Bitcoin Foundation: Where on Earth Did all the Money Go?

[Fatman3001]

I don't think the part of tomothy's question in bold is answered properly.

So, part of your mission is "Fostering Core Development", but you won't outright support Core on their approach for the block size debate? How can this be?

Do you plan to support the other teams like XT or BU then?

And "Gavin no longer receives a salary from the Bitcoin Foundation"... what does that mean? Is he no longer chief scientist?

To put it another way: If someone supports The Bitcoin Foundation in any way, what are they supporting?


Best Regards


Oh, and thanks to tomothy for bringing something meaningful into this.

This is a draft mission statement,  the specific reason it is listed as a draft and out for comment is to answer questions like this.

My thought is that, since we have members like Gavin, Garzik, Peter Todd and companies from various sides of the discussion that working to be neutral and improve communication and consensus is valuable.   If you think the foundation should take a solid stand on the blocksize debate, then that is very worthy of discussion.  It's up to the members to convey this to the board and the board to determine how they best represent those members.

Yes, Gavin is still Chief Scientist, he is not paid, he is a volunteer just like all other roles (save two part time admin roles)

Thanks for the clarification. I don't really see a point in the foundation bossing about in tech questions, but the block size debate has created a schism of sorts. I guess what I'm really curious about is if you are solely committed to supporting the Core devs or if you'll consider supporting efforts or talented individuals from teams working on other implementations in the future? Is your neutral line to be read as an affirmative to supporting other implementations or do you see TBF bound to Core in a way that makes this unlikely? Is this up for debate as well?

Best Regards

[bArAPIc74b]

Bruce,

I'll do some follow up piece by piece, but I still see lots of inconsistencies and puffery.

First, big picture, I think it is at best puffery to claim that you are a "global full service" investment advisory firm if you are the only employee, outsource your broker dealer function, and outsource pretty much everything else.  I do know investment advisors, and I know you can make good money in that approach, but it's just a stretch to say you are global (you are only registered in MA) and "full service" in that situation.  (And you complain that I have no understanding how it might work in the industry, despite the fact I expressly acknowledge that it might be like a franchisee situation, but still said it was a stretch to say you were "global and full service").

Here is an analogy.  There are very successful franchisees.  I know someone who has a bunch of Five Guys franchises.  He makes good money.  He owns his own business.  I'd call him an entrepreneur.  But if his linked in profile or resume made no mention of the franchise relationship, and said he was the founder of a global full service vertically integrated food services business, I'd tell him he was full of shit.  If he ran for an elected position based on that  (you did run for director, I'm not talking about the board appointing you as an executive), I'd say it was misleading.

Note that his linkedin says he:  "- personally placed or sourced over $5 billion in investments during career" and "- created and managed $500 million in-house investment services group for 100 year old law firm.”

>>>>> Yes, this is correct, the majority was mutual funds, followed by equites, I also raised money for private equity deals

Ok, now that makes a little more sense.  But you are stretching the definition of "personally placed or sourced over $5 billion."  I am in finance, and that implies that you are generating deals and deal-flow, not that in the "vast majority" of cases you recommending mutual funds and equities as a financial advisor - or perhaps this even includes 401k type plans you were involved in?  Would you not agree that for financial advisors the more relevant metric is AUM (assets under management), not the total notional amount of trades?

And, again to try and be balanced, it also shows he was previously registered at Dean Witter Reynolds around the same time as his Linkedin profile claims he was a VP at Morgan Stanley.  Dean Witter was a retail brokerage that merged with Morgan Stanley, a more prestigious and international full service investment bank.  But that merger occurred well after Bruce was there, in 1997.  So more puffery in trying to use what I view as a more prestigious name.  Also, it is still odd the dates don’t match exactly, and that he is listed as having been registered with two other firms that appear nowhere on his linkedin bio.

