XXX The Voice of the Community on the Cardano Foundation Board XXX

[deepau]

Cardano will not achieve its potential if we are stupid enough to repeat the same fatal choices of centralization.

To all Cardano stakeholders:

I strongly encourage you to make it your FIRST priority to try your very best to learn as much as possible about any community member prior to supporting any of their ideas or initiatives which may have even the slightest potential of impacting the governance or development of Cardano. Why? It’s simple, if you cannot trust the person, the ideas or initiatives campaigned by the person are what the Greek’s Trojan Horse was to Troy.

It’s sickening and alarming to discover member discussion that’s, for all intents and purposes, a thinly veiled self-serving aggrandisement. Each of us share the responsibility to Guardian Cardano, to Ambassador Cardano, in equal measure without special election, appointment, and/or compensation of any kind.

Again, please make it your FIRST priority to try your very best to learn as much as possible about the character of the person. Consider and reflect how, for example @bercinho, measures up on honesty, loyalty, integrity, accountability, self-sacrifice, and self-control.

@bercinho thinks it’s, “a very good idea To have a Social Council body with 7-11 members from the Community”
Do you agree?

@bercinho thinks, “Anyone who didn’t buy ADA at the ICO is not really an investor, but speculator”
Do you agree?

This @bercinho quote represents his thoughts about you, not himself:
“What makes you an investor? Did IOHK or anyone receive funds from your “investment”? Did you read any investment policy, Terms & Agreement? We are speculators, buying utility cheaper now with the aim of selling it higher after certain time. We are like Guys who buy 1 GByte data prepaid upload card for 10 USD because we believe it will be sold for 20 USD in the future. Does this make us investors of the Telecom infrastructure & in the Telecom company? Hardly.”
Do you agree?

IMO, after having read all of his activity in context,@bercinho is pursuing such a position, as Commissar, as our Blockchain Guru.

Comes down to this: Do you want yet another go at trusting elected individuals with your vested interests? If you do, is @bercinho your guy?

[Eystein_Hansen]

Deepau that is not how I read Bercinho or myself for that matter in original post (more like suggestions what we could help with.) But you are free to discuss here about this. I would love for the community to find a better way on this so yes I agree you should ask many questions and please discuss a better way. I have said this before and I truly mean it I do not want to make the rules, I want the community to do that. But I can follow along for the journey as part of the community and offer my own suggestions. Representation is still a strong way for the many to have a say and especially now in the young days of Cardano. But if you can figure out a better way I am all ears. I want the community to have a say in Cardano foundation and in Cardano in general. I believe it is healthy this comes from bottom (us the community) instead of from top (IOHK/Emurgo/CF). And with knowledge of the character and intents of Bercinho I am quite confident he will pursue no such position.

[deepau]

My conclusions are not subject to any liabilities such as moral hazards and/or conflicts of interests. My conclusions are empirically derived. As such, I have absolutely no idea from what source your confidence comes.

[Eystein_Hansen]

Don’t throw around a word like empirically that easily in the context of science. I wonder what kind of experiment or logical proof that has lead you to have absolute knowledge of Berchino’s intents where you have accounted for any possible variables or much more to the point in this case the context statements have been made. I think only Berchino can answer that question himself what his intent is (Oh and most often we tend to not be able to truly answer this question even from ourselves.)

[bercinho]

Oh man. You are my personal troll following me everywhere. I don’t know where you are coming from or where you are going, but keep trolling in every thread I have participated in recently

You never argue the topic and only look into it on the very superficial level, but rather insult the person. And you do this from anonymity, that’s such a cowardly act to carry out personal attacks without exposing your identity. Who are you, do you dare stand out from your darkness? I would even believe you are someone with a double profile on the Forum, just using this one whenever in your interest.

Anyone should feel free to checkout our history and your psycho runs.

My other best guess would be you are an EOS mercenary hunting people with ideas and willingness trying to improve the Cardano Ecosystem. That’s the best case profiling.

I wonder where are the Forum moderators to follow up @deepau history on attacking me and prevent such toxicity in the Forum.

Anyway you didn’t read that I just revoked my application for the Cardano Foundation board position along 3 other guys being 4 out of 11 who officially resigned from this opportunity in order to let us rather promote a bottom-up movement in the best interest of the Community.

Try for once to be constructive, your negativism is so boring, fake, artificial and diaphanous.

[bercinho]

My intent below. Repeated from the same thread

@bercinho

Being heavily invested in Cardano, at the same time caring about the unimaginable positive & disruptive impact it may have on our World and willing sympathetic Charles who gives his full heart to the venture to win the crypto war is my personal interest to make sure we have the very best Board possible, with the best candidate from the wide global Community, while having such a campaign generating tremendous added value and strengthening the Community like nothing else.

[deepau]

Let me help you out:

Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional [knee jerk] reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument.

Please understand, I have always, and will always protect my interests. You don’t like that…I could careless.

