truant and incomplete approach to reporting. Their article wrt 2024 funding was published in Dec 2023, concluding with a promise to deliver the 2023 annual report in “early” 2024. It’s August 2024.

Where’s the 2023 annual report?

Done waiting. Just petition the relevant supervisory authority (FSAF) to exercise oversight and audit the ICF.

Key changes have been made to foundation law in Switzerland. The new laws went into effect this Jan 2024. $ATOM tokenholders may qualify as recognized “beneficiaries” and can submit requests to investigate/audit directly to the Federal Supervisory Authority of Foundation (FSAF).

Therefore the amount of individual wallets voting is way more crucial than validators voting with sleeping staked atoms by people who don‘t participate in governance.

I would say.

Correct. Although it’s impossible to authenticate distinct users. The number of accounts participating is a factor.
But everyone’s voice matters.

Disclaimer: I write this reply in my personal capacity in light of my personal views, and not in the name of or as a representative of the dYdX Chain team, or any client represented by Axis Advisory. Hey everyone, Joseph here (Immutablelawyer), founder and general counsel at Axis Advisory, also a contributor to ArbitrumDAO and a Supervisor of the dYdX Operations Foundation. For the most part, our team has always taken the decision to omit from contributing to the Cosmos Ecosystem due to the blatant mismanagement of the various initiatives that were spun up over time. These have naturally served as a disincentive for us to allocate time, resources and human capital to this ecosystem. This mismanagement spans various areas including (but not limited to): • Blatant conflicts of interests w/several initiatives re. their fund deployment; • Lack of adequate oversight that is to be expected from an ecosystem such as Cosmos; • Lack of the ability for DAO oversight given the opaque nature that several initiatives (including the ICF) have operated with; • Mismanagement of contractual relationships and non-disclosure of agreements to the Cosmos Ecosystem (by using Cosmos…

Excerpt (1191 of 3765 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

We completely support the call for increased transparency within the ICF. As a validator receiving delegations from the ICF, we are acutely aware of the potential conflicts of interest we have, but nonetheless always strive to operate our business based on ethics and with a duty to the communities/projects we support. An audit does not necessarily entail extreme negligence, but can uncover areas for improvement.

While we are grateful for the support and trust placed in us by the ICF, we also believe that transparency and comprehensive audits are crucial for maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem. Our intention is not to be combative but to ensure that our community remains strong and united.

We hope that this proposal can lead to constructive dialogue and positive changes that will benefit the entire Cosmos ecosystem.

ImmutableLawyer:

This has naturally resulted in the depletion of the talent pool that the Cosmos Ecosystem once had

Indeed. It isn’t even safe to contribute to core repositories on matters of security, and reports are more likely to be ignored with derision from ICF funded teams than addressed.

So I stopped.

And I said that only people and process change would allow me to ever continue.

Brendan-WhisperNode:

We hope that this proposal can lead to constructive dialogue and positive changes that will benefit the entire Cosmos ecosystem.

Based

Hello @Cosmos_Nanny,

I understand that this proposal aims to restore the confidence of the Cosmos community by ensuring that the ICF operates transparently, ethically, and in alignment with its mandated objectives.

However, the proposed audit seems to fall into a culture of diagnosis and fatalism. We will end up with scores or “horoscopes” for the organization, which will not effectively restore trust.

I ask that you consider the following:

1. Review the Core Objective:

• The objective is not clearly stated. What do you truly aim to achieve with this proposal?
• A more macro-level objective would be far more beneficial, and the audit is just one operational action to achieve this goal.

1. Reevaluate the Approach:

• If the goal is to restore trust, an audit is not the right approach.
• I am disappointed by such a trivial response. Scores and organizational horoscopes will never effectively rebuild trust.

Thank you for considering these points to improve the proposal.

JulienViolet:

If the goal is to restore trust, an audit is not the right approach.

Julien,

Do you have the 2023 ICF annual report?

If so could you share it with us?

Does the ICF do anything else other than dump ATOMs all day?

vixcontango:

Does the ICF do anything else other than dump ATOMs all day?

Yes. They make certain that informal systems gets paid, quash security reports and push contributors out of the ecosystem.

I wish I could share the 2023 ICF annual report with you. Unfortunately, it’s currently buried somewhere between my misplaced confidence and my hopes for a brighter future.

Seriously though, I agree with you on the importance of a report. However, an audit isn’t necessary to achieve this level of bureaucratic normalization. Here, we’re talking about the management of an institution. We need clear roadmaps and objectives, like you said issuing an annual report. And you’re right, and I agree.

The real question is the management of this institution. Expectations should be driven by the interests of the stackers, similar to an independent administrative authority in France.

It’s about management, and a piece of paper doesn’t manage anyone. You know management, don’t you, @jacobgadikian?

JulienViolet:

audit isn’t necessary to achieve this level of bureaucratic normalization.

Then why don’t reports come on time?

Pretty sure this is what audits are for.

I partially agree with Julien that an audit in itself doesn’t really solve much with regards to the perceived mismanagement of the ICF. Who/what has the teeth to do anything beyond that?

For all we know, the newest hires could already be working on internal reform, but the public is generally unaware of their initiatives. I suppose that’s generally in line with what we’ve come to know from the foundation.

Ultimately, if this goes on chain and spurs further reform and/or produces the needed comms that the public desires, it’s probably a win for all. Time to get this all behind us.

tknox35:

For all we know

That’s the point of this. We know nothing.

Yeah, I get that lol.

I disagree. We cannot rely on the same individuals who have brought the ICF to its current state to implement the necessary changes. Before we can start building a new roadmap, we must address the underlying issues that continue to plague the ecosystem. An audit will provide the community with crucial insights into the culture of the ICF and identify what steps are needed moving forward. This audit also serves as a statement from the community, emphasizing that the community’s concerns matter and setting a precedent for future leadership. The real question is, what are you afraid of?

We’re all saying the same thing, bordel de $newt.

LitBit:

The real question is, what are you afraid of?

We’re definitely going to find skeletons in the closet. But what comes next? What is the meta plan? Who is the executive body to make decisions after this audit?

We’re missing an entity that can take decisive actions post-audit.

The audit is a key piece in a much larger plan that someone like Nanny could orchestrate. The audit is useful, but it’s just a step.

JulienViolet:

We’re missing an entity that can take decisive actions post-audit.

You have the cart before the horse.

First, audit.

Maybe everything is fine, yay, let’s proceed.

Maybe, as I suspect, everything is on fire. Then discuss how to fix the fires.

“make certain that informal systems gets paid” = “dump ATOMs all day”

the sentiment of the community, as can be seen on X, is: let’s audit the ICF.

If you wanna build trust, learn to listen to the community.

By finding reasons why not to audit the ICF, you do the opposite.

And, respectfully, but with the ICF not even being able to deliver a annual report, you’re just further proving that you’re not capable of doing what is needed. Agee with @LitBit

Transparency is a principle which every organization should abide by. Especially in this space.

While we are thankful for the delegations the ICF has placed with us, FreshSTAKING’s own guiding principles are doing what is best for the community first, the token second and ourselves third.

Furthermore, ICF itself, as mentioned by @ImmutableLawyer, should uphold their fiduciary and ethical duty to the community and that requires transparency, integrity, and accountability.

For this reason, we are in favor of this proposal, and we believe that any entity opposed to it has the order of their principles inverted or misplaced. We, as in the community, will not forgive or forget any entity opposed to an audit. They might oppose other aspects of this effort or the people behind it, but NOT the audit.

Hey @JulienViolet , I tend to disagree with your statement here. The scope of the audit (as I understand it) wouldn’t be horoscopical in nature (I personally don’t know if that’s a word). The scope of the audit is to conduct an in-depth assessment into the ICF’s operations spanning across different verticals including operations, finances, legal (policies and procedures), internal mechanisms to mitigate conflicts of interests etc. The Cosmos ecosystem is at a crossroads whereby it wants to offer its feedback in relation to what can be done better by the ICF, yet this cannot be done without delineating the root cause of the mismanagement. A medical practitioner cannot offer you a diagnosis, nor the medical plan to treat the results of that diagnosis without the diagnosis happening in the first place. Similarly, the Cosmos ecosystem cannot provide feedback to the ICF if it doesn’t even know what’s happening/how it’s operating internally in the first place - all we know is that the results of its current iteration are sub-par, opaque and lack the necessary transparency required out of such an institution. The objective in my eyes is clear; take stock of the ICF’s status…

Excerpt (1197 of 1460 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I like this a little shuffling of feathers is important in the ecosystem. If ICF is not open to Audit that in itself is a red signal.

