Something interesting to note. I don’t think that DLS (Arthur and Kathleen) have complained that they cannot finish the product without the funding, but they have complained about the lack of funding on principle. (To show how the foundation has been a lame duck.)
This part of my post is based on the assumption that the agreement really is “DLS gets paid after 3 months of stable mainnet” then there are some following possibilities:
A) It was a miscommunication, bad lawyer advice, misunderstanding, etc… DLS (Arthur and Kathleen) had no idea of implications of “no funding”. Now they need cash to complete the project.
Assuming that DLS (Arthur and Kathleen) knew about the no funding and understood the implications, we also have the possibility that:
B) DLS (Arthur and Kathleen) thought that they had the money to fund development themselves and are running low on funds, hence why they have brought up the question about not being funded.
C) DLS (Arthur and Kathleen) knew that they couldn’t fund the project so thought that they would get the ICO complete then strong arm the foundation into paying for development work.
(“C”) is sort of unlikely as you’d imagine if they needed funds that badly they would have directed a few million into DLS on day one.
I personally think that that DLS (Arthur and Kathleen) made a mistake with their agreement.
And yes I think that you’re right about the foundations responsibilities. It does seem that the only agreement is to DLS (Arthur and Kathleen) after mainnet.
If so this explains why Gever wants to stay on board as legally once he has paid DLS (Arthur and Kathleen) he will be able to use the funds for anything he wants. (Is that true?)