Abstract. We propose a system based on a Bitcoin like cryptocurrency model whereby participants use Proofs of Identity tests in order to have certain digital identity elements linked to public key cryptographic keys such as ECC based PGP in order to be entered into a public ledger system known as a blockchain. We contemplate a nominal reward system for passing Proofs of Identity such as responding to an encrypted email and posting their IDCoin address on their social media networks that would demonstrate positive control of a given account. Participants would be encouraged to perform key-signing for anyone known to them in order to build a Web of Trust. (WoT). The rewards (aka tokens or simply “coins”) would then be eligible to be “spent” on reputational events which would also be entered into the blockchain. Reputational Events could be anything from signing another members public key to expressing an opinion about another member of the WoT to rating a transaction or the IP address of an email server to real world things such geolocations or the license plates of automobiles.
Regarding the http://bitnation.co crowdfunding raise currently on, I will not be investing, nor do I recommend anyone else invest at this time.
Here are the top 10 reasons:
10. The target launch date was set arbitrarily and then capriciously driven to without concern, consult, or agreement by the critical stakeholders involved. The least of which was having core capabilities installed and tested prior to announcing the sale date.
9. The supporting documentation (white paper et al) requires at least a 30-day review period and an open comments via peer-review which has not happened.
8. The sale is offered as “crypto equity” however there are no voting rights. Furthermore the legal standing of the corporation has not been documented.
7. The payment address appears to be static (1Q6QnUx83BH4qKwAtm7qbZztxvWTtU7XEk) -- which is highly unusual for such transactions -- how could you prove you are the owner of a given purchase?
6. Additionally the payment address is NOT a MULTI-SIG account as the CEO recently stated, which means her assertion that there are a number of individuals involved in the release of whatever funds are raised is wishful thinking. This either means she does not know what a multi-signature address actually is, or has not actually looked at or made a purchase herself, or is purposely being deceitful. It's also "possible" though unlikely that the funds are held in a counterparty account for which the company does not have access to until after the sale, afterwhich time they will be sent to a multi-sig account. Either way, what's there today is NOT as she claims.
5. The use of funds is not credible in terms of the launch of a company — it appears to support a “founders lifestyle”
4. The company does not actually employ anyone other than its founder — nor are there are any exclusive contracts in place for the acquisition of key technology that is claimed as part of the offer.
3. The sources of revenue (Identity without standing, land ownership attestation without precedent or show conveyance of “good title” etc) — do not provide a compelling reason for a customer to acquire other than for pure novelty. No actual suggested sale price for such items have been offered, nor any notion of cost, the difference of which would equal the profit that in theory an equity holder could enjoy some part of those proceeds in the form of a dividend.
2. There is nothing of substance in the Github archive -- most of the entries contain a simple "Hello World" example and everything else are simple clones of other projects.
1. The leadership style of the founder has been divisive, humiliating, demoralizing and without any semblance of remorse or culpability. What is particularly concerning has been the treatment of people who are basically volunteers — I can only imagine what the treatment might include if she felt entitled and empowered because of the tacit acceptance of a paycheck by an employee.
These are not attributes I admire and certainly will not reward.
Fundamentally TRUST comes down to having confidence in two aspects of the person or group seeking yours:
1. Do you have confidence in the INTENT?
2. Do you have confidence in the COMPETENCE?
I'm willing to extend most people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intent. I generally assume "good intentions" -- though even in this case there is likely just cause to question this in the face of the evidence.
The lack of any credible demonstrable proofs of concepts combined with a "fad approach" to selecting technology spelled out in the Dev Plan continue to demonstrate a "top down, edict driven" approach that is antithetical to "consensus" -- which is at the core of all things blockchain. So that calls the competence into question.
Therefore, until Bitnation can show a credible, demonstrable value proposition that includes a compelling reason for customers to acquire its services and what reasonable expectation of service level agreement (SLA) they can expect, I can not in good faith recommend investing in it at this time.
1. I am wired for pattern-matching and pattern-recognition! Software or Social Systems.
2. I understand reverse-engineering stone cold. This is the best way to discovering "cause & effect."
3. I practice having my "crucial conversations" days to weeks in advance
4. I re-read important books annually. Chief among my favorites is Machiavelli's "The Prince" on my desk for reference, which leads to
5. I usually have figured out what you're likely going to do and likely going to say and what my response will likely be three moves from now
When someone tells you what they are "not going to do", do not be dazzled by their amateur misdirection.
I recently had a conversation with a new manager who told me he was basically going "stay out of my way" -- it was the second time I'd heard that exact phrase in the past six months, first from his predecessor who did everything but. Which I understood he meant he was planning the exact opposite.
When you attempt to "lather. rinse. repeat." a highly visible pattern, especially one that has failed miserably, you have to at some point have some kind of honest inner reflection that you might not be as clever as you think you are?
Unless you work for an organization that is fiercely protective of incompetence.
Something's I've learned over my brief time here:
1. The only thing people hate more than a surprise is
2. An unplanned errand.
Today's Big Idea: "Think long and hard about your interaction with people you perceive as your subordinates. Allow for the off chance that they might just be as smart as you. And for the truly gifted, statistically speaking, one in a thousand are likely smarter than you."
That's how I've treated every team I've had the privilege of serving. It is something I learned from Steve Jobs who advocated "hiring people smarter than you" -- I've been very fortunate to have worked with a number of rock-stars who clearly outshine me!
But if you're going to try and throw someone under the bus -- I would caution you to avoid people with really long reach. Especially ones that can see you coming from a mile away...