Author Topic: BitShares - Conflict of Interest and NDAs ( Non-Disclosure Agreements )  (Read 5854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dannotestein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
    • View Profile
    • BlockTrades International
  • BitShares: btsnow
BlockTrades has signed a number of NDAs as part of its normal business, but none are, in my opinion, against the interests of BitShares blockchain/community.

If we're going to check about such things, we might also want to get people to post a periodic statement that they have not been served with any gag order by a government body.

BlockTrades has not currently been served with any gag order.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 02:37:29 pm by dannotestein »
http://blocktrades.us Fast/Safe/High-Liquidity Crypto Coin Converter

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Even tho I have huge respect for Fabian (xeroc), I don't think it's good for ANY one individual to hold so much power. It also puts anyone with such power in a targeted position. Such power needs to be considered carefully, and should include at least one way to hold that power in check or remove it entirely and quickly if necessary.
So true - and, actually, I never asked to be in that position, but all I can do now is do the best with the situation we are in now.

So I ask you, when is it acceptable for any of the parties (witnesses, committee members, others) to sign an NDA? It may also be important to state when an NDA should NOT be signed by a witness, committee member or even "the spokesperson". If BitShares had a "blockchain constitution" it would be the ideal place to define the principles and mission statement that should guide the ecosystem's every decision. IMO no person should be able to obligate this ecosystem to do anything without a shareholder vote, and issues of this magnitude (that can obligate the ecosystem) should be publicized in advance of the vote for some minimum amount of time so as many shareholders as possible will be given the choice to approve or reject the proposal, or change their proxy to align with what they want.
To my understanding, NDAs are almost always *personal*, so neither witnesses, nor committee members or even the spokesperson can sign an NDA in the name of the BitShares shareholders.
As such, I don't think that the BTS holders have any say into what those individuals sign and with whom they sign it - and VISE VERSA. The BitShares ecosystem has no obligation to follow anything
written in an NDA *some* individual has signed.

That said, if a witness/committe member signed an NDA it cannot be for BitShares but only for his personal liabilities/obligations.

It all becomes interesting if you consider conflicting interests .. as in
* "I run a witness and someone asks me to censor transactions", or
* "I am a committee member and someone asks me to reduce the fees for this and that"

Fortunately, we have a governance system in place that ensures that all parties need to justify themselves.
Of course, it would be MUCH better if we had 10+ proxies with more or less equal voting power.

Quote
These 2 proposals (spokesperson, foundation involvement) were proposed and "voted in" within a matter of only a few hours. They provided no background info for the people being placed in a significant role of power to sign NDAs and set policy regarding "compliance".
Please slow down a bit. First of all, the "compliance" worker isn't voted in, secondly, it was not supposed to *DO ANYTHING* with BitShares. In fact it clearly states that all
modifications to the BitShares protocol/blockchain need their own approval. The compliance worker is supposed to PAY (and only PAY) for the work that needs to be done
in order to ensure the future success of the BitShares ecosystem(!).

As for the spokesperson, I agree - it came rather quick and could have been much better communicated, but there are pressing concerns that needed to be resolved quickly.

Quote
If Xeroc wasn't involved I'd have to say it was the quickest coo I've ever seen. Even with Xeroc's involvement I still have reservations b/c I don't know those other people. They could be slick devils that tickle Xeroc's ear with sweet things to distract him from their agenda.

That's true. They did not introduce them selves into the public yet and they could cheat on me - in which case, every BTS holder that approved the spokesperson (or me as aproxy) could remove their support within the hour. The spokesperson worker clearly states that it can only act as such as long as it is approved. If any of the involved parties try to cheat on the BTS holders, they will have to expect consequences.

Ans yes, some other people tried to trick me with "sweet things" but I ditched them before I went public with them ... yes, I am human.

Quote
OK, ok that's only speculation I know, but consider the level of faith you're being asked to have about these people. Should we really trust in one person (xeroc) that much? Unless you personally know the others that's what this comes down to, to trust young Fabian Schuh to accurately assess the motives of these others to be genuine and devoid of any hidden agenda that would compromise the integrity of BitShares to provide a safe alternative to the corrupt mainstream financial system.
Again, I haven't asked to be put in the place I am in now. In fact, I never asked people to set me as their proxy. In contrast, I tell them to pick another one for the sake of better governance.
But i cannot change how it is right now.

