We need to be careful about what kind of changes are made in order to facilitate the needs of the community and the project itself. Using the protocol and established mechanisms will be integral in planning for the future. Taking on an employee (or staff) could have benefits and drawbacks depending on our approach and if we all want to change the nature of the organization.
The topics brought up are of an interconnected nature, to say the least. This concept of the scientist on staff is one that I have entertained. (It does not appear that the board will be electing a Chief Scientist until the next election.) The concept is that CounterParty is running as a not-for-profit and for some reason, this means to some users that the organization cannot have employees. Instead, I have taken the concept in the opposite direction. While I believe that there should be a developer on staff, I think that this person should not have a conflict of interest as being involved in other CounterParty or similar blockchain projects before being hired. This person will be the epicentre of all the information for the project and therefore I have been considering this person being a qualified employee who agrees to an NDA. In order for this person to be trusted with the future of our project, there should be safeguards in place to help other users feel comfortable confiding our brightest possibilities Because of the very real problem of this hired gun taking the complete mindmap and launching a fork, a non-competition arrangement (legal or social) should be agreed upon during selection of candidates. There are serious lessons to learn from our history.
The third section is quite different than the first two. For the management of funds, the most prudent action would be to separate these into different departments. While every effort should be made to network service partnerships for the rendering of goods and services, sometimes a deadline needs to be met, and without a sponsor, a purchase will need to be made. CounterParty already uses an improvement protocol. It is my current view that these should be used to set up various departments even when ongoing funding is required.
Traction is a problem that can form a feedback loop when it is a losing battle or achievement momentum. There are indicators that outsiders use to measure the health of any cryptosystem. These warning signs can also contribute to actors making decisions that appear to be warning signs to other users or observers. Getting the foundation up and running again is a great first start in establishing cohesion and returning momentum. I am proud to be a part of this process no matter the outcome.
OK. to this brings to head the real question at hand: Are you hinting to the idea that you would like to apply to be a staff-paid developer for CounterParty? It is apparent that you are suggesting it needs to be done, the worker needs to be paid and you are not running for office. This creates the situation in my mind that leads to concerns that need not be addressed at this time. YET, I am in need to clarify that TTBOMK, If the organization has an employee it cannot still be unmistakably not-for-profit, but this is the realm of legal counsel. Point being that first we need to attempt to solve issues within the parameters of the previous system before we start making major changes.
Funding, for example, should be taken with a bit more of a critical eye and more complete approach. What I have noticed since the delisting from two exchanges in one month is that there is a convolution between XCP as a utility token and as a signal of wellness. This concept is paradoxical and therefore nonsensical to thinkers who cannot handle cognitive dissonance. In the system, we have two narratives competing for motives. Investors want to buy XCP at a low cost, and sell for a higher value in order to earn measured profit. On the other hand, the user who needs to pay the anti-spam fee would rather pay less per registration. Here we have two competing parties using the same instrument for opposite reasons.
Here I would like to address an original idea, but not divulge the whole plan. While I would like to discuss every issue brought up in your post, there are only so many that should be publicly accessed right now. However, I would like to reiterate that this platform should be used by the organization in ways that demonstrate command over the medium. Frankly, the foundation should issue additional kinds of tokens in order to better gamify participation and amplify the possibilities for all parties into results.
As a representative, it is my duty to provide the potential to facilitate change, but ultimately the details of which need to be consensual. I will tell you right now that the tone of your whole message seems to assume that a great change will be ushered in. If the organization can afford to do such things as pay an employee, or create additional financial instruments for ongoing business expenses then it will lose the mystique of being unaccountable for things like exchange listing fees. This example, of a cost, is not something that I consider to be popularly accepted use of funds. There is this idea that once there is more traction and more going on for our community, the demands of the outside world will also increase. I am unsure if I am explaining this observation accurately.
please let me know here if anything needs to be publicly clarified,
and on telegram if you desire details