You’ve created your history here, no one else.

[bercinho]

I am proud of my history here. Just read through all my topics created.

Your history for the last 3 months speaks for itself, just attacking me:

deepau

But I won’t play your game. Especially with an anonymous Guy. Bye bye

[deepau]

For your sake, don’t take everything so personal, not the intention.

Look, it’s @bercinho’s apparent ideology and evident tactics that imo present existential risks to Cardano. This isn’t the train you want to be on, but that’s your ticket not mine.

[Eystein_Hansen]

You simply have a bad judge of character and I understand his reaction (In this case to your stalking/Trolling…) The path taken might not be where we land but at least it is in the right direction and then the community can do the rest

[deepau]

…when lives are involved, it’s never a game. This is serious business with enormous stakes for many , many people. Shameful…

[Eystein_Hansen]

There is much research on DSL for law. I think a great name for a bitlaw DSL would be to be named after Hammurabi (edit already taken GitHub - mpoulshock/HammurabiProject: Codifying legal rules in machine-executable form so Ur-Nammu it is ! ) or after the first known existing law code called Ur-Nammu he created. Code of Ur-Nammu - Wikipedia
The premise of the law is IF THEN statements.

@Eystein_Hansen

Bitlaw
I want to share one of my thoughts with you all on future governance and on legal issues. I call it bitlaw. Unlike common law or civil law systems of today it creates some new efficiencies that can only be found when you digitize not only the representation of law but the interpretation of law.

In a common or civil law system you the user of such rules are required to figure out when does this rules apply to me or you are enforced to make these rules apply to you by a great state apparatus costing society huge sums.

In a bitlaw system assuming it is dualistic (coexisting with common or civil law) many fields of law can be quarried by the computer itself. For example in contract law there is many cases where users can simply agree on standards or what rules they will enforce onto contracts. Some laws are more absolute (most contracts in modern ages for example ban any form of agreement for slavery) and will still need interpretation. However many legal agreements and laws are straightforward yes or no or can be agreed upon to be straightforward yes or no and can then fit into a binary system of quarry. Also suddenly it can be computed and visualized for a user when a law apply to a said condition and it can be automatically enforced if users agree to this. Obviously this has many ethical issues but if done well I am sure it can be a good thing for society.

Tip of the iceberg law cases or database law cases?
Suddenly instead of having a professional class who interprets and theorize about law outcomes you can in many cases create databases of knowledge through millions or billions of contracts for filled. This is a far cry from tip of the iceberg type of law interpretations where only a small amount of cases ever reach the courts or other interpretive authorities.

A law for everything with AI?
It could possible also open an age old question if it is possible for a law for everything. Many have tried this historically and failed because it was simply not possible and out of this emerged the current law theories of interpreting laws based on an agreed upon system or standard and for even high courts to fill in the blanks where there was a legal void. But what if AI could in the future calculate all outcomes or even calculate on the fly outcomes. Ethically this still should be controlled by humans but the efficiency and scale of this would probably allow such a new way of legal thinking.

Layered law approach
Another aspect would be to have local laws vs universal laws on any such system. We know from human history it is very hard to agree to everything with everyone. So it is far better to agree on what we can agree with whom we can agree. With bitlaw suddenly it is far easier to organize such layered approaches where you can instantly say that only portion X of rule Y applies for this transaction or this contract Z. This seems a better approach than trying to make universal laws for every single subject and to every single user. Obviously still some rules needs to be national or even transnational like human rights but a layered approach allows for all of this and is certainly nothing new as this already is happening in paper form of law. The difference is in efficiency and potential ease of use of creating such rules.

Visual contracts in real time and developing over time
The baby steps of this would for me be contracts over time a new legal field in Contract Law. Contracts are no longer statics and are often updated. But this never happens in real time and there is no current system to quickly visualize and then formalize said agreements. Bitlaw combined with blockchain makes this possible. Suddenly you can both visualize Peder Aas agreeing with Marte Kirkerud on transfering X amount if Y condition and change this on the fly based on other parameters like for example previous contracts (because now we can build huge databases of this with all transactions) and due to blockchain there is no need for a 3rd party to verify. Also you can learn from contracts and gradually evolve them over time in a much faster and better rate than what we can do with current legal systems.

Computational Democracies
This again opens what I call computational democracies. In computational democracies humans are still the representatives but in many cases the need for a 3rd party is removed. Voting can instantly be verified creating a lot of voting opportunities previously not within human reach and creating huge efficiencies in the voting process itself. Combined with bitlaw governance can happen and change at a much faster rate where users agree upon change or scope of changes (only x in contract terms y) and we can build a much bigger database of governance history thus making us learn faster what is more optimal ways to governance.

In any case these are only some of my ideas so far and I know it is far out there but do think these things are possible. I welcome any criticism also as I want to see if these are realistically possible ideas or not?

