Democratic Welfare Fund - clarifications needed

[SFSandra]

Whatever else we decide, I strongly strongly recommend calling this a Democracy Support Fund, and not use the word WELFARE which has all sorts of implications that are at odds with, or will cloud, our actual focus.

[SFSandra]

3 further questions/points:

One: We expect that the Democratic Welfare Fund becomes a public resource managed via global governance.

It seems we are saying that the money we raise from the 10 million tokens sold will be democratically managed by those who have votes, and initially, that is us, and we are saying 70%/15%/15% as described. Makes sense. But over time as we gain millions of token holders, does this mean the DEF team gets get diluted out of control while the token holders gain control? This is how it seems to read right now, which is fine - but how do we picture the timing of this transition of control, and establishing the 'constitutional boundaries' if you will? If we introduce this now, in the paper it may raise questions, so I don't really want to leave this vague.

Two: The Democracy Earth Foundation will work to engage donors of all kinds, including state-actors, institutions and individuals, to allocate at least 5% of their donating capacity to be managed by a legitimate global vote. We hope to provide a path for the sustainability of organizations able to execute projects focused on pressing issues.

We will work with many different types of partners like High Fidelity and Aragon to create software that will help solve some of the intractable problems we've identified......but this is talking about collecting additional funds from additional players in order fund projects outside the scope of software development. It is certainly a good purpose for DEF to adopt, but not sure it belongs in the white paper justifying our ICO, which is focused on how we create software/technology solutions.

My recommendation is to delete this entire paragraph/reference and make it a blog post for the co-founders to make.

[santisiri]

Hi @SFSandra, I have been discussing this with @herbstephens. I think you get it right and our aim is to enable a commons beyond the strict control of any single organization. This is not a matter for a document aside from the paper since it has to do with our funding mechanism. I'm okay with modifying the name of the fund.

[SFSandra]

#2 "we will engage donors of all kinds, including state-actors, institutions and individuals, to allocate at least 5% of their donating capacity to be managed by a legitimate global vote".

Put another way we are saying DEF is raising ICO funds at least in part, to raise a fund from all kinds of donors to fund "projects focused on pressing issues" and managed via global vote.

For me, this is taking focus away from the funding mechanism and introducing a lot of questions about how these additional funds.