Hi frens, just a quick memo.
We often talk about foundations as entities that govern Web3 projects. Sometimes, it is assumed that the presence of a foundation is synonymous with the transparency and seriousness of a project.
That may be true, but it is not always so.
Some points we should not underestimate:
• What is the purpose of the foundation. A foundation can have a purpose, by statute, that is broader or not exactly coincident with the scope of a project's creation.
• Let us also remember that legitimately the purpose of the foundation and the interest of the token holders might diverge from time to time, even in the case of a purpose of the foundation tight to the project's scope
• Who has the power to elect the board and govern central decisions. Who has the power to review decisions made by the board or by the directors?
• Transparency. Is there an obligation of the foundation to publish financial statements and board decisions?
• Remedies. Each jurisdiction has different foundation management mechanics. Are there any actionable remedies concretely actionable by the token holders?
• Effective influence of founders, core contributors, and investors. Regardless of form, is there an effective influence of individuals on the institution's operations?
• Intellectual Property. Are we sure that the foundation owns 100% of the project's intellectual property?
• Is there a public and reliable way to verify the exact regime of the relationship between the foundation and multiple possible development companies to which related development is delegated?
• Conflicts of interests. Do board members of the foundation and the lead development company coincide?
Similar considerations apply to associations or "cooperative companies".
A name and architecture can mean everything and nothing depending on the case.
There will be work to be done to generate balances in which transparency and manageability coincide.
One of the main problems is also that each jurisdiction has different rules.
Each jurisdiction in addition to regulations has also practices: they often carry their own weight.
One country's jurisprudence may prefer one approach over another on critical issues that change the balance among stakeholders in a Web3 project.
A second problem is that using nonprofit-type legal entities to govern Web3 projects is not always easy or completely straightforward
It would be much easier to define new rules, from scratch, with a digital jurisdiction created for the purpose.
@JurProject #web3jurisdiction #relaystate #networkstate