>>>>>> Dean Witter doesn't exist anymore, all my employment records and old licensing are at Morgan Stanley - all of the people I worked with are at Morgan Stanley and anyone wanting to check my records or verify anything would have to call Morgan Stanley.  The other firms don't appear because they were only back office service providers.  Who you are registered with for U4 / FINRA purposes is different than who you are actually employed by.  The exception is a large wirehouse like UBS or Morgan Stanley where the one holding your license and your employer are the same company.

So a "transparent person" would say that they worked for Dean Witter and add a parenthetical (acquired by Morgan Stanley 1997).  Morgan Stanley is clearly a more prestigious background, especially for someone who is trying to make themselves look more like a deal guy, then a broker.  (Have you read Liar's Poker, remember the insult of being stuck with "equities in Dallas?" 

Or how about this, Google bought Motorola Mobility.  Do you think it is appropriate for an employee of Motorola, long before Motorola was acquired by Google, to list himself as having worked for Google?  And I guess Lenovo then bought Motorola Mobility from Google.  So if that guy is applying for a hardware position, maybe he should say he worked for Lenovo?  Again, more BS.

Pause for now.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

[BruceFenton]

Bruce,

I'll do some follow up piece by piece, but I still see lots of inconsistencies and puffery.

First, big picture, I think it is at best puffery to claim that you are a "global full service" investment advisory firm if you are the only employee, outsource your broker dealer function, and outsource pretty much everything else.  I do know investment advisors, and I know you can make good money in that approach, but it's just a stretch to say you are global (you are only registered in MA) and "full service" in that situation. 

>>>>> Again you are incorrect, I am not "only registered in MA" - when I was with FINRA I was registered in all 50 states, RIA registration only goes by the state you are in.  The firm can serve customers in many states.

 (And you complain that I have no understanding how it might work in the industry, despite the fact I expressly acknowledge that it might be like a franchisee situation, but still said it was a stretch to say you were "global and full service").

>>>>>>. No, it is not a franchise or anything at all similar.  In the last 6-7 years I've spent roughly 50% of my time living and working outside of the US, in 2014 I had over 100 flights with 60 international -- the work we do is global, not sure how you can define it as local, I do almost no business locally


Here is an analogy.  There are very successful franchisees.  I know someone who has a bunch of Five Guys franchises.  He makes good money.  He owns his own business.  I'd call him an entrepreneur.  But if his linked in profile or resume made no mention of the franchise relationship, and said he was the founder of a global full service vertically integrated food services business, I'd tell him he was full of shit.  If he ran for an elected position based on that  (you did run for director, I'm not talking about the board appointing you as an executive), I'd say it was misleading.

>>>>>>. The analogy is not accurate.  In that example the person would be misleading.   Atlantic Financial is not a franchise or subsidiary of any other company and it has never been.  I founded it and built it over time.  There is no parent company as with Five Guys, my company is the parent.

Note that his linkedin says he:  "- personally placed or sourced over $5 billion in investments during career" and "- created and managed $500 million in-house investment services group for 100 year old law firm.”

>>>>> Yes, this is correct, the majority was mutual funds, followed by equites, I also raised money for private equity deals

Ok, now that makes a little more sense.  But you are stretching the definition of "personally placed or sourced over $5 billion."  I am in finance, and that implies that you are generating deals and deal-flow, not that in the "vast majority" of cases you recommending mutual funds and equities as a financial advisor - or perhaps this even includes 401k type plans you were involved in?  Would you not agree that for financial advisors the more relevant metric is AUM (assets under management), not the total notional amount of trades?

>>>>> I define "placed / transactions" by a pretty standard definition: a ticket I actually placed the order for or an investment or deal I sourced and saw through to completion -- I was part of a team that did a $2 billion loan facility and a billion in private placements....those are not counted, only (in the case of equities and funds) orders for clients that I started and actually placed the trade and for private placements I only count deals I originated and saw through to execution.  Sure AUM is more standard.   How exactly would I do that?   The three main clients I've served and who've accounted for 90% of our revenue have about $180 billion combined.   What would be a more fair way to measure that?   Surely it would not be reasonable to say I manage $180 billion AUM right?   I do not have total control over those assets and they are not my AUM.   So I say zero.  When I did manage assets my AUM was around $500 million.   For the types of things the company has done in recent years it's based on a fee basis, no one with $50 billion pays a 1% fee like a Grannie with her IRA account at Merril Lynch.   I sold several billion dollars worth of investments.  That is the best and most accurate metric I can use to reflect this.