And believe it or not I believe a baby step in all of this is actually if we can get the community on board as a say on these governance issues I am sure we will run into with the treasury system. We also need to accept that we need a layered approach and accept that with decentralization and globalization we will need different rules for different groups. But for sure the community needs to be part of this

[deepau]

I have no right to judge anyone. I train my attention on evidence…I trust facts.

[Mihori]

lol！ Guess you just became a national threat to Cardano!
But this makes sense, you had successfully taken down Parsons and buried the GoC, God knows what you gonna do this time!

[knysna]

deepau. I also like facts. Give us your details, why anonymous?

[DogWatch]

@Mihori

you had successfully taken down Parsons and buried the GoC, God knows what you gonna do this time!

Bert is The Man!

[Eystein_Hansen]

I decided I want to also carry on the Bitlaw discussion into its own thread but for sure these issues are connected as only with the community voice into the governance issues will we ensure (or perhaps a better word is guarantee) bottom up process of creating a DSL for governance.

Bitlaw a legal system with a DSL for Cardano governance

Continuing off my discussions in the thread on a voice from the community on the Cardano Foundation board where I posted my discussion with Bertalan @bercinho I want to discuss with the community and learn together with the community more on the possibilities and perhaps also spark some interest into developing a DSL for governance on Cardano. We have Marlow that is trying to be a DSL for financial contracts but we do not have a governance DSL. Here is my previous post: There is much research…

[bercinho]

Short recap of the Proposal to the Cardano Foundation:

A multi-level, self-organized, global & decentralized organization built up in a bottom-up approach from members of the Community in a democratic process by the Community, (i) reaching up till the Foundation Board and (ii) overseeing the top-down movements (Ambassadors, Cardano Hubs), (iii) aggregating the Voice of Community and (iv) acting as base pillars of the Cardano Adoption forces and (v) later serving as a backbone for the liquid democracy delegate platform would bring balance, liberty & transparency to the Ecosystem.

The Cardano Social Council could initially operate from committed (irrevocable) sponsorship from the Foundation and later be fed by the Treasury and Staking Pools in a way it maintains its independence, integrity and non-profit nature.

Such an organization could later be deployed as a DAO on the Cardano Blockchain.

This is just one possible draft vision, the Community needs a consensus on the direction.

Initially IMO it should be a very lightweight organization with 7-11 members elected by the Community for the Cardano Social Council and 1-2 of them elected for sitting on the Cardano Foundation Board.

All these parameters and rules are just indicative, any constructive feedback is welcome.

If there is one message to take away:

Cardano belongs to the Community, trust the wisdom & intelligence of the Community to let it elect its representatives who bring the Voice of the Community to the Cardano Foundation Board.

[bobert]

Just to pitch in a word, I am unclear the need for a second bureaucratic entity in between the community and the CF. As you say in those 5 points, you intend to amass most of the contact between the community and the CF which you then may be sponsored for. Now this just might be my perspective, but one of the reasons I’m so interested in this technology is to be able to rid of the bureaucratic mess that plagues the world currently.

Given that your current proposal is not a technological-based solution to solving the issue at hand but instead a bureaucratic one, and given that humans are flawed especially when money enters the picture, it seems to me that such a plan simply provides a wider surface area for which corruption may spawn.

Why do we need 7-11 more people in between the community and CF, who all each have their own biases, desires, thoughts, opinions, and faults. I think it would be more beneficial to perform research in designing systems that can aggregate community opinion in a fair and transparent way without having a gate-keeping organisation in between who will evidently at some point be fallible and let their biases show one way or another. If you wish to pursue being sponsored to fund such research and get some engineers to build such a system, then I am all for that.

Otherwise however, I’ll just say I’m not exactly excited by the prospect of a continuously expanding bureaucratic branch being at the core of the community (or at least imposing itself as such). Just my 2 cents.

[Eystein_Hansen]

Bobert long term I agree with you and in fact I hope CF can work on making some of its proposed functions automated on the blockchain. But before we get to that point we need community to be involved I believe. Most such change process require acceptance both bottom up and top down (atleast that is my organizational psychology understanding of such change processes.) But sure does not have to be a social council. If you find a clever way to remove the middle layer short term as well I am all ears For me one of the key things is how would we manage to involve a majority of the community and make sure for example voices across the world have a say like for example the Ethiopian, Chinese, Norwegian (Viking roar!), Korean or Japanese community.

I also think that the governance issues we have had so far is small compared to what will come when billions are on the line so we better try to make this right the first time. So yeah that I guess is a support for your argument that there needs to be more research into this subject and to find a way to remove the human elements that are negative for the ecosystem as a whole. For me it is at least very clear that we are not going to make universal rules that everyone will agree to on all types of subjects so we need to have some form of layered approach for example when founds are delegated on the treasury. Or else soon stuff like culture and local laws (if only universal rules on Cardano) will start to paralyze a lot of otherwise great projects that could have been initiated. Would I like for there to be universal rules and for all to get along? Absolutely but that is just not the world we live in.