All public companies should be ready to be audited by public stakeholders.

And we need ICF to be product based sell the CosmosSDK and also make it revenue generating.

Think of AndroidSDK/MongoDB as examples of successful opensource project stacks.

The smart move for the ICF now is to do the audit without this needing to be voted on.

Even if the audit shows everything to be perfect, we know that the community at large struggle to trust the ICF and trust isn’t earned by being compelled.

JulienViolet: However, the proposed audit seems to fall into a culture of diagnosis and fatalism. We will end up with scores or “horoscopes” for the organization, which will not effectively restore trust. First, JulienViolet is a lovely name. Thank you for your engagement and questions. RE: “culture of diagnosis/fatalism” I don’t think a culture of informed diagnosis is bad. Blind and uninformed diagnosis is harmful, and that’s what we’re aiming to avoid through an audit. Disagree with your characterization or association of the proposal with “fatalism.” To the contrary, the proposal is structured to proactively address and rectify ongoing issues that have likely persisted due to a pattern of conflict avoidance, negligence, and or inexperience. In essence, the proposal for an audit is a solution-oriented outcome-based approach that assumes positive change is possible with the right information and right commitment. Therefore, I say the proposed signaling proposal is fundamentally at odds with fatalism, which would accept the current situation as unchangeable. @ImmutableLawyer has already provided reasoning as to why an audit is both a necessary and…

Excerpt (1190 of 2630 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Some additional background and context: The ICF operates under federal regulatory oversight due to its international purview, with the Swiss Federal Supervisory Board for Foundations (FSAF) serving as the relevant national supervisory authority. The FSAF’s job is to ensure that the foundation operates in alignment with its given mandate, adheres to its articles of association, and complies with prevailing Swiss laws. In providing oversight for the foundation, the FSAF oversees the allocation of foundation assets and requires the submission of an annual statutory filing. This filing is comprised of: • an annual activity report; • an audit report; and • the accounts of the foundation. The audit report included in the ICF’s annual statutory filing is much simpler than the “ordinary audit” requested in the proposal. The annual audit is prepared and submitted by Wadsack – from what I understand. It’s less audit and more certifying financial statements. These statutory filings are confidential and not accessible to the public. Given these statutory requirements, it’s perplexing that the ICF demonstrates operational challenges in sharing annual reports with the community.…

Excerpt (1199 of 1674 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

JulienViolet:

We’re definitely going to find skeletons in the closet. But what comes next? What is the meta plan? Who is the executive body to make decisions after this audit?

We’re missing an entity that can take decisive actions post-audit.

These are good questions.
Can I confirm/clarify what you are asking first?

Are you asking how we can recompose the Foundation Council in the event all its members are dismissed? Currently, there are only three (3) FC members – but highly unlikely all three are dismissed at once.

I think it’s of vital importance to implement mechanism that allow more transparency and accountability in all aspects related to the operations of the ICF.
plus we need to develop frameworks for many processes and aspects as a community that will allow this, even if it takes a lot of pulling and pushing until a consensus is reached

I’m seeing a lot of comments on CT asking why not just disband the foundation? You can’t just disband bc the foundation is a pain in the ass to manage. Swiss foundations were designed to be persistent and sovereign. Can be good or a very bad bad thing. Legal grounds for dissolution are specific for Swiss Stiftungs . • The foundation’s purpose has been fulfilled or can no longer be fulfilled. • The foundation’s assets are no longer sufficient to pursue its purpose. • The foundation’s purpose has become illegal or immoral. Decision to Dissolve : This decision is typically made by the foundation board. In some cases, the supervisory authority may order the dissolution if the purpose has become immoral. The FSAF must approve all dissolution requests. And it doesn’t generally approve dissolution requests from boards unless endowment has been exhausted. There are also situations where the purpose is not immoral, but the activities of the foundation are immoral. In this case, FSAF will seize assets and have them transferred to a comparable Swiss entity or academic institution. The assets stay in Swiss. And then finally, there’s the lesser known nuclear option…

Excerpt (1199 of 1264 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Exact same situation and position than @Brendan-WhisperNode.

The main takeaway here is that trust has been damaged and needs to be restored for the Cosmos ecosystem to thrive again.
An audit may well be a first formal step towards this goal.

Thank you @Cosmos_Nanny for getting this in motion and bringing this to the community’s attention

I am in favour of this call to audit. Perforing such an audit is a healthy exercise to conduct for any leading role within an ecosystem

I would propose to the community that you separate the following statement

YES - The voter expresses “no confidence” in the recent and current leadership of the Interchain Foundation (ICF). The voter supports the formal submission of a request to the Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (FSAF), being the relevant supervisory authority for the ICF under Swiss law, to conduct an “ordinary audit” of the Interchain Foundation.

I would argue we should have a separate option proposal WRT to the no confidence vote after the financial audit has been completed.

Bundling the no confidence vote, as is currently presented, with a request to audit implies you’re coming to the table already assuming certain outcomes.

highstakes:

Exact same situation and position than @Brendan-WhisperNode.

Based (and brave, i have been in your shoes)

Garuda:

Bundling the no confidence vote, as is currently presented, with a request to audit implies you’re coming to the table already assuming certain outcomes.

So I think that the reason that these are together is that there are already reasons for no confidence, and that’s actually what triggers an ordinary audit.

At Govmos, we believe there is room for enhancement in the transparency of the ICF. This has been a debated issue for many years, and the prolonged duration has made finding a solution increasingly challenging. However, it is worth acknowledging that the ICF, under new leadership, has attempted to evolve. Yet, it appears that these efforts have fallen short of delivering the desired results.

The ICF’s role in the ecosystem is pivotal, and the continuation of these criticisms is not tenable. We posit that a direct approach may be more detrimental than beneficial. As @BendyOne stated, “The smart move for the ICF now is to conduct the audit without it needing to be voted on. Even if the audit shows everything to be perfect, we know that the community at large struggles to trust the ICF, and trust isn’t earned by being compelled.”

We firmly align with this perspective and believe that the most balanced and suitable approach would be for the hub to encourage the ICF towards new leadership that would willingly undertake this audit. We do not advocate for the hub to threaten legal action or impose an independent audit upon the ICF.

Thanks for reading,
Govmos.

Govmos:

We do not advocate for the hub to threaten legal action or impose an independent audit upon the ICF

There is no reason for anybody in the community to believe that the foundation will do anything that governance says.

Unless of course you believe that the foundation complied with proposal 787.

Keep in mind that I do not believe that this proposal is in any way shape or form and attempt to take legal action against the foundation.

It is a declaration of no confidence in the current leadership of the ICF, a position that you seem to share – and a request for an audit based on that declaration.

A legal audit shouldn’t be seen as a threat. The ICF should confidently welcome the audit in order to build trust. If they don’t, it just further proves that the audit is even more necessary.

Let us rephrase: we might eventually support a “no confidence” vote in the future. At present, we simply want to emphasize that the ICF is in the process of reviewing candidates to completely revamp the Foundation Council. We suggest the community should at least give them the chance to demonstrate a potential shift towards transparency. Therefore, we recommend waiting, as a pressing action from the Hub could do more harm than good.

It is no secret that some members of the community, including you, consistently hold negative opinions regarding the ICF. However, it should be remembered that this position does not reflect the entire community. At Govmos, we lean towards the possibility that the ICF will eventually provide more clarity. This is why we believe it is essential to give them a chance to express positive actions with the renewed council. Only if they fall short of promises once more would we consider following the no-confidence vote discussed in this proposition.

Govmos:

we might eventually support a “no confidence” vote in the future.

It’s been too long without any real change whatsoever, and I tire of watching number and ecosystem reputation go down.

Look at what @ImmutableLawyer has to say.

asking for an audit is fair,

but why this “declaration of non confidence” part?

it’s quite sad you have some good ideas and they’re always hided behind the strong resentment you have towards the ICF and Informal.

btw no one is talking about both Grace and Jacob’s past jobs that put them in some kind of conflict of interest.
this initiative should come from anybody but the two of you.

tom:

why this “declaration of non confidence” part?

It’s because we have no confidence in the leadership of the ICF

tom:

this initiative should come from anybody but the two of you

That’s the definition of permissioned.

I did not author the proposal by the way.

The total extent of my involvement with it is to populate numbers.

A day or two ago I wrote code, referenced in my remarks, that counted the number of BTC and eth donated in the fundraiser.