As for compromiseing the integrity of BItShares - I don't see how you came to the conclusion that anything I do would cause that. There are much better examples of businesses running on/in BitShares that cause much more damage to the whole ecosystem than what I am doing. Please let me know if and when I do something that undermines the purpose of BitShares as a whole.

Quote
There is too much power to centralize decisions in these roles and we simply MUST NOT loose sight of that fact. We need explicitly stated "rules of engagement" to define the limits on these roles. If "we" don't take responsibility and constrain these roles to explicit dos and don'ts we may wake up one day to find we're not in Kansas anymore and this is no longer the BitShares we want, no longer the "alternative", safe financial system it was invented to be.
Again - nothing I do with or to the BitShares blockchain can happen without the approval of the BTS holders - and as you have seen from BSIP18, changes to the blockchain are
thorougly tested and discussed before even considering a hard fork. And again, neither the spokesperson, nor the compliance worker intend to modify the Blockchain, at all.

Offline wackou

wackou - witness

I have signed NDAs as part of my daytime job which is completely unrelated to crypto, hence no conflicts of interest whatsoever. Have never signed an NDA related to my work in BitShares, and do not plan to.
Please vote for witness wackou! More info at http://digitalgaia.io

Offline virtualgrowth

Good communications on the subject of NDA's.

Idea to throw out there.  What if we require or work towards FDA's as Full-Disclosure Agreements instead.  So as to make agreements in such a manner that all matters may be comfortably disclosed in and towards the spirit of open understanding.  Much of which seems to be what we are progressing to (more) open technologies and ways of doing things.

For example possibly responding to the Non-Disclosure with a Full-Disclosure idea moving our and their ways of doing things in a more open manner so as to not or initially less of ideas of not disclosing some aspects of things.  Rather think and learn what and how to disclosure more still within the proper interests of those involved.  Mostly food for thought as we discover and explore new ways of doing things together.

Best,
Virtualgrowth
iWkjpAW7TLIHr0vO

Offline blockchained

blckchnd - active witness & proxy - No NDA signed with anyone.

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Quote
I have also signed two NDAs, but I'm not going to disclose with whom or on what terms, they're called non-disclosure for a reason, you know

This is right. It is strange that some people don't get this.

If this is a problem, we could require candidates for committee/witness positions to sign an agreement not to make any NDAs in the future, however, this could create more pita than we want.

to sign a NDA to not sign NDAs? :]

Yes!1 Let's make it crazy :)

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
I have not yet signed one NDA, but there are a few oral agreements. None of them is  against the interests of BitShares IMHO.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline Thom

Ryan R. Fox - BTS Witness: fox

As an independent consultant I am often required to sign a NDA prior to entanglement with a client or a given project. Many remain in force at this time. None of which I feel create a conflict of interest in my role of validating transactions for the BitShares network.

Thank you for your continued support,
Ryan R. Fox

Makes perfect sense, I fully understand that position. I too had to sign NDAs as a consultant or 3rd part developer.

Your statement concerning conflict of interest is the crux of the matter, as well as actions that could obligate BitShares in some way.  As a witness it should be easy to avoid such conflicts. As witnesses we are not given the duty or power to contractually commit BitShares to do or not do anything.

These 2 proposals are quite different in that they DO allow specified people to act in such capacities and that introduces new risks to the ecosystem's governance model.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline Fox

Ryan R. Fox - BTS Witness: fox

As an independent consultant I am often required to sign a NDA prior to entanglement with a client or a given project. Many remain in force at this time. None of which I feel create a conflict of interest in my role of validating transactions for the BitShares network.

Thank you for your continued support,
Ryan R. Fox
Witness: fox

Offline Thom

Thank you iHashFury for raising this question.

At what point will "we" refuse to accept the terms imposed by an external entity? In the modern world I recognize virtually every business has something they want to keep private (non-public), but this secrecy tool can also bite us in the ass. Many NDAs are written like a boiler-plate house rental agreement - they provide maximum protection for one side only and that is usually the party asking for the NDA signature. I've signed enough of them to know that they can get you into obligations you didn't intend.

