@ura-soul: Analysis of Organisational Structure Proposals for a Steem Foundation
Background
Due to the need for community driven activity to propel Steem into it’s own future, Steemit Inc. has backed the idea of forming a Steem foundation. The foundation will guide the direction of software development, marketing and other processes that are necessary to support Steem’s expansion, evolution and wider adoption into the social and business networks that already exist globally. The foundation will direct significant amounts of funds and so it is essential that it has a structure that facilitates accountability, transparency and measurable performance in relation to clearly defined goals and objectives.
The operating structure of the foundation has been left open to discussion and an invitation has been made to the Steem community to provide input, concepts and designs for it’s future format. A wide variety of organisational structures exist that could be included in such a foundation, ranging from an absolute minimum of hierarchy (voluntarism and anarchism), through to the more traditional structures that currently dominate the corporate landscape.
The cryptocurrency world is one that has been founded on the anarchistic and voluntaristic narrative, with many of it’s supporters seeking to radically shift away from traditional approaches to power distribution within groups – such that individuals are empowered without them necessarily being in a position to dominate and control others. The expression of the dynamic opposites of those who seek to overpower others and those who seek real balance has been continual in humanity’s history and it is expected that proposals that are put forward to design the shape of the Steem foundation will reflect this. A balance needs to be found between realising the aims of true freedom, while also delivering practicality and ensuring goals are met.
Content of This Document
I will briefly map out the basic principles of balance within individuals and group interactions as these provide a ‘foundation’ upon which structural design decisions can be made. I will discuss pros and cons of the various options set out in proposals that have been made by others so far.
Efficiency, Success and Joy Require Real Balance, But What is Real Balance?
There is a great deal of confusion regarding the nature of balance and why it is desirable. There are those who assume that if we seek balance in life then we are somehow going to force people to conform, however, conformity is out of balance since it overpowers free will of the individuals involved. Real balance allows everyone to have the space they need to fulfil themselves, provided their actions align in a balanced way with the stated objectives of the group.
The best definition for balance is ‘No part or aspect is overpowering any other’. This applies to and works in ALL aspects of life. When a willed desire is suppressed or denied then we have disagreement and likely also discord. However, in a situation with limited resources it is necessary to have a method of them being directed and this means that not all desires of every party can be met. So how to find real balance in an environment of disagreement is really the challenge of this and most organisational agendas.
It might not always be clear, early on, how real balance can be found and what the balance points are – however, we CAN always identify points of imbalance in proposed ideas, logic and thinking. We can always list out the problems that the imbalances will likely cause and from there we can, through our own imagination and free will, potentially arise at solutions that keep the balance.
Real balance feels good to all involved, introduces minimal to zero friction and is directly aligned towards the stated goals. Typically, real balance requires ‘leaving no stone unturned’ and may involve a greater degree of learning and ‘research’ than is common in decision making, but the success of the outcomes born of real balance tend to be longer lasting and far more sustainable.
Proposals Already Provided By The Steem Community
As of the present moment, the following proposal posts have been shared publicly:
DeCentra Steem - a proposal to develop a self-governed structure for foundation and Steem ecosystem by @impactn
This is, to me, one of the most interesting posts so far because it highlights the failures of traditional thinking with regards to organisations in a clear way. The idea of Holocracy is presented, which provides a tested framework against which an organisation can function without hierarchy. This relies on ‘crystal clear’ definitions, a constitution, rules and role assignment, combined with software tools to allow everyone to look up this information and use it quickly in real time. Holocracy allows for effective teamwork, potentially a real balance and importantly a clear and transparent way to create change quickly. Blockchain moves very quickly and it is clear to me that Steem’s issues so far have been partially due to a lack of speed due to a lack of clarity and communication among the many people attempting to work together.
A partial concept is introduced in this post for transferring holocracy’s principles into the shape of a Steem foundation.
Generally, I see that the balance must be found between the actors and experts wanting to take action for Steem and the stakeholders who are invested in the process. I am not clear how holocracy deals with the issue of remuneration for tasks and ensuring that this is fair.
A possible ‘con’ for Holocracy is that I can see from reading through the documents on the Holocracy website that the process for governance, while being clearly established and defined, is also quite time consuming and very formal – so it is possible that some will feel intimidated by it and simply not want to participate; however, this may ultimately be more of an issue of ensuring that the right people are chosen to be in a foundation that operates using such a paradigm than of anything else. It is great to have defined ways of interacting, but not when processes get bogged down. Ultimately though, it may be that there is no better way of having voluntary work achieved in this setting.