Thanks @jacobgadikian if this is so then i still conclude the Yes vote is still convoluted

Really appreciate the feedback.

I’m not the author of this proposal, so I can’t modify it, but if you do have any suggestions about how to improve the text on the yes vote, I that would be very good

Hi Govmos,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

To be clear, petitioning the FSAF to initiate an audit is not “threatening to take legal action.”

The community is simply submitting a sentiment – signaling it’s desire to the relevant supervisory authority as to why a comprehensive audit is warranted.

StunZeed:

legal audit

The term “legal audit” is imprecise and potentially misleading. All audits conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations are, by definition, legal. The legality of an audit is presumed unless proven otherwise.

In Switzerland, auditors operate under the purview of the Audit Oversight Act (AOA). This legislation imposes strict professional standards and legal obligations on auditors. Any intentional misrepresentation or material inaccuracy in audit findings could expose the auditor to criminal liability under Swiss law.

To clarify, an audit becomes “illegal” not due to its nature or designation, but rather when it fails to adhere to established auditing standards or when it involves fraudulent practices. This might include falsification of financial statements, deliberate omission of material information, or other actions that compromise the integrity and accuracy of the audit process.

It’s more appropriate to discuss audits in terms of their compliance with professional standards, accuracy, and adherence to legal requirements, rather than using the ambiguous phrase “legal audit.”

Govmos:

The smart move for the ICF now is to conduct the audit without it needing to be voted on. […] the community at large struggles to trust the ICF, and trust isn’t earned by being compelled.

There is no better statement to summarize our standpoint. We endorse a no-confidence vote as one option in the future timeline, we just believe the timing isn’t appropriate for now. We sincerely hope this initiative will come from the ICF itself, which would deliver more effective results. We acknowledge that some older historic actors in the Cosmos, like you, may be “sick and tired of waiting”, but this may not be representative of the general community, among which some may have less opinionated visions. This is where we position ourselves at this moment in time, we remain open to aligning with your perspective at a later stage. In the meantime, allow us to remain optimistic!

Garuda: would argue we should have a separate option proposal WRT to the no confidence vote after the financial audit has been completed. Bundling the no confidence vote, as is currently presented, with a request to audit implies you’re coming to the table already assuming certain outcomes. Thank you for your comments. The decision to combine a vote of no confidence with a petition for an audit of the ICF is rooted in strategic and pragmatic considerations. First, a standalone vote of “no confidence”, while expressing dissatisfaction, lacks enforceable outcomes and may be perceived as lacking substantive utility. There is precedent for governance proposals that, while morally resonant, fail to effect tangible change. The proposal submitted by Notional last April, demanding full financial disclosures from the ICF, serves as a case in point. Despite its passage, it did not materially alter the foundation’s behavior or transparency practices. Moreover, the ICF’s repeated delays in fulfilling commitments to financial disclosure - such as the still-unreleased 2023 annual report promised for early 2024 - underscore the inefficacy of mere requests or expressions of…

Excerpt (1196 of 2177 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

100% agree. That would be the best outcome and a really positive signal.

jacobgadikian:

It’s because we have no confidence in the leadership of the ICF

who is we?

jacobgadikian:

That’s the definition of permissioned.

no, that’s the definition of: when you claim being a conflict of interest’ hunter, you step aside and let the true and neutral community do or not do this kind of proposal targeting people you used to work with/ people you have professional resentment for.

both Grace and you are not proposing this in good faith. you’re settling scores again and again with former colleagues waaaay more than act for the good of the community.

a simple audit seeking would have been enough. but when egos are talking…

you’re not even aware you’re part of the problem Atom has.

mutes thread

JulienViolet:

bureaucratic normalization

This is a huge paradox my friend =)

Firstly, can we not collectively thank Cosmos_Nanny for the hard work in attempting to fight for greater accountability/transparency? It is clearly needed.

Through the election of a new council board, I agree that there is definite possibility for the lack of confidence to be cured, however as Jacob G. stated:

jacobgadikian:

It’s been too long without any real change whatsoever, and I tire of watching number and ecosystem reputation go down.

I also recall a post reminding the community that the annual report has still yet to be seen.

Govmos:

does not reflect the entire community.

I don’t believe any one account can speak/represent, let alone claim this phrase, “entire community,” as there are clear cliques (completely normal, not complaining) within the ecosystem.

Looking forward to this prop going on chain. A full vote of confidence in this signal prop.

I’m all in for this proposal in its current form, as we indeed need more transparency here.
Not sure if I’d vote differently or not if it would include other items such as disbanding ICF or something similar, as for that we need the numbers which we do not have yet. But the audit seems like a nice step that can be used by the community to decide what to do with this audit result later on.

Ideal approach here though would be for ICF to publish the audit by themselves, that would also show the desire of them to be more transparent, but if that won’t happen, requesting for the audit in the official way is the way to go I’d say.

On behalf of Quokka Stake validator,
Sergey.

(Just to say, for me it’s not about pointing fingers or blaming or something similar, this is about getting more data about ICF internals.)

I think an audit is necessary. I’m sorry to see devolve to this point, but, I think this is the only way we will see an audit come to pass.

We waited how long for the 2022 report and the 2023 report is still outstanding?! Where’s the report, “Bucky”??

Hey everyone, Joseph here (Immutablelawyer), I wanted to update you all that after several contributors reached out privately and encouraged use to take a more active role within the Ecosystem, we have decided to apply for the council member position at the Interchain Foundation (ICF). Given the critical issues discussed above relating to a myriad of deficiencies, we believe it is essential to take proactive steps toward meaningful change. This audit should be the first, our participation (should we be accepted) will be our second. Here’s a summary of what we aim to achieve if selected for the council member role, which has been also forwarded to the ICF Leadership via our cover letter. • Enhance Transparency : We will work to ensure that all operations and financial transactions of the ICF are disclosed regularly and comprehensively. This includes making information easily accessible to the community to foster an environment of openness and transperancy on a regular basis, and not in a piece-meal fashion. • Strengthen Accountability : Implementing independent audits and robust oversight mechanisms will be a priority. We will advocate for stringent checks and…

Excerpt (1191 of 2247 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Here’s a response from Josh, President of the ICF:

Josh Cincinnati (@acityinohio) on X

tknox35:

Here’s a response from Josh, President of the ICF

He sure got some nice pretty words, but we’ve all heard those before.

Audit now pretty words not again.

Is Josh Cincinnati, the current ICF Foundation Council President in Forum? I can’t find his handle.

The 2023 Annual Report was promised for “early 2024” delivery.

Screenshot 2024-08-08 at 4.55.49 PM922×1174 68.6 KB

At minimum, the ICF’s 2023 Annual Report must match the level of detail provided in the 2022 Annual Report. That’s a decent baseline reference for the ICF’s reporting obligations to the community. The foundation initially committed to releasing the 2023 Annual Report “early 2024”. However, it is now early August of 2024, and the report has yet to be published. The foundation has now proposed a delivery timeline of mid-August 2024, following a draft proposal submitted in this forum aimed at petitioning the ICF’s supervisory authority. More ideally, the ICF should aspire to deliver financial reporting that’s commensurate w the exemplary standards established by the @Web3Foundation in their H-1 2024 report, which can be accessed here: 2024-H1 Polkadot Treasury Report - Governance - Polkadot Forum Furthermore, the foundation has failed to publish annual reports for the fiscal years 2017-2021, as well as the Q1-Q2 2024 period. The ICF is hereby asked to remedy this deficiency immediately and publish comprehensive annual reports for all previous years and the current fiscal year. Regarding the composition of the ICF’s Foundation Council (FC), new members should be nominated…

Excerpt (1198 of 1779 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

@ImmutableLawyer I’m glad that you applied, as it contributes to the much-needed diversity within the applicant pool. Imo, the FC has been adversely affected by an overemphasis on technical and or academic expertise in cryptocurrency at the expense of other vital competencies. There exists an urgency for expanding council membership to individuals who possess experience with sustainable/responsible foundation management. With expertise evincing organizational compliance with industry standards that define good governance for the non-profit sector. Endowment-driven, mandate-given entities such as the ICF necessitates a specific set of soft skills that are not typically cultivated in technical roles, irrespective of a dev’s seniority in an org or their engineering achievements. Effective execution of mandates demands individuals who fully comprehend the very real legal and fiduciary obligations that form a Swiss foundation, with acceptance of the fact that the given purpose is immutable. I think lawyers are more inclined to get this. While understanding that the job to do is non-negotiable — the next gen of FC members must be inclusive of persons with experience navigating…

Excerpt (1197 of 1726 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

freak12techno:

Not sure if I’d vote differently or not if it would include other items such as disbanding ICF

It’s extraordinarily difficult to “disband”/dissolve a Swiss foundation. Please see:

[Proposal 952][PASSED] Declaration of No Confidence in ICF Leadership & Call to Action Signaling/Text

I’m seeing a lot of comments on CT asking why not just disband the foundation? You can’t just disband bc the foundation is a pain in the ass to manage. Swiss foundations were designed to be persistent and sovereign. Can be good or a very bad bad thing. Legal grounds for dissolution are specific for Swiss Stiftungs. The foundation’s purpose has been fulfilled or can no longer be fulfilled. The foundation’s assets are no longer sufficient to pursue its purpose. The foundation’s purpose …

Cosmos_Nanny:

It’s extraordinarily difficult to “disband”/dissolve a Swiss foundation. Please see:

Yeah I saw it and I agree, I was saying it as one of the options. My point here is that changing the action items of this proposal in any way (like, firing some people or whatever it might be) without having the audit result might be just a witch hunt, and we should wait for the audit’s results first before thinking about other possible actions.