And, again to try and be balanced, it also shows he was previously registered at Dean Witter Reynolds around the same time as his Linkedin profile claims he was a VP at Morgan Stanley.  Dean Witter was a retail brokerage that merged with Morgan Stanley, a more prestigious and international full service investment bank.  But that merger occurred well after Bruce was there, in 1997.  So more puffery in trying to use what I view as a more prestigious name.  Also, it is still odd the dates don’t match exactly, and that he is listed as having been registered with two other firms that appear nowhere on his linkedin bio.

>>>>>> Dean Witter doesn't exist anymore, all my employment records and old licensing are at Morgan Stanley - all of the people I worked with are at Morgan Stanley and anyone wanting to check my records or verify anything would have to call Morgan Stanley.  The other firms don't appear because they were only back office service providers.  Who you are registered with for U4 / FINRA purposes is different than who you are actually employed by.  The exception is a large wirehouse like UBS or Morgan Stanley where the one holding your license and your employer are the same company.

So a "transparent person" would say that they worked for Dean Witter and add a parenthetical (acquired by Morgan Stanley 1997).  Morgan Stanley is clearly a more prestigious background, especially for someone who is trying to make themselves look more like a deal guy, then a broker.  (Have you read Liar's Poker, remember the insult of being stuck with "equities in Dallas?" 

>>>>> Sure, I can add a parenthetical.  I'm a 43 year old who has served some of the wealthiest clients in the world and (yes, it's true) done billions of dollars in transactions with them.  Are you under some impression that I am using this two line employment record now to gain or horse trade or that I'm highlighting this as some significant event?   It's a very minor line on my LinkedIn which I put because it's a good way to check with former colleagues, that's where my records are and there is no alumni network for a firm that no longer exists.  Happy to add the parenthetical.   

So does this really come down to why you felt the need to disparage my name, call me a liar and set off an entirely separate post dedicated to calling me a liar?   Because I used the new name rather than the old name from 20 years ago?


Or how about this, Google bought Motorola Mobility.  Do you think it is appropriate for an employee of Motorola, long before Motorola was acquired by Google, to list himself as having worked for Google?  And I guess Lenovo then bought Motorola Mobility from Google.  So if that guy is applying for a hardware position, maybe he should say he worked for Lenovo?  Again, more BS.

>>>>>> A couple differences: if you look at the details of the stock, it was not so much a merger, Dean Witter really acquired Morgan Stanley, my CEO, Phil Parcel was CEO of the new company, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter - the job I had was exactly the same - after the merger it was basically a name change - my old office remained etc. and I think I would hate referred to myself as formerly with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in those days -- they then dropped the Dean Witter name.

So the better analogy would be something like a name change - I think it's common for people to use the newer name.   I really don't care as I get no mileage whatsoever from 20 years ago - people care about the last 10 years.

I can't believe I'm arguing this.  Is this the standard you work to attack someone's name?  I did work there and did do the job.


Pause for now.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The magic of "research".

Haha!!!   Awesome!

I see your "evidence" now.   

1) Brock knew the movie director Bryan Singer.
>>>>>"Knew" him? You mean like they were passing acquaintances? Two ships in the night? Are you playing dumb on purpose?

2). The movie director was wrongfully accused by a serial accuser name Michael Egan who had made a number of false accusations
>>>>>>>>>Researchings: Eventually, a number of these acolytes would file lawsuits alleging they were raped and/or sexually abused at M&C by the three cofounders. Their charges are remarkably consistent—all claim they were bullied and drugged to coerce sexual compliance, and in some cases, threatened with loaded guns. When the plaintiffs filed civil suits against Collins-Rector, Shackley, and Pierce, the three suddenly disappeared with what remained of their fortune—turning up two years later living in a villa in Spain.

