A bitcoin user group that is open and expresses the will of the community

[aantonop]

I would like to propose creating a bitcoin user's group, which will be incorpoated in the US as a non-profit foundation, with a board and members.

The bitcoin user group will promote the common interest (bitcoin) as expressed by the members resolutions, discussions and votes.

To that end I propose the Open Bitcoin User Group be formed as follows:

- A nominal membership fee of 0.01 BTC or $1 USD, whichever is less. It should be open to a very broad user group.
Fees, donations and expenditures are managed openly and audited once yearly by independent audit.

- An elected board of directors who are responsible ONLY for fiduciary control, and do not represent the will of the community. Membership funds are used for maintenance and operations only. Donated funds are controlled by member votes.
- A direct representation system that allows any member to propose resolutions, in a way that all members can see them
- Upon achieving a certain percentage of membership approval (1% or 0.1%, something feasible), the proposal is put to a member-wide vote.
- All vote results are recorded publicly. They will represent the "will of the open bitcoin user group".
- No one gets veto, no one is excluded
- One member, one vote. No one is asked "what did you do for bitcoin lately".
- Board members DO NOT GET TO VOTE on member proposals. If you have de-facto power, you don't get to vote.

No bosses, no petty tyrants. Representative boards are a relic of scarce-communications. Direct democracy is both feasible and efficient, on a mass scale.

Please do not bash. This is not a move "against" any person or organization. There is clearly a deficiency in the current systems of representation and communication for the community.

Offer help, ideas, support, etc. All are welcome.

[charleshoskinson]

I would love more diversity in the Bitcoin world. I fully support your efforts and I'll make a longest post tomorrow with some suggestions.

[Chet]

Exactly what sort of 'power' would such a group have?
It speaks for bitcoin? Bitcoin is a thing, I don't think it has opinions that need to be spoken.

Direct democracy still equals 3 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for diner.

How many votes can I buy for 100 BTC? (either bribes or multiple accounts, take your pick)

[aantonop]

Exactly what sort of 'power' would such a group have?
It speaks for bitcoin? Bitcoin is a thing, I don't think it has opinions that need to be spoken.

Direct democracy still equals 3 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for diner.

How many votes can I buy for 100 BTC? (either bribes or multiple accounts, take your pick)

It has the power to distributed funds from donations, and to express the votes of the members. No more power than that.

You only get one vote, one person. Who would you bribe? The board doesn't vote.

[Chet]

Well 1 vote per person - how do you enforce that?
What keeps me from creating sock puppets?
Why would I donate to something with no clue how my money might get used?

[aantonop]

Well 1 vote per person - how do you enforce that?
What keeps me from creating sock puppets?
Why would I donate to something with no clue how my money might get used?

Because I suggest a process to decide all funding decisions openly and with votes from all members.

I'm open to suggestions on how to avoid sockpuppets. The obvious solution would be members have to tie to identities, at least once for verification. We can discard the records once verified. We can use an independent company to do the identity verification without giving us details. We can even outsource the membership management and vote management to an independent third party.

I am proposing a 501(c)(3) or equivalent, with US registration, named directors and open accounts. Add to that independent yearly audits of the books.

I'm open to more and better approached to develop transparency and accountability.

PS. I am recusing myself from the board. I will pay by 1 bitcoin (or less) and get voting membership. Then we can all elect a board we trust, though they will not be able to spend the money without a member vote.

In the US it is relatively simple to create a trust account under an independent executor, who follows rules set out in the bylaws.

[Inedible]

This sounds like a good idea even if bitcoin.org weren't having transparency issues.

It could be said that this is a 'fork' of one of the management groups.

Diversity is important and hopefully, ultimately, a plurality of organisations will serve the community better than one.

[aantonop]

Can someone suggest a trusted member of this community who can act as escrow for user membership fees until we reach a 100 launch size?

The policy would be to hold all the funds until we reach 100 members, then hand control to the board under control of the bylaws of a 501(c)(3) or to an independent trustee running a trust account.

