@Jonas I just watched an hour long podcast of Olaf explaining the blockchain space. I am highly impressed with his communication skills, general confidence, knowledge and experience in “digital assets”. If a new Tezos Community Statement supporting Olaf’s appointment to the Tezos Foundation is not already in the works I vote for one being crafted for mass signature like our previous petition. The first petition was an incredible success and I feel we should show our support for Olaf putting as much pressure as possible on the Foundation to act. This is a gut feeling so please let me know if there are dissenting opinions. @Jonas Thank you for you part in bringing to light the community’s distrust of the Foundation and need for change for the betterment of Tezos.
Fully agree with you.
I don’t understand why we do not settle with gevers. Give him 1 millions Dollars and let him go…
Olaf Carlson-Wee can probably not take on this role, given his function at Polychain, a hedge fund focusing on crypto. A member of the foundation board has to be independent (remember: checks and balances, that should eventually be one of the principles of Tezos) and given that Olaf is one of the early backers and has probably an essential stake, he would be the opposite. But I agree that he would otherwise be a great fit. Given that Swiss Procedures to resolve this issue quickly and efficiently really suck, I guess they just don’t care and you can put my son there on the board (he’s two).
I’m not disagreeing with you but from what I read, Gevers has a personal stake in Tezos and more than the Breitmans. How is this anymore independent than Polychain’s investment in DLS other than amount most likely? Blockchains are different from a typical company since no one owns the blockchain and there doesn’t seem to be much structure to Swiss regulations anyway. It will be interesting to see what plays out on this development.
“but from what I read, Gevers has a personal stake in Tezos”: yeah, I heard something like that too… and he brought on large investors. I heard a lot actually and I believe, only very few know the truth. Regarding the lack of structure: don’t forget, this legal “vehicle” is structured as a foundation and it was intentionally done so given various advantages (I guess flexibility, lax regulation, maybe even tax reasons…). From this point of view it is important that I do not criticize the Swiss regulatory framework per se, but the way the regulatory body of foundations handles that matter (i.e. very passively). In the end, it might also be a mistake by the legal advisor, how they structured this vehicle (e.g. why only 3 members on the board?), but let’s not forget: foundations like Ethereum or IOTA work perfectly fine, they power ahead with campaigns and I read news almost every day. It can work. Gevers and the Breitmans just don’t get along, it’s as simple as that. There will always be disputes, but it cannot be that we end up in a standoff situation that leads to a total inertia, someone made mistakes.
Gevers said he invested a lot, Gevers is also the founder and CEO of Monetas. I don’t see any reasons why Olaf couldn’t be a member of the board.