3).  The Singer case was dropped because the accuser was caught in numerous lies, including a direct conflict of the location of Singer who was in a different state than the time the accuser said he was
>>>>>>>>>This is only one of the plaintiffs.

4).  The case was so bad that the judge actually took the unusual act scolded the accuser for lying (!) http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/judge-scolds-hollywood-sex-accuser-742505
>>>>>>>>>Cherry-picking this again?

5).  Therefor.....Brock Pierce is a child molester, despite never having been accused, tried or convicted of such a crime,
>>>>>>>>>>You came here, I believe, to get feedback; well he's a sinister character and we don't like him and we don't want him representing our interests (whatever the hell they may be.) And the fact that you do makes me personally sort of quesy.
....seems legit

[bArAPIc74b]

I'm going to stick with my "Pause for now", as it is late, and I am buzzed, and I think it is reasonable to leave more time for the bitcointalk folks to come to the conclusion that Bruce is actually digging his grave deeper and deeper.

But as BlindMayorBitcorn has acknowledged this is an intermission, I will propose some intermission amusement that refers back to earlier discussions in this thread relating to Bruce's endorsement of Brock Pierce as a stand-up guy facing unjust accusations.

Here is a link to the Brock Pierce produced DEN short "Chad's World" pilot that apparently cost $12m.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhWh4MsRWcM

I highly recommend skimming through it, it is truly one of the most disturbing TV shows I have ever seen.

Since it will be difficult to watch in its entirety, here is some synopsis that will guide you in skipping through it.

Chad's World starred a 14-year-old actor named Brian Stark as Chad, and Seann William Scott—who shortly thereafter won a starring role in American Pie—as Jim, a California entrepreneur based on Collins-Rector. While the film's production quality was more in line with down-market porn than network programming, the producers doled out a mind-boggling $12 million in salaries for the series.

"Chad's World was the first signal that maybe things weren't right [with the company]," says Winter. "It was definitely, um, ahead of its time."

It felt like a "gay pedophile version of Silver Spoons," adds another industry observer who saw the pilot and five unaired episodes. "I first thought it was some sick fantasy of theirs," he adds. "When I found out about the molestation charges, I realized that it was more a case of art imitating life."

http://jezebel.com/inside-the-hollywood-sex-ring-mansion-from-the-bryan-si-1567755415

Seriously, it is worth a watch as one of the worst pieces of film ever produced.

[Gleb Gamow]

The magic of "research".

Haha!!!   Awesome!

I see your "evidence" now.   

1) Brock knew the movie director Bryan Singer.
>>>>>"Knew" him? You mean like they were passing acquaintances? Two ships in the night? Are you playing dumb on purpose?

2). The movie director was wrongfully accused by a serial accuser name Michael Egan who had made a number of false accusations
>>>>>>>>>Researchings: Eventually, a number of these acolytes would file lawsuits alleging they were raped and/or sexually abused at M&C by the three cofounders. Their charges are remarkably consistent—all claim they were bullied and drugged to coerce sexual compliance, and in some cases, threatened with loaded guns. When the plaintiffs filed civil suits against Collins-Rector, Shackley, and Pierce, the three suddenly disappeared with what remained of their fortune—turning up two years later living in a villa in Spain.

3).  The Singer case was dropped because the accuser was caught in numerous lies, including a direct conflict of the location of Singer who was in a different state than the time the accuser said he was
>>>>>>>>>This is only one of the plaintiffs.

4).  The case was so bad that the judge actually took the unusual act scolded the accuser for lying (!) http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/judge-scolds-hollywood-sex-accuser-742505
>>>>>>>>>Cherry-picking this again?