ImmutableLawyer:

we have decided to apply for the council member position at the Interchain Foundation (ICF)

Hi, seeking clarification bc autism.

• Given that the ICF Foundation Council (FC) member position is designed for individual occupancy and cannot be held by a team or entity.
• Your use of “we” in your comms is presumed to refer to yourself as an individual.
• The reference to “we” is understood to indicate Axis Advisory.

So, my interpretation of your message is as follows: Based on internal discussions within Axis Advisory and consultations with active contributors in the Cosmos ecosystem, a decision was made recommending that you, @ImmutableLawyer, submit an application for FC membership. Is that right?

Totally. It’s also important to know that I don’t think the community, and its consensus expressed through Cosmos Hub governance is acknowledged with any rights to participate in and or influence the composition of any of the foundation’s governing bodies (FC, BoM). To definitively ascertain if such authority exists, it would be necessary to examine the ICF’s charter and bylaws for any provisions granting such rights to the community via Hub governance mechanisms. FYI, I have asked ICF to publicly share their charter and bylaws And @crainbf indicated this can be done. But unfortunately he was removed. Given the presumed absence of community authority or influence reserved in charter, the proposal has been structured in its current form to address potential scenarios where eg the FSAF may uncover conflicts of interest or misconduct warranting the removal of an FC member. In such instances, it is anticipated that the FSAF would exercise its supervisory authority to reconstitute the FC if it deems it to be necessary. Also note that the full extent of the ICF’s internal processes and potential vulnerabilities are likely inadequately captured or conveyed in the foundation’s…

Excerpt (1195 of 1994 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I appreciate you addressing my point.

Upon further reflection I now agree with your argument. I support this motion

Cosmos_Nanny: More ideally, the ICF should aspire to deliver financial reporting that’s commensurate w the exemplary standards established by the @Web3Foundation in their H-1 2024 report, which can be accessed here: [2024-H1 Polkadot Treasury Report - Governance - Polkadot Forum ] Author of the mentioned Polkadot Treasury Report here. Just one factual correction: This report pertains to the Polkadot On-Chain Treasury and not the Web3 Foundation. While I personally believe that transparency is an important value to hold up for common good initiatives/organizations, the rules of the game for foundations and on-chain entities are defined by the competitive landscape. Without having any understanding of the current situation in Cosmos and the debate around the ICF, I recognize the reasons of foundations deciding to not disclose their financials if they are not legally obligated to do so. They are private entities after all. Work to progressively decentralize and hand over all essential functions to on-chain Governance. Foundations are only an intermediate solution. On-chain then, go for full transparency and accountability. Love! PS: I am looking for Cosmos/Comet…

Excerpt (1197 of 1388 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

GRACE YU IS BEING ACCUSED OF “VIOLENT LANGUAGE” by an icf team member! x.com @ 1000005996 1008×4025 342 KB Thus, I will now publish a conversation between myself and @ebuchman concerning my P2P storms security report. 1000005992 1008×2244 293 KB 1000005993 1008×4321 340 KB 1000005994 1008×2244 216 KB I will remind everyone again, slack is backed up. All of my emails with amulet are here: https://github.com/somatic-labs/hardhat/tree/main/emails this is a clear pattern of behavior on the part of the icf If, as is claimed, my report was taken seriously: • I would not have needed to spend $10,000 on legal fees to get my company’s name off of an inaccurate report originating with amulet and informal systems • I would not have needed to disclose by demonstration in coordination with Seal911, an auditor of last resort • Berachain testnet would not have exploded and maybe they could use vote extensions as planned • Every chain in the ecosystem would have been made more secure I received thank you notes from numerous teens for my disclosure by demonstration. Some teams found it frustrating and I do…

Excerpt (1198 of 3214 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey @Cosmos_Nanny !

Firstly, thanks for extending your best wishes for our application!

I have applied in my individual capacity and will take the seat as an individual should I be chosen. However, I will definitely be leveraging our team’s collective skill-set and contribute resources from our end to ensure that we achieve our intended goal should I get the seat.

Hope that clarifies the matter!

Best wishes,
Joseph (immutablelawyer)

I think it’s fair to expecting a web3 organization to be more open. Cosmos was supposed to be a better place. But why need this Cosmos Hub governance proposal? if ‘‘The mission of the ICF is promoting and develop new technologies, especially in the areas of open and decentralized software. The focus is on Cosmos Network, Polkadot Protocol, and related technologies’’. Cosmos Hub is not the Cosmos Network and the cosmos hub has been focus on its own ecosystem and the Atom economic zone, so it’s not anymore the center of Cosmos. I’m a Atom holder, and I think this is why people start blaming the ATOM community. We don’t have say in the ecosystem technologies anymore because we are not neutral now. This situation is hurting Atom brand and pushing consumer chains away. I thought Jacob left the Hub after we revoke his funds. Does he need more from us, or we are his last boat.

why no one is addressing this? because who is right is always ignored

Frankly, that post should not be dignified with a response. But I guess it’s time to make a statement that addresses and refutes certain allegations and misconceptions that have been circulating regarding the authorship and motivation behind the proposal. • Authorship of the Proposal : The proposal in its entirety was solely authored by me. Last year, I published an unofficial guide re: the history, incorporation, organization, governance and operations of Interchain Stiftung, AG and GmbH. This proposal is a product of my ongoing belief that we urgently need a functional and responsible foundation at the core of our ecosystem’s recovery and growth. This proposal is an an extension of faith and belief. It’s not cynicism . The cynic builds nothing . Any allegations of co-authorship, particularly those suggesting Jacob’s involvement, are categorically false and without merit. Jacob’s contribution was limited to tallying the total amount of Bitcoin and Ethereum raised during the ATOM ICO (public sale). • External Influence and Lobbying : I’ve also been asked if I hired @ImmutableLawyer for “lobbying” purposes. Again. Completely absurd and patently false. I’ve had…

Excerpt (1198 of 2456 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Can you answer my question? If I deserve you attention of course, since some of us shouldn’t dignified with a response from your majesty. I’m noticing that here anyone is ignored when he has a different view from the proposal author? And most of the conversation is with you and Jacob. This is a governance forum not a hear my feelings place. Why the cosmos hub community has a say on the entire ecosystem? This is exatly like that people pushing for a tax on IBC. Atom should focus on Atom. We have the atom economic zone, a dao and consumer chains, we are not neutral, the first we chagne this idea, the first we have adoption.

alice_und_bob: Without having any understanding of the current situation in Cosmos and the debate around the ICF, I recognize the reasons of foundations deciding to not disclose their financials if they are not legally obligated to do so. They are private entities after all. Thank you for joining. While the clarification regarding the Polkadot Treasury Report is appreciated, it inadvertently underscores a critical point. The ability to produce comprehensive reports for on-chain treasuries demonstrates the feasibility and value of transparency in decentralized ecosystems. This stands in contrast to the opacity we’ve observed with the ICF, highlighting a disparity in accountability practices. Your argument that competitive pressures may justify non-disclosure of financials for foundations is not persuasive in this context. The ICF, as a non-profit Stiftung entity has a very specific legal personality that probably eludes you. It’s complicated. But simply, it has a mandate to support the hub and Cosmos ecosystem, and the foundation operates in a different paradigm from purely private entities. Its obligations extend beyond mere legal compliance to ethical considerations…

Excerpt (1199 of 2126 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

What is your question?

