Thanks @corporal_clegg, we are trying very hard to ignore the incessant attacks, drivel and all caps posts in order to focus on valid discussion points and appreciate the support in trying to bring that focus.
If any of the points you mentioned have been brought up and we haven’t covered, they will have been lost in the noise - very happy for you to re-ask stuff we have missed at any stage and we will aim to provide as full an answer as possible.
To that end - if anyone wishes to discuss any questions in private, directly with us without fear of being made a target for this nonsense by airing genuine questions, do please feel free to message any of the team directly and we are happy to discuss directly if you feel it is easier for you.
As you rightly mention and was alluded to by @Jaguar0625 above, there has been no coup or dictate, a proposal has been put forward. We believe the proposal will help bring transparency, governance, legal entities, a positive return and viable projects to NEM by building on the good work the NCF has been doing but that has become difficult to manage.
There has been no coup because this is a proposal that requires public support in the form of a vote. The 10 day pause in reviews while this is discussed, in the scheme of things, doesn’t seem a particularly long period.
Discussion has occurred with various senior individuals prior to bringing this for public comment, including said 10 day pause, if they wish to speak out they are free to do so, however I do not intend to put anyone in the line of scatter gun fire this thread is drawing by removing that choice from them.
The team has sufficient and varied experience to manage this proposal, the notes highlighted in bold earlier are lies in various cases and people are free to check our profiles as listed in the proposal to form their own views. Shouting lies as fact, does not make them truth, it just makes them loudly shouted lies. As has been mentioned previously - where necessary, legal advice will be taken in relation to some of these in due course.
The proposal is not a traditional VC and frankly the team would have significantly less interest if it were, the three objectives are far more interesting than an unrelenting focus on profit. Where there are areas that support would be beneficial, we have reached out to relevant senior people who are interested to support this, IF the NEM community commits to it. If not they have several other offers most of the time and naturally are getting less keen to be involved in this the more unprofessional certain parties become. Frankly I’m glad we haven’t put their names into this cesspit as they are valued friends and colleagues of ours who I don’t with to expose to what is essentially Troll behaviour.
To respond on a point raised earlier @leoinker is not named in the proposal and is not part of the Ventures team, otherwise would have been named as the rest of us has been. The comments of support he makes are as a member of the NEM community, a volunteer on the NCF committee and an individual. The level of disrespect shown to him is unwarranted, unjustified and unbecoming of someone who wishes to be member of the community. The committee members are and will continue the good work done to date by managing the funding for projects that have been previously approved. Several members are naturally likely to be interested in assisting NEM Ventures since this is an area they have all been passionate about or would not have volunteered their time - that collaboration will be welcomed gladly and similarly we have said several times we are very happy to support the ongoing processes if the committee wishes to draw on that support.
As has been stated on two occasions already, anyone is free to propose a solution and always have been, there is a problem let’s get on with trying to fix it for the good of all XEM holders and the community in general.
This is a further attempt to be constructive, I’m fully expecting a further barrage of nonsense we will keep trying to work constructively around it.