5).  Therefor.....Brock Pierce is a child molester, despite never having been accused, tried or convicted of such a crime,
>>>>>>>>>>You came here, I believe, to get feedback; well he's a sinister character and we don't like him and we don't want him representing our interests (whatever the hell they may be.) And the fact that you do makes me personally sort of quesy.
....seems legit

For the record, I'm with Bruce Fenton in accusing all those women of being raped by Bill Cosby of outright lying based on evidence that women have been known to conspire things. (I'm growing fond of this accusation format thingy)

[peonminer]

LOL They blew that money fast!

[Cconvert2G36]

U guise!



I get that Brock is kinda icky, I agree, but Bruce has taken some pretty serious shit slinging here. Not altogether warranted, I think.

The foundation may be a dead end, I know I won't be sending funds over, but the main people to blame seem to have left the building or are not here to bear the brunt of your wrath.

[Gleb Gamow]

I locked my other thread on the subject and will be penning a formal apology to Bruce, with hoping to speak with him on the phone tomorrow.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

U guise!



I get that Brock is kinda icky, I agree, but Bruce has taken some pretty serious shit slinging here. Not altogether warranted, I think.

The foundation may be a dead end, I know I won't be sending funds over, but the main people to blame seem to have left the building or are not here to bear the brunt of your wrath.

I just wanted to pet the soft rabbit, George.

[franky1]

can we reign in this topic back on subject..

i would really like to know how "local producer" spent over $700k
i (not much research) believe they are an event organiser. but wonder why it cost so much to just put a deposit down on a venue..
where they could have separately and later profit from ticket proceeds. instead of asking for so much upfront

[J. J. Phillips]

I locked my other thread on the subject and will be penning a formal apology to Bruce, with hoping to speak with him on the phone tomorrow.

Quote from the locked thread:

Gleb, this is really terribly sad.

You've now gone back to a 1998 ListServe mailing list about the writing of Shakespeare in an attempt to tarnish my name?

Yes, the first post is me.  Please read carefully and see that the second post not me but was a reply by another person.  Correct, I do not have ties to Canada and did not even have any kids until a decade after this post.   Think also: you know my age from your research.  I was 26 years old in 1998.  Do you think I'd have a daughter living on her own that I'd go visit?

Once again you have accused me of dishonesty and once again your claim has been proven false.


Please, I don't know what kind of person you are, but I have some hope that you are honorable.   Give it a a rest, appologize if you see fit.   Call me and we can speak by phone or perhaps together we can work to catch an actual bad apple.  You do nothing for yourself, this board or Bitcoin by continuing to increasingly grasp at demons that are not there.

I'm going to do my best to walk away from this now.

Bruce, I tried to warn you. Bruno has a history of knowingly making false accusations. You're lucky you haven't been accused of child rape yet. He still can, and it won't be surprising in the least if he does.

Don't talk to Bruno, on the phone or otherwise. It's a mistake to give this lunatic any of what he desires most: attention.

But if you must, please record the conversation and post it. I vaguely remember that Bruno made some accusations against a hardware mining company and then travelled to see them. While he was there they gave him a "free" miner in exchange for making a video in their office saying how wrong he was about the mining company and what good people they were. It was hilarious to watch that lying lunatic lowlife grovel. I wish I'd saved that video. It was funnier than the pictures of him at a Bitcoin conference in a tutu giving a mumbling disjointed interview to letstalkbitcoin.

Someday it might look very bad that the Bitcoin community continued to entertain this delusional attention-seeking fuckface for so long.

[franky1]

I vaguely remember that Bruno made some accusations against a hardware mining company and then travelled to see them. While he was there they gave him a "free" miner in exchange for making a video in their office saying how wrong he was about the mining company and what good people they were. It was hilarious to watch that lying lunatic lowlife grovel.

but...

look what happened to butterfly labs...... so he wasnt that far off

[J. J. Phillips]

I vaguely remember that Bruno made some accusations against a hardware mining company and then travelled to see them. While he was there they gave him a "free" miner in exchange for making a video in their office saying how wrong he was about the mining company and what good people they were. It was hilarious to watch that lying lunatic lowlife grovel.

but...

look what happened to butterfly labs...... so he wasnt that far off

It's not surprising that occasionally Bruno says something that's true. He never shuts the fuck up, so he's bound to say something true every once in a while. Broken clock theory.