If in 90 days we cannot get 100 members, all of the existing fees are returned to the same bitcoin address they originated (or a refund address offered at signup), minus tx fees.

I want the money to be separate and publicly accounted from the beginning and certainly not under my control.

Suggestions? I've seen some postings by a guy called John K(?) who does escrow, perhaps he might be trusted enough?

I'll fund any escrow and maintenance costs from my own pocket until it's up and running

[btcmind]

Interesting. As soon as you have money and voting, you have laws which apply. For instance you are referring to US law, and I don't believe in US law to say the least. (I think the US is becoming a lawless country in many ways). Why should BTC be US-based? Laws without enforcement / courts don't have much meaning. If there is something wrong with BTC, another currency / protocol will emerge. For instance Ripple is created by an organization and we will see how that works out.

[bg002h]

That's a big donation. The Bitcoin foundation fee is considerably less.

[aantonop]

Interesting. As soon as you have money and voting, you have laws which apply. For instance you are referring to US law, and I don't believe in US law to say the least. (I think the US is becoming a lawless country in many ways). Why should BTC be US-based? Laws or enforcement without courts don't have much meaning.

Please suggest alternative venues for incorporation.

Perhaps a country that is both neutral and has stronger non-profit and privacy laws?

Somewhere in Scandinavia? New Zealand? Australia?

I'm open to all suggestions - Please don't tell me what is wrong, I'm sure I got a lot wrong on my first draft!

 Tell me how to do it RIGHT in your opinion.

There's no reason for me to set the rules. That goes against the whole point of this.

Help me crowdsource the rules for a broad-based representative association that can promote the common interest (bitcoin) via the expression of the members through resolutions, discussions and voting.

Thank you!

[Inedible]

That's a big donation. The Bitcoin foundation fee is considerably less.

Hmm... I didn't have a problem with the size of donation to begin with but now that you mention it, it could be very exclusionary to a large population of the community.

[aantonop]

That's a big donation. The Bitcoin foundation fee is considerably less.

I just checked and you are right. I miscalculated.

How is $1 per year (0.01 BTC)?

Reasonable?

Let's say $1 per member per year.  No lifetime membership - have to pay each year to keep current. Oh, obviously there are no corporate memberships. People only.

[Inedible]

I just checked and you are right. I miscalculated.

How is $1 per year (0.01 BTC)?

Reasonable?

Let's say $1 per member per year.  No lifetime membership - have to pay each year to keep current. Oh, obviously there are no corporate memberships. People only.

This could be a problem as far as financing the setup of the group is concerned? You'd need thousands of users to join in order to have the funds to incorporate in a foreign country?

[justusranvier]

I have a strong reluctance to donate to organizations to "represent me". It's too open-ended. I'd much rather donate to specific goals, and what's missing right now is someone to organize and coordinate crowdfunding efforts.

[Raoul Duke]

why in the US? Wouldn't it be better to diversify?

[Inedible]

I have a strong reluctance to donate to organizations to "represent me". It's too open-ended. I'd much rather donate to specific goals, and what's missing right now is someone to organize and coordinate crowdfunding efforts.

I think you need some structure in place in order to achieve the secondary goals you're talking about. Already you recognise that you need an organisation to coordinate crowd-funding efforts. This could be a duty of the Bitcoin organisation.

[Inedible]

why in the US? Wouldn't it be better to diversify?

Probably because OP is from the US and most familiar with the US legal system.

He's happy to accept alternative suggestions though.

[aantonop]

Just familiar with 501(c)(3) non-profit laws in the US.

I'd love to hear alternatives, especially if they offer better protections for non-profits, better privacy laws etc.

Perhaps New Zealand? Australia? Sweden? Germany?

[Dabs]

Switzerland? Openly declared neutral country, with strict bank secrecy laws. Obviously, we won't store funds as fiat. But the org itself. Or, check out the pirate bay. Where is it? Sweden?