No clear solution is provided for determining who is the right person for each role.
Suggestion for a Proposal Structure for @steemalliance - Evergreen Funding by @valued-customer
This idea is simple and aims to render the steem foundation’s powers to a minimal level by empowering the community to support development and other tasks on a daily basis by simple upvotes, drawing funds from an inflation pool. I can see numerous issues with this idea, including:
- Tasks may require funding to a level that is difficult to reach by daily vote payouts. It may be that tasks cannot be achieved without a specific target amount of funding and so by paying work proposers daily, they may end up with money but not be able to do any work.
- Voting on Steem can hugely fluctuate for numerous reasons and many tasks would not be realised if the funding for them cannot be guaranteed in advance. Many will not want to commit their own time and resources on the basis that they ‘might’ get more votes and funding.
- There is no insertion into the process of transparent expertise from known specialists, since all tasks would simply be chosen by whomever has the most money on the blockchain. This is fine from the perspective of stakeholders realising their aims, but there is no assurance to the community that the relevant stakeholders are either acting in good faith or intelligently. This could easily become a giant ‘software developer circle jerk’, for example.
Steem Alliance: Foundation Proposal by @upheaver
This is a substantial offering that seeks to create a traditional corporate structure (defined in a github page here). There is a specific focus on bringing in private corporate interests and their funding. While this does make sense from the perspective of the stated aim of the Steem foundation to increase Steem’s profile in the computing world and to increase it’s adoption – I can see how this would also be seen as a target for exploitation for many predatory groups who would not hold Steem’s best interests in mind. Potential attackers include competitors for whom the stated required investment amount would be easily paid and who might seek to improve the chances of a competing blockchain or social network. If Steem eventually provides real competition to the Facebooks of the world, then it would make perfect sense for them to pay half a million dollars to get their voice into one of the main groups driving Steem. This would be like a corporation being able to buy it’s way onto the board of it’s competitor – usually this would not be considered a good thing by the board involved!
Of course, any such threats need to be weighed up in comparison to the potential benefits, but at this point we simply do not know how that balance would play out since we do not know which parties would eventually participate and what their intents are. We can, though, say for sure that by allowing companies to buy their way into shaping the foundation and therefore also shaping the future development of Steem, there will be many users of Steem who have put a great deal of time and energy into it specifically to shape it into a counter force to a corporate dominated internet, who will be greatly disheartened.
It is stated that part of the aim is to set the foundation into a form that allows it to function globally as a legal entity, which is a justifiable aim. The counter to this is that Steem is an anarcho-capitalist creation that was specifically designed to go counter to the prevailing power structures and, in fact, to create alternatives to them (“Make government irrelevant” - Dan Larimer).
It is clear to me that many people believe strongly that conformity and the use of prevailing organisational design is necessary to achieve greatness and they are unlikely to change their position on that until the rest of the world does and they then see a new way as being better. We need to decide if we intend to cut a new path for humanity or whether we are going to conform to the old patterns. This is actually a primary issue that needs to be agreed upon and not everyone will agree. In such situations, the only workable solution is to leave things as open as possible, which might mean to allow company’s to have members in the foundation, but only allowing them to operate as individuals – with no special privileges.
We are literally deciding the future of Steem’s social eco-system and thus also the user experience that it’s users will encounter. People do not like being seen as products in a corporate network such as Facebook and it is highly likely that allowance for corporate domination of Steem will just recreate that in a new form – perhaps one that is less obvious, but which might exist all the same.
This proposal also hands total veto rights to the Chairman of the board – which is a total opposite to Holocracy and Anarcho-capitalism. I am not confident that this approach would be popular amongst the Steem community!
STEEM UNITED - Red Tape Nightmares Solved by @jackmiller
Jack sticks to one specific topic here – the nature of the legal status of the foundation. He suggests that it should be a registered company in a ‘tax haven’ rather than any of the more obvious entity types that might be proposed. The aim is to cut out on the ‘red tape’ of a foundation.
I share his desire to keep things simple, however, I am not currently aware of how his suggestion will result in the streamlined process for creativity and problem resolution that is needed to make the foundation a success. In other words, while legal reasons may mean that a private company makes sense for the reasons stated, we still need to address all the other issues involved that I will be attempting to address here as we continue. I am not personally aware of all of the details of the differences, legally, between the operation of a foundation and a private company – nor of how the different jurisdictions of the world define those differences. I am therefore not in the best position to comment on this and I think it would take the input of experts in the ‘legal’ field and international law for us to really know the best option here.
