Conflicts of Interest at the Bitcoin Foundation

[tokeweed]

The Bitcoin Foundation has always had public relations issues. Its infamous alumni like former Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles and Bitcoin wunderkind Charlie Shrem have provided an ample source of animosity toward the Bitcoin movement. However, and historically, these publicly disgraced Foundation members have resigned as an altruistic act of putting Bitcoin before themselves.

But what happens when a committee member refuses to step down, even when faced with a blatant conflict of interest?

Complete article https://coinreport.net/conflicts-interest-bitcoin-foundation/

[pereira4]

It's very hard to find consensus on a project that is open source and has no pyramidal herarchich roadmap of the way things will go, this is to be expected.

[Whitehouse]

I've always said most of them have conflicts of interests because most of them have bitcoin-related companies they are trying to promote or get off the ground and this will influence their decision making and motives. These sorts of things are always infiltrated by people with their own agendas and business interests to promote and that's why I think the foundation is a bad thing, especially the way it is currently set up and with people being able to by their way in to it.

[Professor James Moriarty]

Why is this even a surprise. They have openly welcomed that shitbag Brock Pierce into the foundation, letting him call himself the godfather of bitcoin. The foundation is a joke and they deserve to just die off.

[Eastfist]

Bitcoin Foundation is apparently trying to rebrand "Bitcoin" now. No, you can only rebrand Bitcoin Foundation, fools, not Bitcoin itself. That ship has sailed. Adios, Bruce Fenton and company.

[Amph]

i never liked the bitcoin foundation, it isn't needed and it makes it seem bitcoin like a centralized thing with its ceo and company

[kelsey]

shotloads of conflict of interests in bitcoin core dev themselves   

[LFC_Bitcoin]

i never liked the bitcoin foundation, it isn't needed and it makes it seem bitcoin like a centralized thing with its ceo and and company

Agree.
It annoys me that they try to create an aura of self importance.
Bitcoin was here before them & it'll be here a long time when they are gone.
Like somebody said above they all have conflicts of interest due to running their own bitcoin businesses etc.
I don't trust any of them one bit.

[Kprawn]

How many of these people are still listed as members of the foundation?

You can only have a conflict of interest, if you are still part of the decision making of the foundation. Were there a conflict of interest, when they were still around? Yes.

Should we allow members, with conflicting interest to make decisions on our behalf? No.

I know Bruce Fenton are open to change, and he emmediatly removed his previous signature, when he took office as the new Executive Director.

Let's see how this play out...