I think it’s fair to expecting a web3 organization to be more open. Cosmos was supposed to be a better place. But why need this Cosmos Hub governance proposal? if ‘‘The mission of the ICF is promoting and develop new technologies, especially in the areas of open and decentralized software. The focus is on Cosmos Network, Polkadot Protocol, and related technologies’’. Cosmos Hub is not the Cosmos Network and the cosmos hub has been focus on its own ecosystem and the Atom economic zone, so it’s not anymore the center of Cosmos. I’m a Atom holder, and I think this is why people start blaming the ATOM community. We don’t have say in the ecosystem technologies anymore because we are not neutral now. This situation is hurting Atom brand and pushing consumer chains away.

I want atom to succed, and we should focus on funding on atom and its products

Your post is difficult to understand. But I will try to respond to the clearest question asked by you.
“Why the cosmos hub community has a say on the entire ecosystem?”

Your question about the Hub community’s say in the entire ecosystem touches on a fundamental aspect of the proposal. The ICFwas established to support the development of the Cosmos eco, with the Cosmos Hub at its core. Therefore, the Hub community has a vested interest in the ICF’s operations and governance. This is not about controlling the entire ecosystem, but about ensuring that the foundation meant to support it is operating effectively and transparently. I encourage you to read the draft proposal carefully and in full. Thanks.

The Hub doesn’t need a foundation anymore, we have a dao and a develoment team, we are independent. So we should focus our efforts on Atom, I’m tired as Atom holder to see this conversation about the foundation. Let’s focus on atom. Also is it safe to put on-chain a prop connecting the Hub to a foundation, to me seems a very not smart idea. All I see is damage being made to atom, I should just unstake and move on.

VforCosmos:

I want atom to succed

Me too.
While focusing on ATOM and its immediate products is important, it’s crucial to recognize that ATOM’s success is intrinsically linked to the health and function of the foundation. The ICF plays a significant role in the hub’s relationship with the eco, and by extension, ATOM’s long-term viability and success.

The ICF, having conducted an ICO for ATOM and having received substantial genesis tokens, has a fiduciary duty to ATOM holders and the Cosmos hub community in particular. Ensuring proper governance and transparency of the ICF is not a distraction from ATOM’s success, but rather a necessary component of it.

I hope you come to understand that this proposal is not as a diversion, but an effort to ensure that the fundamental support structure for ATOM – the ICF – is functioning optimally. A well-governed foundation is more likely to contribute effectively to ATOM’s success and the products built around it.

Again, if the foundation focus is ecosystem tech, what Atom has to do with this. The others cosmos chains don’t want to be associated with cosmos, everyone is talking about this. And atom just keeps dumping, because alll new investors see that anyone around atom is not focused on success. I’m speaking too much already, I’m tired of this proposal that has nothing to do with atom. Do you all smart people realize that no one is speaking about permissionless consumer chains and hydro, because you capture all the attention. People ouside the ecosystem only talk about the foundation and how toxic is the atom community, no one talks about all the consumer chains coming. You and all the people involved in this, are not making atom successful, and push people like me away, and newcomers will never join in this. Good luck with moving everyone focus away from atom development. I don’t have anything else to say.

jacobgadikian:

GRACE YU IS BEING ACCUSED OF “VIOLENT LANGUAGE” by an icf team member!

and we wonder why

Screenshot_2024-08-09-20-17-20-008_com.twitter.android-edit1080×1174 139 KB

Cosmos_Nanny:

Jacob’s contribution was limited to tallying the total amount of Bitcoin and Ethereum raised during the ATOM ICO (public sale).

This is totally accurate.

Asking both, @jacobgadikian and @tom to take this somewhere else. While it’s an ICF topic (because one single tweet by an employee…), it has nothing to do with the proposal.

Jacob, please take it to X, another thread, or DMs. For the sake of this greatly written proposal.

Welcome to argue about it in MY DMs.

Jacob Gadikian 🐳⚛️⚗️ (@gadikian) on X

they are mixing the work comments and the personal comments. in this case the comment by Ethan should be also held accountable as a work comment, in how he continues to delegate responsibility to Jae and Jae has over a year out of the Cosmos ecosystem. don’t you think it’s really insulting for anyone in the eco to keep blaming him for “all” problems in Cosmos?, it works because he does not care and he is not here to defend himself they blamed jacob, jae, etc, etc for all the problems in Cosmos and inside the ecosystem most people believe them but from the outside everyone can see the things clearly as they are… that narrative is not working anymore, so now Grace is the issue?, please the front that represent the ICF and their allies constantly find scapegoats for everything, while i don’t blame them (anyone in a leading position is only trying things and those thing fail or succeed) it’s very laughable and childlike that they continue to blame everything instead of just saying “hey look, we tried this and did not work, anyone is got more ideas?”, there is almost no self critic at all. the narrative used against people who are challenging their work is simple to dismiss…

Excerpt (1197 of 1737 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmos Hub is not the Cosmos Network, but the ICF is selling ATOM all day and thus hurting its price while contributing nothing to ATOM. Why should Cosmos Hub or ATOM shareholders subsidize pro bono the ICF? I am really confused.

Did anybody on Coinbase tell me that I am buying an ATOM token who is being dumped by some unrelated foundation to develop unrelated to ATOM products?

This sounds like gross false marketing. Exchanges are marketing as a Cosmos network token, yet it turns out ATOM is not tied at all to the growth of the Cosmos ecosystem.

What a shitshow.

What ATOM has to do with this is that the ICF has ATOM on its balance sheet and it is selling it all day. The ICF didn’t raise money in fairy dust, it raised them by selling ATOMs in an ICO and at present is not fulfilling its fiduciary duties towards ATOM.

It’s basically clear cut fraud. The ICF has clear cut responsibilities to make sure ATOM and the Cosmos Hub are succeeding and if they are not focused on that, we have a problem Houston.

vixcontango:

This

1. The apparent lack of ATOM’s central role in Cosmos’ growth could be viewed as a failure of the ICF to fulfill its mandated responsibilities.

2. If the ICF is perceived to be distancing itself from ATOM and the Cosmos Hub, this action may be interpreted as: a) A departure from its original mandated purpose b) A potential breach of the terms and conditions set forth during the ATOM Initial Coin Offering (ICO)

3. It’s important to note that the Foundation Council (FC) does not have the authority to unilaterally alter or deviate from the mandate that was originally established. Their role is to execute the mandate, not to fundamentally change it at their discretion.

Notice of Proposed Amendments Hi everyone: I want to notify the community of some changes to the draft proposal concerning the signaling measure. After due consideration and in response to feedback received (esp with communications from ICF FC President), the following modifications are proposed to enhance the pragmatism and efficacy of the on-chain proposal: • Summary Report Requisition : In lieu of contesting or questioning the comprehensiveness of the ICF’s annual audits, the amended proposal will request summary reports derived from audits purportedly conducted as part of the ICF’s routine statutory filings. The premise being that if such audits are indeed as comprehensive as the ICF asserts, and if “ordinary audits” are really undertaken annually, the ICF should be capable of furnishing informed summary reports for fiscal years 2019-2023. • Financial Disclosure : While acknowledging the ICF’s prerogative to safeguard sensitive financial information, the proposal will still explicitly request disclosure of : • Aggregated assets held in the treasury annually, including fiat currencies, securities, and cryptocurrencies. • Annual expenditures on grant-making,…