Steem Foundation Proposal by @alexvan
Alex suggests basing the foundation in a crypto friendly country. I agree that that makes sense since some countries are wildly different in their treatment of crypto to others. That said, though, the nature of the foundation is international – just as the blockchain is – so I would like to find a way that minimises the connection of the foundation to any particular national framework or identity.
It is suggested that members retain anonymity. On one level this is a good idea, but on another level this means that average Steem users may have no idea who is actually running the foundation. I do not think this is a good idea. If we were to combine this feature with the idea we saw earlier of allowing companies to buy their way in, we could have a situation where numerous corporations run the foundation in total secrecy! How absurd to have an anarcho capitalist organisation that allows itself knowingly to be dominated by hierarchies!
Alex suggests having members spread geographically, with 2 from each continent. I am unclear how this would be enforced – are they expected to provide their passport just to be able to enter into an election?
He suggests that the foundation has a lawyer and an accountant and I agree that these skills are requirements. He suggests that these be the only paid roles. While I agree that it is unlikely to find people to fill the roles for free (unless they have a hidden agenda), steps still need to be taken to check their decisions and advice – which ultimately brings us back to ‘the wisdom of the crowd’ to some extent.
He raises the issue of whether to fund projects with delegations or direct investment. I agree that it generally makes sense to go with the option of inflation (delegation or upvotes) rather than direct investment, since this provides a timescale through which the funds can be accessed, rather than having them all accessed at once. However, some projects may require larger funding up front, so flexibility is needed.
Foundation Proposal - GROW THE CHAIN by @bluefinstudios
This is a proposal to create a US based ‘not for profit’ organisation that follows a traditional corporate structure, similar to Upheaver’s suggestion. There are certainly attractive aspects to this solution in that it is tried and tested and fits in with the world’s expectations, however, the ‘devil is in the details’ and the answers to the various challenges could make the difference between success and failure. This proposal by bluefinstudios does not attempt to answer the challenges of how to go about distributing power in a balanced way or the fine points of what happens when bad actors get involved.
Stars Align- Core of the foundation design that will later get submitted to the Steem Alliance RFP by @aggroed
Aggroed has provided an initial structure that defines sub groups specialised towards specific needs/tasks, such as marketing, investor relations and product development. Essentially, this is very much like the structure I would expect to have seen at Steemit inc.
I agree that the foundation should tackle the areas he has delineated.
He states that the design he outlines will make gaming the system difficult, but he does not appear to have actually stated which part of the foundation has the final say on financial decisions, so I am not clear on what safeguards he is referring to. I have asked him to respond to that in the comments under his post.
The real details of the proposal are not in his post and more posts will be forthcoming once they are decided.
Welcome to InterSteem - The Decentralized Project Accelerator on Steem by @surfermarley
This is a proposal for a system that does not involve any legal entities being formed, with the foundation not having any control over funds directly and no contracts being created. I am generally in favour of solutions that don’t involve legalise or formal corporate structure, however, in it’s current form, this proposal doesn’t even attempt to address the challenging issues involved with creating such a process and foundation. The model includes a variety of managers who are intended to funnel proposals towards fundition.io in order to then be actively promoted by the foundation and to seek investors for the project.
Points that need to be addressed in this proposal:
- Will the foundation members will be paid?
- What would the funding from Steemit inc. would be used for?
- How will the direction of the foundation would be kept in alignment with the community’s real needs and desires?
- How will the team members would be determined and what oversight there would be?
If there is no payment for team members in order to keep things simple, then what powers the activity of the team? Is it all voluntary? Is anyone held to performance targets? What happens if the outcome isn’t so good? How is change co-ordinated?
Generally, the idea to focus on decentralisation is a good one and leveraging existing groups in the Steem eco-system is a good idea too – however, if the power balance is not clearly defined then we cannot know how this idea would play out in reality with any degree of accuracy.
S+ Foundation: Proposal [V1] by @guiltyparties
This is a formal and generally well thought out proposal and structure.