I can't imagine anyone seriously denying Bruno is mentally ill. Well, Bruno sort of denies it, but he also says he fucks baby goats or something. He's not exactly a credible witness.

My main point is that it's way, way past time for Bitcoiners to slowly walk away from this sad old man who accomplished nothing with his life but desparately wants to be seen as someone important.

[franky1]

It's not surprising that occasionally Bruno says something that's true. He never shuts the fuck up, so he's bound to say something true every once in a while. Broken clock theory.

I can't imagine anyone seriously denying Bruno is mentally ill. Well, Bruno sort of denies it, but he also says he fucks baby goats or something. He's not exactly a credible witness.

My main point is that it's way, way past time for Bitcoiners to slowly walk away from this sad old man who accomplished nothing with his life but desparately wants to be seen as someone important.

id say he is eccentric and veers off topic, but i seen worse.
i think thats the issues of an open forum that we have to accept, (differing personalities) and then try reigning topics back on subject if they veer completely in the wrong direction and have no sign of anything moving forward by continuing on the offtopic tangeant..

so lets orphan off this offtopic fork and get back to the main chain discussion about the bitcoin foundation funds and what way things should move forward

[BruceFenton]

Seriously, it is worth a watch as one of the worst pieces of film ever produced.

I'm not Brock's defender, I don't really have time to watch a tv program from a long time ago to judge if it was low production quality, creepy etc.  For context, I thought he was 17-19 years old or something at this time.

My only comment was that it seemed that the earlier allegations against him were not backed up by any legal conviction, investigation or trial...it doesn't seem there was one.  It also seems that some accusations were made not against him but against a colleague / friend Bryan Singer.  From the press it seems those accusations against Singer were false.

If anyone has actual criminal records, guilty convictions or trial records about him related to this accusation and brings them forward then I would not support him.   I think if such a thing existed it would have been found.   He has a lot of Bitcoin companies who've worked with him and presumably have researched him beforehand.

I'm going to try not to discuss accusations about Brock or actions of others I had nothing to do with.

[BruceFenton]

can we reign in this topic back on subject..

i would really like to know how "local producer" spent over $700k
i (not much research) believe they are an event organiser. but wonder why it cost so much to just put a deposit down on a venue..
where they could have separately and later profit from ticket proceeds. instead of asking for so much upfront

Back on topic is great.

Not to sound like a broken record but I have no idea.  I didn't have anything to do with that expenditure.  I was not involved in any way at that time.

By the way, it's even worse : In addition to the 700k there was another $100k + to a consultant related to it.   It looks like, in total, they spent in the neighborhood of a million dollars on that conference.

For perspective, I spent about $8000 on the Dubai Bitcoin Conference, which, although smaller was a 5 star type of thing.   Certainly they could have done a good conference for a lot less.

I think that's maybe one reason I got a bit of flak here:  people want someone to be angry at and get answers / justification from.   On that count I can't help because I'm just as disgusted by the bad spending as anyone else.

[BruceFenton]

I gladly accept Bruno's apology.

Everyone gets hot under the collar and in a discussion with emotion around it and bad characters involved.

It's natural to want to assume the worst about someone.  He went down a path of attack but then had the wisdom and logic to step back objectively and see that there was not as much to attack as he might have thought.

[knightkon]

It seems to me that there is a lot of arguing going on and there is nothing getting done.  I agree that a proper Audit needs to be placed in order to completely learn from the mistakes of the past.  You can not just let the past be the past without making some of the same mistakes without properly understanding what went wrong before and why.  Once that is done, all of the arguing and all needs to come to a halt and move forward.  If this can not be done, the only other thing to do would be to disband the foundation and make a replacement.