RE: Working with the DAC: It's Not Personal
I ran a successful business for 10 years. If someone says something disparaging to myself or the teams I work with that I consider inaccurate, I will speak up about it. That's leadership. If someone makes an agreement to be respectful in private but continues acting differently in public, I'll call that out also. It's not about who you or anyone else represents. I don't change the way I interact with people based on their titles or their influence. I make decisions based on my interpretation of my interactions with them. You're being non-transparent with your identity and your solutions but openly criticizing me, eosDAC, and our team while not addressing any of the concerns with your approach I've mentioned.
In short, it sounds like you're trolling. I gave you a simple opportunity to add value by making a useful suggestion about who they should meet with and you chose not to. How is that helpful to the DAC? To me, it demonstrates you are not actually interested in helping which means there's no point is spending energy responding to you.
Am I wrong?
As to eosDAC, I'm just one person. I don't represent the DAC by myself. We have 12 elected custodians. Many top, technically excellent BPs have dropped in the rankings along with eosDAC.
It's quite possible we just have different personalities and approaches. You think it's worthwhile to criticize the hard work of many dedicated people as being the exact wrong way to do things. I not only don't think that's worthwhile, but will go so far as to state my opinion and respond to it.
Still refusing to learn. It makes me wonder if all the time in the world would be enough.
It wasn't just you that was the problem in eosDAC but Saro, Michael and Rob too.
Oh and I gave more than enough clues on who they should speak to in China.
Also leadership is knowing when to speak and when to shut up. Leadership in the Far East is knowing when to shut up even when you are right.
I am not a leader in the Far East. I don't have the cultural or experiential knowledge to be effective in that role at this time. I'm glad Myra has joined the custodian board to help fill that role. If you could also contribute in this way, campaign as a custodian.
As to knowing when not speak, would that include not saying things like "it has also provided exactly the template of what a DAC should not be"? Seems pretty offensive to me.
Indeed you aren't. Yet when others with that experience (and there were plenty besides me) tried to help you, Michael and Saro took affront. Michael going so far as to stating that the Korean community was toxic and threatened to kill him. Hence seeing posts like this which talk about "kindness" and offers to consult rather scrape at the craw.
With regard to standing as Custodian. You have made that rather much impossible. By forcing through a seriously flawed constitution you have made it dangerous for anyone to become a member. You expose them to unlimity liability for the DAC. Even if that were not the case the conflicts of interest between Dacoco, the pseudo-foundation and the custodians means that you have created a functional closed shop in which a single custodian's influence becomes irrelevent.
For what it's worth, I am on record for not being a fan of needing a Dacoco entity at all. Many discussions about joint and several liability with our lawyers over time convinced me otherwise. The constitution is just a bunch of words and not as meaningful as how courts will actually rule based on their lack of understanding or precedent for dealing with a DAC. It will most likely be seen as a partnership or association (so I've been told) meaning anyone and everyone involved really is liable for what anyone else does. If that's true, why wouldn't our constitution accurately reflect that? You may not like that, but that's been the understanding of how things work in the real world (and world we're working to change, potentially via recognition of DACs through Liberland, etc). By using a service company, the DAC isn't doing business with individuals, but only has one main contract and that service company has traditional things in place governments are comfortable with (employment contracts, business insurance, banking, withholding tax, etc, etc). The foundation was needed (so I've been told) to manage the actual fiat funds. I don't see anyone else stepping up to do it. Those involved before I joined took on very real risk, and I respect what they have accomplished so far. Once the technology is completed with worker proposals, people can build whatever type of structure they want, either completely avoiding fiat and a service company or doing what we we've done or some type of hybrid.
As for Saro and Michael's actions, I don't speak for them. You'll have to discuss that with them. As for some aspects of the Korean community, I will say parts of it were toxic. There were forks of their community channels on Telegram and Korean members left the DAC because of actual death threats and the stress they were under dealing with aspects of that community that were actually toxic (this is not just my perspective as a westerner, but from the Korean community leaders and members directly). Maybe you didn't experience that so you don't have the same context or perspective, but things were pretty bad for a while. I'm thankful for those who have stepped up within the Korean community to help build the DAC and add real value instead of just bring criticisms about token prices or when they'll get on the next exchange for a pump and dump.
Unfortunately that is the crux of the problem. The team are very casual with the safety of its members. These are serious matters and are not simply "bunches of words". If it were so the team would not have their own backsides well and truly protected.
With regard to the Korean communitity - many of those people are heavily involved in business in the real world not idealistic teens that had dropped off 4Chan. The team clearly showed it was far out of its depth and did not have the experience to operate in an international setting. The sad thing is you haven't learned from it and Saro and Michael will without a doubt make things much much worse in China mostly down to cultural/business naivety.