Unique points:
Voting is proposed to be weighted according to the amount of Stake held and also the age of the user’s account. If stake is to be a deciding factor in weighting votes then the idea proposed of limiting the potential weight that stake can add is a good one. On the other hand, allowing votes to be weighted by stake is potentially a recipe for self enrichment, since voting on policies that benefit self will result in more stake and thus further power to sway the vote in your own favour. Additionally, voters might choose policies that specifically disempower their perceived opponents in the foundation, causing them to lose voting power. In short, stake weighted voting has the potential to introduce competition into the foundation when it probably would be best eliminated.
Allowing voters to increase their points if they have multiple accounts is not really a good idea as it gives a benefit to people for no reason other than having multiple old accounts.
The general guidelines for project appraisal and acceptance/rejection are solid.
The topic of risk and responsibility are raised, but the foundation is working for free. If the foundation do not receive rewards, what is there to ensure they are not biased? The only risk they face is any damage done to Steem as a result of their actions, which may lower the value of their stake. This IS is an argument for stake weighted voting being part of the foundation – however, this then requires an answer to the following question:
- Which is the biggest risk? That foundation members will manipulate the system for their own gain? Or that foundation members will be careless and unreliable in their roles/tasks/responsibilities?
Assessing this is a matter of understanding how much damage can be done in each case, the chances of each case occurring and the ease with which each case can be stopped once it has started.
My Summary of the Proposals So far
These ideas span the full spectrum from minimalism through to full blown corporate structure and on to a more decentralised / hierarchical format. It is clear that there are quite varied approaches being taken and they each have benefits and risks. It is also clear that there is a dividing line between the ideas which rely on tradition and those who seek to be more evolved and holistic.
Each proposal has elements that point towards balance and others that don’t. I do not feel that any of them provide a complete package of solutions regarding what is needed or to a level that can be fully acted upon – though, when combined, we have a good starting point to highlight issues that need to be addressed and some likely solutions to them.
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
You Can Vote For Me As A Steem Witness!
Click the big black button below:
![vote ura-soul for witness](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmQcSNkNgmUxfMHoLJXMr7HKSqpgR7y1VFAksabJhDtNy6/witness%20vote%20button%20-%20steem.jpg)
(Witnesses are the computer servers that run the Steem Blockchain.
Without witnesses there is no Steem, Steemit, DTube, Utopian or
Busy... You can really help Steem by making your 30 witness votes count!)
![steem ocean - diving deep into the blockchain](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://i.imgur.com/xucjks1.png)
![tribesteemup-orange-banner.png](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmPmyY2GdTsNEC4rpUeQLEiek7QC6HACeMqrScoDdDmDxM/tribesteemup-orange-banner.png)
![ureka.org](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://i.imgur.com/AzZb55n.jpg)
Dear ura-soul,
many thanks for this overview, which hopefully many people will read in course of finding their favorite proposal. If possible, I'd like to pick your brain a little bit more:
We've proceeded in two ways:
We try to keep the number of rules at a minimum, coping with the possible 'con' you've mentioned without being overly idealistic. What do you think about the new version of DeCentraSteem?
Second thing we'd love to have some exchange on, is legal structure. Our proposal gives every working circle the freedom to choose its legal form. One could be a coordination group without legal status, one could be a foundation following the ideas of @bluefinstudio and another one a company in a tax haven à la @jackmiller sharing profits with the foundation. This setting leaves one question open: is the network of working-circles a legal entity in the FIAT-world itself? I think, this won't be necessary. Instead, we could introduce a peer2peer-funding scheme, working in the following way:
What do you think about this?
Many thanks @impactn
Ahoy! You are welcome - thanks for linking me to your follow up post.
Some people might say that I am too 'negative', but I don't think that's true - I think that I have just dug deeply enough into our world (and seen with my own eyes behind closed doors) that a frustratingly high percentage of our planet are either quite happy to deny the real needs of others or are apathetic to such imbalances.
This basically means that when I see an idea that is primarily based on trust, I shiver ;)
Human history is littered with projects and entire empires where people trusted in people who broke everything ;)
We are always trusting something, we might be trusting that someone is honest, or we might be trusting that they are dishonest - however, maybe neither are as true as we think.
Given that your model begins with a stake weighted vote to decide on the initial members of the trustee group - who then go on to decide so much, it essentially means that rather than trusting people (in general) so much, we are trusting that those who hold the most stake are also the ones who are best placed to decide the future of the foundation and it's actions. This issue is essentially why I didn't make a proposal - since I don't have a way to bypass stake weighted voting and no matter what structure is created, the outcome can always be that those with the most stake get to decide the future of the entire project, forever - unless perhaps there is some kind of super veto built in.. However, what is to stop the founding members from removing such a rule later on?