Excerpt (1195 of 5099 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

제안된 신호 조치에 관한 초안 제안서의 임박한 수정 사항에 대해 커뮤니티에 알리고자 합니다. 신중한 검토와 커뮤니티 피드백에 대한 응답으로, 온체인 제안의 실용성과 효율성을 향상시키기 위해 다음과 같은 수정 사항이 제안됩니다: • 요약 보고서 요청 : ICF의 연례 감사의 포괄성에 대해 이의를 제기하거나 의문을 제기하는 대신, 수정된 제안서는 ICF의 일상적인 법정 제출의 일환으로 수행되었다고 주장되는 감사에서 도출된 요약 보고서를 요청할 것입니다. 전제는 ICF가 주장하는 대로 이러한 감사가 실제로 포괄적이고 "일반 감사"가 매년 진실로 수행된다면, ICF는 2019-2023 회계연도에 대한 정보에 입각한 요약 보고서를 제공할 수 있어야 한다는 것입니다. • 재무 공개 : ICF의 민감한 재무 정보를 보호할 권리를 인정하면서도, 제안서는 여전히 다음 사항의 명시적 공개를 요청할 것입니다 : • 법정 화폐, 증권, 암호화폐를 포함한 연간 보유 자산의 총계 • 경제적 가치와 수령인 이름, 수령인 자금 지원 범주 및 자금 지원 목적으로 구분된 보조금 지급, 공급업체 참여, 투자에 대한 연간 지출 • 범위 명확화 : 제안서에는 ICF가 요청된 요약 보고서의 범위 내에서 연례 감사 범위를 벗어나는 모든 영역을 명시적으로 식별하도록 요구하는 조항이 포함될 것입니다. 이 조항은 이용 가능한 정보의 한계와 ICF가 법정 제출 요건을 준수하여 수행한다고 주장하는 감사의 한계에 대한 투명성을 보장하는 것을 목표로 합니다. • 준수 기한 : ICF가 요청된 요약 보고서를 제출하는 데 60일의 명확한 기간이 규정될 것입니다. • 비상 조치 : 지정된 기간 내에 요청된 요약 보고서를 제출하지 않을 경우, 제안서에는 구제 조치로서 연방 재단 감독 당국(FSAF)에 직접 포괄적인 감사를 청원하는 조항이 포함될 것입니다. 제안된 수정 사항에 대한 근거 앞서 언급한 수정 사항들은 다음과 같은 이유로 고려되었습니다: • 절차적 효율성 : 연례 감사의 포괄성에 대한 논의에 참여하는 것은 비생산적입니다. ICF가 매년 수행한다고 주장하는 감사를 기반으로 실행 가능한 정보를 얻는 데 초점을 맞추는 것이 더 건설적입니다. • 실용적 접근 : 기존 감사에서 도출된 요약 보고서의 요청은 ICF의 주장의 진실성을 전제로 쉽게 이용 가능해야 하는 정보를 구하고자 합니다. 이는 실질적으로 ICF가 이미…

Excerpt (1199 of 2258 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

提案された信号措置に関する草案の差し迫った修正について、コミュニティに通知いたしたく存じます。 慎重な検討とコミュニティからのフィードバックを受けて、オンチェーン提案の実用性と効率性を向上させるために、以下の修正が提案されます： • 要約報告書の要請 ：ICFの年次監査の包括性に異議を唱えたり疑問を呈したりする代わりに、修正された提案書はICFの通常の法定提出の一環として実施されたと主張される監査から導出された要約報告書を要請いたします。前提として、ICFが主張するようにこれらの監査が実際に包括的であり、「通常の監査」が毎年確実に実施されているのであれば、ICFは2019年度から2023年度までの会計年度に関する情報に基づいた要約報告書を提供できるはずだということです。 • 財務開示 ：ICFの機密財務情報を保護する権利を認識しつつ、提案書は引き続き以下の項目の 明示的な開示を要請いたします ： • 法定通貨、証券、暗号資産を含む年間保有資産の総額 • 経済的価値と受領者名、受領者の資金提供カテゴリーおよび資金提供目的で区分された助成金支給、ベンダー契約、投資に関する年間支出 • 範囲の明確化 ：提案書には、ICFが要請された要約報告書の範囲内で年次監査の範囲を超えるすべての領域を明示的に特定するよう要求する条項が含まれます。この条項は、利用可能な情報の制限とICFが法定提出要件に準拠して実施すると主張する監査の制限に関する透明性を確保することを目的としています。 • 遵守期限 ：ICFが要請された要約報告書を提出するために、60日間の明確な期間が規定されます。 • 緊急措置 ：指定された期間内に要請された要約報告書が提出されない場合、提案書には救済措置として連邦財団監督当局（FSAF）に直接包括的な監査を請願する条項が含まれます。 提案された修正事項の根拠 前述の修正事項は、以下の理由により検討されました： • 手続き的効率性 ：年次監査の包括性に関する議論に参加することは非生産的です。ICFが毎年実施すると主張している監査に基づいて実行可能な情報を得ることに焦点を当てる方がより建設的です。 • 実用的アプローチ ：既存の監査から導出された要約報告書の要請は、 ICFの主張の真実性を前提として 、容易に利用可能であるべき情報を求めるものです。これは実質的に、ICFが既に情報として存在すると述べているものに対する情報要請です。 • 公正な開示 ：この提案は、透明性の必要性とICFの機密情報保護の必要性のバランスを取ろうとするものであり、ICFがコミュニティの認識に関連する情報共有と重要情報の開示について改善された立場を示す機会を提供します。 • 拡大プロトコル…

Excerpt (1182 of 1953 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Effectively, the revision fundamentally changes the target of the petitioning action. Rather than the FSAF, the proposal asks the ICF to generate summary reports for fiscal years 2019 - 2023. Much of the proposal structure remains the same. The largest changes are reflected in RESOLUTION and CALL TO ACTION sections. BACKGROUND: addition ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND DEFINITION OF SUMMARY REPORTS WHEREAS, the Cosmos Hub community acknowledges that the ICF has been in compliance with its annual filing and reporting obligations with the Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (FSAF) since its establishment in 2017; and WHEREAS, the community cannot conclusively determine if the required audits are as comprehensive as what Swiss authorities refer to as an “ordinary audit”; and WHEREAS, for the purposes of this proposal, “summary reports” are defined as discretionary high-level documents that address the scope of issues specified herein, derived from the audit findings the ICF claims it performs on an annual basis due to its mandatory reporting requirements as a Stiftung under Swiss law; and WHEREAS, these summary reports are intended to provide transparency…

Excerpt (1197 of 5478 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

You’re upset, like me, people have been selling atom forever, even when it was $40 or $15, that’s just how things go. But no one crying when price was good. Instead of freaking out about it, we should just focus on success. The foundation is selling, validators also selling atom, proposals for funding selling atom, yes, I’m tired of everyone selling atom. Also on Ethereum is the same, they got people selling all the time, and no one’s focus on that. They keep focusing on success, and that’s why they’re winning. If we keep crying about every little thing, we’re just helping atom go down more. If you cry when price is low, competition pick comments like yours and says look how Atom is bad.

I disagree. Seeking overdue changes with ICF governance and ops is a bullish thing for ATOM.

This isn’t “crying.” Crying and whining is what you’re recommending and doing.
Commiserating; no balls to action.
We are not the same.

I’ve been pushing for changes for years. My views are inelastic. Nothing to do with price.

Yes, winning is what i’m doing, because i also hold solana, they don’t do all this discussion there and they are winning. You know what is bullish, you spend your time saying how good is atom tech, that’s how you win. With a strong community like we had, but only people blaming the price are still here. atom is better than sol, and yet no one is talking about this, atom doesn’t go down and it has more features. But no one knows that, because here we spend our time blaming foundations, blaming validators, blaming funding proposal, we blame and cry every week for a new thing.

Inferior tech wins all the time.
Cosmos tech is good/better is cope.
Culture matters. And matters more.
SOL is winning bc their culture is more inclusive and fun.

And they’re more fun bc they have a very competent foundation that minimizes the cabal shenanigans we have in Cosmos.

You speak like an old manager of wall street. ‘‘we need competent foundations to have succeess’’, no we don’t need foundations, we just need a community focused on sucess. Why we voted for a dao, we don’t need foundation, why we have community pool, and what we do instead, we cry everytime someone in the community try to do something for atom. and we cry because a foundation doesn’t save us, or we cry because development don’t do matketing. This is a community that loves to cry. When we stop cry and go everywhere to say how atom is good, we don’t need anything else. Memecoins pumps everyday, they have foundations? No they have community of winners.

Yep, no one is going to be crying when the price is good. The crying comes when the price isn’t good and people are losing money. That’s what investing is all about. It is about getting higher price for the token you buy.

The fact that you don’t care about losing money because you made money somewhere else is not an argument. I have also made 10 other investments and made money there. That’s not the point. Getting into some idiot ego competition with some moron on the internet is not the point of this board. The point here is what is happening with ATOM.

At Solana the foundation is clearly working to benefit SOL. With ATOM, the foundation ISN’T working ot benefit ATOM. This to me looks like the major reason why SOL has become a good investment and ATOM hasn’t. At SOL the foundation is keeping its word it gave at the ICO and working to benefit SOL token holders. At ATOM the foundation is engaged in fraud and is not keeping its word to benefit ATOM token holders.