John F. Kennedy once said "secrecy is repugnant to a free and open society", and it also applies to a decentralized ecosystem like BitShares. I think Bytemaster was onto something when he discussed the idea of a "blockchain constitution". Issues such as who is allowed to speak or set policy for the entire ecosystem or sign documents on its' behalf could be defined there. However, just like in any form of "representative" governance, the representative can choose to neglect who they represent and go their own way. It's a real risk anytime a human is placed into a position of power. 

Even tho I have huge respect for Fabian (xeroc), I don't think it's good for ANY one individual to hold so much power. It also puts anyone with such power in a targeted position. Such power needs to be considered carefully, and should include at least one way to hold that power in check or remove it entirely and quickly if necessary.

So I ask you, when is it acceptable for any of the parties (witnesses, committee members, others) to sign an NDA? It may also be important to state when an NDA should NOT be signed by a witness, committee member or even "the spokesperson". If BitShares had a "blockchain constitution" it would be the ideal place to define the principles and mission statement that should guide the ecosystem's every decision. IMO no person should be able to obligate this ecosystem to do anything without a shareholder vote, and issues of this magnitude (that can obligate the ecosystem) should be publicized in advance of the vote for some minimum amount of time so as many shareholders as possible will be given the choice to approve or reject the proposal, or change their proxy to align with what they want.

These 2 proposals (spokesperson, foundation involvement) were proposed and "voted in" within a matter of only a few hours. They provided no background info for the people being placed in a significant role of power to sign NDAs and set policy regarding "compliance". If Xeroc wasn't involved I'd have to say it was the quickest coo I've ever seen. Even with Xeroc's involvement I still have reservations b/c I don't know those other people. They could be slick devils that tickle Xeroc's ear with sweet things to distract him from their agenda. OK, ok that's only speculation I know, but consider the level of faith you're being asked to have about these people. Should we really trust in one person (xeroc) that much? Unless you personally know the others that's what this comes down to, to trust young Fabian Schuh to accurately assess the motives of these others to be genuine and devoid of any hidden agenda that would compromise the integrity of BitShares to provide a safe alternative to the corrupt mainstream financial system.

There is too much power to centralize decisions in these roles and we simply MUST NOT loose sight of that fact. We need explicitly stated "rules of engagement" to define the limits on these roles. If "we" don't take responsibility and constrain these roles to explicit dos and don'ts we may wake up one day to find we're not in Kansas anymore and this is no longer the BitShares we want, no longer the "alternative", safe financial system it was invented to be.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 04:56:00 pm by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Quote
I have also signed two NDAs, but I'm not going to disclose with whom or on what terms, they're called non-disclosure for a reason, you know

This is right. It is strange that some people don't get this.

If this is a problem, we could require candidates for committee/witness positions to sign an agreement not to make any NDAs in the future, however, this could create more pita than we want.

to sign a NDA to not sign NDAs? :]

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Quote
I have also signed two NDAs, but I'm not going to disclose with whom or on what terms, they're called non-disclosure for a reason, you know

This is right. It is strange that some people don't get this.

If this is a problem, we could require candidates for committee/witness positions to sign an agreement not to make any NDAs in the future, however, this could create more pita than we want.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
As a freelance software developer I'm in contact with various businesses in the cryptosphere, and I am and will be working for other (graphene-based) blockchains.

I have also signed two NDAs, but I'm not going to disclose with whom or on what terms (they're called non-disclosure for a reason, you know).

As someone who is holding a significant number of shares I will of course not act against the interests of bitshares.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Good post .. also because I keep remarking a couple conflicts of interests on my own with a couple things (some unrelated to BitShares).

As it stands, there is contact between BitShares spokesperson and Bittrex Inc.
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@bitshares.fdn/bitshares-spokesperson-in-contact-with-bittrex-inc-

The content of the discussions are not publicly available and neither I, nor the BitShares spokesperson can share.
It is up to Bittrex Inc. to grant permissions on releasing information.

This OF COURSE puts the spokesperson into a conflict of interest - more even - the position of being a shareholder approved spokesperson demands
free information flow as to what the spokesperson is actually doing for his/her money - this fact has been communicated to Bittrex Inc. and they seemed
to understand that.

Again, no one in this setup wants to keep information away from the BTS holders and we would rather prefer to play open cards.
The nature of discussions with grown businesses, however, makes it necessary to accept THEIR rules of communication - which is why
we cannot unilateraly share information not approved by Bittrex Inc. (or any other business).