It's not that I specifically think that those with the most stake are dishonest, I just look to design systems that can't fail - which means looking to the weak points and preventing any threats from getting through - now or in the future.
In this case, I feel that what is needed is a very specific definition for how conflicts will be resolved on a practical level.
I am not a legal expert, but I imagine that if the legal form is chosen by each circle, then they would be their own legal entities interacting with each other voluntarily. I don't know if a legal entity definition exists that would cover all of them together.
Again, I don't know enough about the legality of financial transfers and ownership - but I imagine that if money is being transferred from a donator to another group's account, there would need to be a legal contract in place in order for the donator to truly be able to rely on the money still being under their own control. I'm not sure of the functionality that is available in the smart contracts system that is now running for Steem, but maybe it could be used here.
Overall, although I like this idea more than a traditional corporate model - I still see it as centralised at it's core - I'm not sure how it can be improved in that regard, though.
Many thanks for your comments and the opportunity to pick your brain. Concerning the legal entity we've found a solution with two advantages:
We would introduce a peer2peer-funding scheme, working in the following way:
Concerning your second point of centralisation through stake-based voting, maybe this could be a solution.
If things are done this way, we start with stake-based voting but would move away from it step by step if there are reasons to do so.
Finally, how to secure rules from malicious actors? I don't think there is a completely safe way to prevent this. But the rule, that every working circle may be stopped by 5 other Steemians shoul be quite good in preventing this. Probably, we'll have to add, that the piece of work leading to contradiction may not be executed until an agreement has been found.
It would be great if you - and others interested in this discussion - would join our discord https://discord.gg/H9FVAKU
You are welcome. Here are my thoughts:
You wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand here, but if the donator is donating directly to a project, why would they be bothered when a working circles tries to say 'no' for some reason? Wouldn't they just donate anyway?
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by 'multi-sig' - does that mean that the money can't be moved unless both parties agree and sign? What happens if there is a dispute and the donator can't get it back?
I'm also not sure I understand your suggestion regarding the removal of the trustee working group. Isn't the trustee working group the key, foundational group that has the most power?
This sounds like anyone with 2000SP can just take that position.. What happens if 10 groups all want that position?
Also, the idea that working groups work together as a whole to upkeep the integrity of the network/system/foundation makes sense, but aren't the trustee group and initial founding members the ones who ultimately decide which working groups get established? What's to stop them from only authorising their friends, for example? Maybe I have lost some of the details of your previous post - if so, please remind me. :)
Sorry, I missed this comment of yours. Many thanks for replying.
The donator/giving party would not assign his donation to a specific project but to the foundation as a whole. Through the set of working-circles and rules the foundation decides where the funds should go. The final step is transferring the funds. At this final step the giving party/donator and the trustees circle jointly transfer the funds. (In writing this, I realise we need a different rule if we are dealing with many small donations.)
Yes, multi-sig is a technical means requiring signature of multiple parties. Concerning dispute, I'd suggest to apply a (new) rule, quite similar to rule no 1:
In case of a dispute a mediation process is initiated, which in the worst case leads to a voting process amongst the members of all active working circles how to decide.
If a malicious actor decides to run away, taking his keys with him, this is a problem which cannot be solved within the foundation. What would you think of a KYC-process for members of the trustees working circle?
If ten groups want the position, there will be a very healthy competition concerning aproval of the other working circles. But you're right, we should have a general rule for unforeseen cases putting in place a voting procedure for decisions.
The initial working circles will be voted on by the community. I thought, this had been written down somewhere....This has to be clarified for the final proposal.
Thank you for the mention, of my Foundation Proposal
I would like to answer the suggestion you make above, with these corrections to your comment:
Indeed, the Proposal is very specific about describing how balance is created, in order to factor in Stake Weight. In addition, the Proposal is specific in noting a mechanism for removing bad actors, as you mention. In fact, one of the few proposals to address these issues.
You will note in the Proposal very specific descriptions addressing how to balance Stake Weight, and one account, one vote representation. Each part of the Board of Directors is answerable and elected by the membership. Whales and Witnesses vote for specific board seats. General steemit membership votes for specific seats, corporate and funders as well. Of the proposals, this one is the single one that allows for those of large vote stakes to have a voice, as well as new members and redfish. In my experience with many foundations in the real world, this hybrid approach is one of the very few that address the needs and views of both the many and the few.