Thank you for your comments here @vixcontango

May I ask you for your thoughts re this:

[Proposal 952][PASSED] Declaration of No Confidence in ICF Leadership & Call to Action Signaling/Text

Notice of Proposed Amendments Hi everyone: I want to notify the community of some changes to the draft proposal concerning the signaling measure. After due consideration and in response to feedback received (esp with communications from ICF FC President), the following modifications are proposed to enhance the pragmatism and efficacy of the on-chain proposal: Summary Report Requisition: In lieu of contesting or questioning the comprehensiveness of the ICF’s annual audits, the amended proposa…

I absolutely agree with “No Confidence” vote and the audit. Leadership of a foundation that sold ATOM to investors that subsequently didn’t work to benefit ATOM should be removed and replaced with leadership that works to benefit ATOM. It is pretty clear the current leadership doesn’t understand what they need to prioritize.

Your comments refer to original proposal aim and parameters. Am contemplating changes to the proposal. Recent Developments : • The ICF has announced ( last Thursday via FC President personal Twitter ) they will release their 2023 Annual Report this week. • They claim this release is unrelated to our discussions, here. • The ICF states they already undergo an annual “ordinary audit” as part of their Swiss statutory reporting requirements. (“Ordinary audit” is what the Swiss refer to as an extraordinary audit) Conflicting Information : • My sources, including the lawyer who helped establish the ICF provide different information about the ICF’s annual audit requirement. I’m told they’re not as expensive as “ordinary audits” • The statutory filings are confidential and not publicly accessible, and they stay private. Proposed Action : Instead of debating the extensiveness of their audit requirements, we should: • Request summary reports for each fiscal year from 2019 - 2023, based on statutory filings and audit findings • Give them a 60-day deadline to provide these reports. • If they refuse or fail to provide the reports within this timeframe, we will:…

Excerpt (1196 of 1492 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

x.com Josh Cincinnati (@acityinohio) on X @acityinohio The reporting is accompanied by yearly ordinary examinations (audits), which review financials, internal controls, conflict management, and various technical components of the organization and its operations. The ICF has always been in good standing through every audit. Clarification on Audit Types : • “Ordinary examinations (audits)” may NOT be equivalent to what Swiss accounting practices specifically call an “ordinary audit.” The FC President’s use of the term “ordinary” might be " typical." What is typically required of a Stiftung of ICf’s scope is an audit, but it is not as comprehensive as the audit the community requests. • Current Understanding based on Sources: • The ICF does submit an audit yearly. • However, this audit is less comprehensive than a Swiss “ordinary audit.” • Terminology Concerns: • There’s a possibility that the foundation is deliberately using ambiguous language. • This could exploit the community’s unfamiliarity with Swiss accounting frameworks and specific terminology. • Potential Issue: • The foundation may be relying on the…

Excerpt (1199 of 1722 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

alice_und_bob:

They are private entities after all.

First off, respect for your work and the reply here.

About the above quote. I can see a lot of danger in those words, let me explain.

The fact that something is protected by law, does not make it ok. Holocaust was also legal, so was slavery. Not the point. Those orgs have collected money with one purpose, so i dont understand how they are private.

The law (because of the existence of which we are building web3 here) might dictate privacy. It dictates privacy to governments today. That doesn’t make them private by definition in the semantics sense. It makes them private according to somebodies “law”.

No foundation can be private. Its absurd, my friend. Orgs can be private, but then they should not be foundations.

PS. We are a team that already has that connection. We are a self hosted bare metal validator running interlay and cosmos hub (and many more chains) + our pod has community in both, and other ecos + we are building a tool for both ecos

VforCosmos:

No they have community of winners.

Yep. This. Yet no one is interested in responsibility bro. “Follow the leader” =(

This post is not relevant to the discussion. Would appreciate if we all can focus on the issues relevant to the proposal draft and things germane.
Please.

G. 🎒🕶️ (@gyunit_) on X

Ready to see this on chain. Amazing work, Grace.

Montagu from C1 here,

Thanks for putting all of this together Grace, good work.

We’re fully aligned with the objectives sought by the proposal, however petitioning FSAF at a first time might not the best approach.
I believe the revised proposal makes more sense as it gives the ICF the chance to do the right thing before involving the authorities, which could result in more harm than good to the Hub in general.

C1 will support the revised proposal.

Thank you @JohnMontagu for sharing your thoughts. This proposal is put forth genuinely on behalf of the stakeholder community with the sincere intention of fostering transparency and mutual understanding – I think this is done with structured asks, and structured responses. The ICF has stated that their annual auditing requirements are comprehensive, implying and explicitly stating via their Medium blog yesterday that the breadth and depth of these audits is that of an ordinary audit each year (an ordinary audit is an extraordinary audit by Swiss accounting standards). While we take these statements at face value, there exists a significant information asymmetry due to the confidential nature of the statutory filings, making it difficult for us to fully assess the ICF’s operations, and more importantly, the health of their ICS protocols (internal control system). In part, to address this asymmetry and foster confidence building, I revised the request to: • The production of summary reports based on the ICF’s annual audits and any other third-party assessments, covering the areas outlined in what will be an attached document to the proposal (defining scope); • Explicit…

Excerpt (1198 of 1754 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Please provide feedback for above – thx

I think it should go on chain.

I’m sorry if I missed it above, but I’m confused as to why this pseudo-petition and the discussion about it has failed to mention the fact that the Interchain Foundation HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED TO POLKADOT’S DEVELOPMENT AT ALL.

All this other stuff is kind of conjecture and opinion, and if there was some legal issue with the nonprofit, I’m sure an anonymous tip to a Swiss prosecutor would suffice to get it investigated (not sure the Swiss government cares about on-chain petitions).

But it is very clear and easy to prove that the Interchain Foundation has not contributed to Polkadot at all, even though this is clearly stated in the as one of the foundation’s primary goals in its mandate.

Why is this not being discussed?

What makes this proposal a “pseudo petition”?

Re your comment about the mandate/given purpose. That’s why I added it for visibility.

If it’s still the purpose in the charter it’s problematic. Indicates there’s been nearly 8 yrs of selective performance on the mandate. And in addition to the foundation’s expressed agnosticism to the hub and such, it only shows the leadership to be deviating from or mutating mandate. Which is forbidden.

Foundations are shut down for breaching or abandoning purpose. Regulators are quite strict about this.

jtremback:

I’m sure an anonymous tip to a Swiss prosecutor would suffice to get it investigated (not sure the Swiss government cares about on-chain petitions).

This is not the case. You obviously don’t know how oversight is performed with respect to Swiss foundations and the applicable laws.

Prior to Jan 2024, only active/current board members/foundation council members were allowed to submit concerns or whistleblower reports to the FSAF. A pretty retarded constraint. So the laws changed.

As of this Jan, founders, former FC members, board members, direct beneficiaries and general beneficiaries of a foundation can report concerns.
So a governance proposal expressing no confidence matters. As general beneficiaries of the ICF’s activities what we say matters.

Is there a corresponding prop in the Polkadot governance? After all is said and done, do you see the ICF spending 50% of budget on Polkadot dev?

I think the questions to the ICF should be different.

There is a clear call for transparency which apparently is lacking or unsufficient. So the question the ICF can ask itself can also be how to turn it around. How can the ICF frontrun the proposal by delivering what is asked (and maybe promised in the past?) so that the proposal is unneeded

We can fight fire with fire, but we can also work on taking away the fuel of the fire imo.

Clarifying Misconceptions About Proposal #952 and the Interchain Foundation (ICF) • Purpose of the Proposal • This proposal is NOT aimed at removing or suing the ICF. • It’s a call for transparency and accountability, not dissolution. • Understanding Swiss Foundations • Swiss foundations are robust legal entities designed for longevity. • Key characteristics: a. No owners or shareholders b. Governed by a mandated purpose c. Beneficiaries are those who benefit from the foundation’s activities • Oversight and Accountability • Primary oversight authority: Swiss Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (FSAF) • Beneficiaries’ role: Can help hold the foundation accountable, but lack direct control • Legal Realities • The ICF, established in 2017, is bound by Swiss law. • Its mandated purpose is nearly immutable. • Dissolution is extremely difficult and not within the community’s power. • For more on the extraordinary challenges of dissolving Swiss foundations, please see read my forum posts: [Proposal 952][VOTING] Declaration of No Confidence in ICF Leadership & Call to Action - #32 by Cosmos_Nanny • For more on how Stiftung…

Excerpt (1190 of 2770 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The concerns raised in Proposal 952 about the ICF’s leadership and transparency are valid and deserve attention. However, endorsing this proposal may not be the most constructive path forward. By focusing on a declaration of no confidence, we risk escalating tensions without necessarily achieving meaningful change. The legal implications of involving ICF in governance could complicate matters further, particularly in light of ongoing regulatory scrutiny from the SEC. Fighting a legal battel will only add into sufferings of stakeholders.

