To @AceAlliance_CC
We respectfully disagree with Ace Alliance’s conclusion that Article II.7.4 was unmet. The proposal explicitly allocated ₳16,800 to audits and described a concrete oversight framework: funds would be converted to stablecoins and held in a public company wallet, every paid Pro license would be recorded on-chain with metadata, results would be assessed every December and June, Pro-plan earnings reports would be published, and repayment or donation transaction hashes would be made public.
That is a substantive audit-and-oversight mechanism, not an absent one. The proposal may not have used the exact phrase “oversight metrics,” but it specified measurable, public data points: license sales, wallet balances, semiannual repayment calculations, earnings reports, and on-chain repayment/donation proofs. Treating the proposal as unconstitutional because those commitments were not repeated under a more formal label elevates wording over substance.
At most, this was a clarification request. It was not a constitutional defect. The community was given enough information to monitor use of funds and evaluate whether the sustainability and repayment commitments were being met.
@AdamRusch@therealdisasm@hoskytoken@NicolasC3rny@cardanoesq
I literally created an "off X" solution along with the Intersect budget process. This could all be happening there. The FEs (IO, CF, and Emurgo) all chose to circumvent it and bring the discussion to X because they provided no other means or opportunity for feedback. Ask yourself how a group of these self-same organizations will somehow fix the problem they themselves created
I'm not alleging wrongdoing.
I'm asking for documentation.
Who controlled the Isle of Man Foundation?
What became of the ~1,090 BTC?
How were the development agreements negotiated?
And what governance protections existed for ADA purchasers?
I'll keep following the documents wherever they lead.
I have got my hand up as well this is a great quote from Kris's comment and one that everyone should take a pause and see how it fits in their Cardano life.
"If you're an SPO, dApp founder, or operator serious about building commercial solvency on Cardano, DM me. Let's map who's ready to move."
Please repost this if you want Cardano commerce to increase not shrink, if you want ADA price to go up based on real world companies finally adopting our chain as a place to do business (create a end to end enterprise solution and they will join) Please repost and put your hand up to make Cardano the best place to live/work/play, this isn't going to be easy but nothing worth having and keeping is:-)
Do yourself a favor: mute those pages. They should not have engagement back from this behaviour. Also, such a coordinated attack in the weakest times ever must mean something. They want Cardano, the outlier, to be dead and out. Show them the power of the crowd. Community note it.
@NaVi_GaT0R@phil_uplc@BEACNpool@emurgo_io Hope so I’m a holder a believer but these childhood antics need to stop. If I was a business and see this I would look at other options if there are
@NaVi_GaT0R@phil_uplc@BEACNpool@emurgo_io ? For both sides how does this help your own project and the ecosystem you guys claim to be defending? I don’t recall businesses acting acting and responding like this. It’s all we as community hear. Idea for all show the community results from your projects. Community request
@Sssebi YES
Fighting like children in X doesn't help at all.
They're so stupid they're feeding all the serial Cardano haters by scaring new users away from the blockchain.
@NaVi_GaT0R@phil_uplc@BEACNpool@emurgo_io Truthfully feels like you BOTH want to see the chain suffer. If my kids acted like you guys are they be in a rude awakening. Wake up a get to work and get off X. Community request
And 3 of the 4 are either safe (Collins) or not running for re-election (Tillis, McConnell). JUST ENOUGH to ensure the Act did not pass. See how this works? They got the expendables to vote against it so all the others can now claim they voted FOR it and not be blamed for it not passing.
This is incredible, SpaceX early investors will be able to sell 20% of $SPCX shares after the Q2 earnings report on June 30th.
There's also a performance-based trigger where investors can sell an additional 10% of stock if the stock trades 30% above IPO price for 5 days after earnings June 30th.
The lockup structure also allows investors to sell in increments of 7% after 70, 90, 105, 120 and 135 days after IPO. The remainder unlocks after 180 days.
This one of the greatest wealth transfers I've ever seen from retail to early investors. No wonder they changed the rules to rush it into the indices after only 15 days (July 3rd).
When that happens, retirement funds and passive ETFs will be forced to buy SpaceX precisely when the unlocks hit and early investors are able to begin dumping their shares.
Is this the most corrupt IPO in history?
@SawyerMerritt Does anyone see how this is not a good thing? The idea that all these standard rules for decades are being changed. Who really thinks it’s a good idea
@JaromirTesar Agree , there are plenty of projects that will align with this view. We also don’t need to
Raise the NCL. @ArmyofSpies@IOHK_Charles@astroboysoup@NaVi_GaT0R let’s get back to winning it’s . Cardano is stronger then it ever been. This is governance love it or hate it.