I appreciate the chance to reply and look forward to seeing an updated post reflect your new awareness of the issue!
Thanks,
Greg, @bluefinstudios
Hi Greg,
Re-reading through your proposal, I stand by my comments here because when I referred to the fine points of dealing with bad actors and power balance, I was referring partially to the actual details of how bad actors would be removed in a balanced and transparent way. It's fine to set out a vision of transparency and fair play, but what will actually cause this to manifest in a tangible way? From what I can see, the traditional corporate model you describe here really depends on honesty from the board members and their reliability and not much else. When we look at the governmental and corporate world away from Steem, we see corruption and malfeasance at every turn and so from my perspective, any attempt to reuse such systems needs to address the fact that traditional organisational structures do little to ensure the performance that we know could be found here in a way that is optimal. We only need to look at the way that hard forks have been proposed and then adopted by top 20 witnesses in the past, which in then turned out that few had done any real testing of and that there was a kind of peer pressure to conform among them that resulted in huge centralisation - to see some of the problem here. If you study some of the biggest state sponsored crimes of human history, they generally tend to always involve a centralised and conforming power structure - so precisely defining the mechanism by which the community can prevent this from happening in realtime (as it happens) is needed here.
You wrote:
Here are the lines in the proposal that relate to this:
That's all fine, but you haven't specified how such rules would or could be designed and that is why 'the devil is in the details'. Any world dictator can create such rules too - that work purely to his/her advantage. We have here a challenge whereby power is distributed among a small group of people, none of whom want to lose their position and your proposal basically logically translates to: "they will figure out how to do that fairly and play nicely together" - I'm sure most people understand that this is not as straightforward as your proposal makes out.
Understandable, and maybe here is where my participation in actually setting up foundations comes in to play. During the process of actual corporate bylaws, as every foundation must do to formally incorporate, we always write in clauses and the mechanism.
Essentially, in by-laws, the trigger usually is one of two ways to remove bad actors:
A petition from membership at large can request a vote for removal of board members, or:
A majority of board members can vote to remove another board member, or executive committee member.
As you mention, the devil is in the details
I assume in my head, that when setting bylaws, certain standard clauses will be added to corporate bylaws.
I will endeavor to be more specific, with such legal basics next time. my apologies, for not saying so.
And thanks for being patient, and commenting!
Hi, thanks for responding.
My position on this is that basically, I don't trust the prevailing corporate mechanisms on this planet to deliver integrity - I have seen too many examples of them failing. So that's why I am interested in getting into the details so as to attempt to make something better. For me, the idea of 'asking for a vote' is not one that I see as effective... It seems like the same kind of situation we have with national governments where people 'beg and plead' to be listened to.. Even after 4 months of rioting in France, the 'people's government' TM are still sending in shock troops against the huge numbers of people involved, instead of engaging as mature adults.
To clarify: "A petition from membership at large can request a vote for removal of board members" - Does this mean that people who have paid to join the foundation can ask the board members to hold a vote to find out if the board are going to be sacked?
The design for the foundation is totally open and many people think totally differently to each other - so it is definitely helpful to spell out as much as possible. Cheers!
And to clarify, the Petition of members, calls for a vote of Membership to remove A Board Member. The board is not involved in the petition, nor the vote. That would indeed be like asking the foxes to police the henhouse.
No, the people can call for a vote by all members, and remove board member, without approval of Board itself.
Ahhh, well, to each his own.
That's the big difference between a Corporation, and a Non-Profit Foundation. the corporate structure of non-profits are much more member driven than For Profit Corporations. It's why I chose to work with them, over corporate.
This post has been included in the latest edition of SoS Daily News - a digest of all the latest news on the Steem blockchain.
Dear ura-soul:
We are SteemBet, the next generation STEEM based gaming platform. We are honored to invite you to join our first fantastic dice game, which is just the beginning of SteemBet game series. Our dividend system has now launched. The prize pool has already accumulated 2,000 STEEM and more than 60 players have participated in staking mining token SBT. A huge reward of 40,000 STEEM is awaiting! Join us NOW with other 500 STEEM users to loot HUGE dividend reward!!
SteemBet Team
Official Website
https://steem-bet.com
Discord Server
https://discord.gg/95cBN3W
Telegram Group
https://t.me/steembet
Hi @ura-soul!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.972 which ranks you at #92 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 213 contributions, your post is ranked at #49.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server