Instead, a more prudent approach might involve calling for an independent audit through the governance process. This would allow us to address transparency issues within ICF without jeopardizing the legal standing of the Cosmos ecosystem. By advocating for an audit, we can ensure accountability while maintaining a collaborative atmosphere that is vital for the long-term health and stability of the network.

Thank you for your comment.
The only way to enforce or initiate an audit on the ICF is through the FSAF. The community would need to justify reasons why an additional or a more extensive audit needs to be performed than the audits performed for FSAF compliance.

For this reason, #952 asks for comprehensive reporting for all fiscal years since inception. And asks ICF to confirm audit scope performed for each fiscal year bc there is no way community can compel a Stiftung (not for profit purpose foundation) to perform an independent audit in addition to the audits already performed by virtue of annual reporting obligation.

The no confidence measure is added to help the ICF understand the context as to why stakeholders demand more comprehensive reporting.

The audit filings remain sealed and confidential as per Swiss laws.

And the audits performed as reporting obligation are by nature independent in that it’s performed by an external party. But the ICF gets to choose the auditor.

G. 🎒🕶️ (@gyunit_) on X

how about yes voters and AiB’s delegations?

i guess it must remain opaque right?

What “personal” vendetta?
952 is neither vendetta or an unenforceable rebuke.

Nice try.

Proposal #952 is about promoting good governance practices and establishing good governance as an established expectation in the Cosmos ecosystem rather than using the demand for good governance as a punitive measure.

However, it’s quite telling that Informal employees experience and or distort the call to set better standards for stakeholder reporting as a form of punishment or attempt to do harm.

Grace and AiB’s alignment is full, what a surprise?
Meanwhile, the reality:

josh lee (@dogemos) on X

The Interchain Foundation follows up today with the first installment of its monthly treasury snapshot updates, as per the latest commitments towards new transparency and communication initiatives in the 2023 Annual Report release.

ICF Treasury Snapshot: August 2024

The Interchain Foundation follows up today with the first installment of its monthly treasury snapshot updates, as per the latest…

Reading time: 3 min read

Things are starting to change… we recommend the community to start looking at facts and actions instead of speculation and politics. Surely there is way more to deliver to durably shift the trajectory, but we should commend these favorable moves.

Govmos: Things are starting to change… Really? Idk what you see in these monthly treasury snapshots. It’s not the lean-in to transparency it claims to be. Instead, it’s a smokescreen that obscures more than it reveals. Here’s why: Missing Historical Context: A single snapshot, without the full financial history, is like trying to understand a movie from a single frame. It’s impossible to grasp the full picture of the ICF’s financial management without time and context. Unexplained Discrepancies: The ICF’s 2023 annual report, released on August 15, 2024, stated a treasury value of $420M for Q4 2023. The August 31, 2024 snapshot of current treasury shows a drastically reduced value of $295M. The treasury value plummeted by $125M over just 8 months, with no explanation offered. Are these changes due to market volatility, expenditures, deficient asset management strategies/risk management strategies or other factors? Without context, who knows? Asset Allocation Mystery: rudimentary historical data shows the ICF’s crypto holdings have swung wildly, from 62.8% to 91% of total assets between 2020 and 2023. The latest snapshot shows 73.2%. Without a complete…

Excerpt (1194 of 2803 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Govmos:

facts and actions

Respectfully, you seem pretty naive if you perceive this transparency promo as meaningful information. You must not be familiar with the normative standards for stakeholder reporting, especially when a Stiftung has a clear fiduciary reporting obligation to donors involved. The snapshot is rubbish.

@Cosmos_Nanny I saw a bunch of validators voting NO or NWV specifically because of FSAF involvement. Not sure whether this proposal would pass or not, but in case it wouldn’t, do you plan to submit another proposal that removes the FSAF involvement part? I’m curious whether you consider this an option, and if not, why.

Sure. If I can get a clear sentiment that community would like me to redo the proposal will do so without reserving the option to refer lack of progress on transparency requests to the FSAF. That said, originally this proposal began strictly as a direct petitioning request to the FSAF to audit the ICF. And while measuring sentiment in forum and beyond remains an inexact science, the dominant view shared in this channel was support for such a measure. To expand the tent of plausible support a bit more, I amended the proposal so that we first ask the ICF to produce comprehensive reports from 2017, with specific reference to how the qualitative and quantitative information the reports should capture (eg audit scope reference appended as link in the proposal). Outreach to the FSAF would only be explored as a contingency in the current proposal. Which means it’s just an option to explore if needed. In my mind, due to the imprecision of gauging community consensus via social channels, if 952 passes. And if it is the case the ICF refuses to produce requested reports. If it passes 60 days, I may put up another signaling proposal asking community if it is necessary to progress the…

Excerpt (1198 of 1217 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for clarifying the limitations related to the auditing process for ICF under Swiss law. We understand that a Stiftung’s governance and audit procedures come with inherent restrictions, and that the proposal seeks to address gaps in transparency. However, after reviewing ICF’s latest communication, it seems that they are already moving toward increased transparency by committing to publish the necessary financial information. This makes us believe that we should give some time to ICF to adapt to community requirements.

While we agree that community pressure is vital for ensuring accountability, and this proposal has already achieved partial success, we believe a vote of no confidence may create unnecessary friction without achieving the desired outcome. Instead, continuing to engage the ICF in good faith as they fulfill their commitment would likely lead to better results without risking legal complications or escalating tensions within the ecosystem.

Based on this, we have decided to vote “No” on Proposal 952, trusting that the ICF’s forthcoming actions will meet the community’s transparency expectations.

@Cosmos_Nanny thanks for your detailed response.

Cosmos_Nanny:

If it passes 60 days, I’ll put up another signaling proposal asking community if it is necessary to progress the issue to the FSAF.

I think it’s really important to avoid a FSAF involvement unless the community agrees specifically with this step, so nice we’re on the same page here.

As for me, I’m not a big fan of involving legal authorities in a web3 world, so I’d likely vote against that signalling prop, as it’ll probably do more harm than good. Despite that, I treat this proposal as both the statement that we need more transparency and a request for it, so with that in mind, I voted Yes on that.

It’s actually nice that we see ICF starting to move towards that since this proposal has launched, and I hope to see even more transparency further.

Willing to share that we(Bro_n_Bro) are on the side of the val’s who voted no mostly cause of the legal “motivational” part. We still strongly support the initial movement, and would surely support a second revised prop if the current one fails. Mb I’m a bit late with these comments, but I guess here it’s better later than never.

#952 ELI5 : IT’S A “TEST” • The ICF manages critical and vast resources for the Cosmos Hub and ecosystem. • The ICF claims to be doing a good job, but have provided little concrete evidence. • 952 demands the ICF produce detailed historic reports of their activities and resource utilization since establishment. • If governance and operations are in order, the ICF should be able to easily share this information. • Reluctance to share raises red flags: Are they hiding something? Or are they incapable of providing this information? • If they claim inability to share, it’s deeply concerning. This could indicate: • Poor record-keeping practices • Their renewed promises of transparency and accountability are false • If the ICF fails to provide these reports - for any reason - because 952 passed, it substantiates a consensus reached agreement via cosmos hub governance for stakeholders to escalate the matter to the Swiss Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (FSAF), the only agency legally empowered to exercise oversight and regulation over Swiss foundations like the ICF. • In essence, 952 is a straightforward test . PASS : ICF delivers…

Excerpt (1195 of 1659 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

freak12techno:

FSAF involvement

Tbf, 952 explicitly mentioned fsaf involvement as a contingency. And the proposal passed.

Bc it was reserved as a contingency, I feel after 60 days, pending on what is or is not delivered by the ICF – the community will have more context to determine the necessity of engagement.

May I ask however, what is the source of the profound fear of engaging w FSAF? Do you think it makes the hub less blockchain? Or less decentralized? Wake up. It’s not decentralized at all.

And it’s not made less decentralized by any enforcement or intervention action by the FSAF. It’s made less decentralized by the ICF. Order of effects.

I’m not as privy to everything (technology, reputation) as the average member of the community. From this post, do people suggest that I sell my ATOM and move it over to a competitor like DOT?