I actually don't take the regulatory/law track as being any sort of
indication of the Foundation's internal agenda. There were a few types of
people who attended the conference, and the entrepreneurial/investment
types desperately need clarity and guidance on those areas before they can
be expected to feel secure in making a major investment of time and money
into developing services and products that rely on this new protocol.

I don't think there is a future ahead of us where regulators can be
completely ignored by 100% of the community - I think it's a question of
who should be doing the interfacing.

The foundation is going in this direction because of people like many
represented on this list. There is a real and meaningful fear that if The
Foundation doesn't take on this role, someone else who has a different
ideological bend will, and because of their ideology do a "worse" job.

The irony of the situation is that it's exactly that type of exclusionary,
fear derived action that leads to the creation of what they most fear
because if you won't be inclusive in a non-exclusive environment, you
mandate those not acceptable to your organization form their own if they
want to enact change, which is exactly what's happening.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad and predictable. It's always better
to maintain unity (or at least the illusion of it) for as long as
possible, because once we fracture the lines that divide will become much
more tangible.


Adam B. Levine
Editor-in-Chief
Let's Talk Bitcoin! <http://www.letstalkbitcoin.com>
1-855-WETALKBITCOIN Ex.700
[image: Inline image 2]
Talk to me on Gli.ph, my preferred communications platform


On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Vitalik Buterin <vbuterin@???> wrote:

> The direction of the organization was pretty much obvious from the fact
> that 1/4 of the Bitcoin conference was the "Regulatory/Law" track. All the
> major Bitcoin organizations in the US are pretty much set on following that
> particular track - the only exception I know of being the Free State
> Project.
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Cody R Wilson <codywilson@???>wrote:
>
>> Thanks Adam, the articles are included there.
>>
>> I was looking for what type of 501(c) tax exemption they organized to
>> claim. Turns out its 501(c)(6), which is interesting indeed... These kinds
>> of business associations are often thought of as lobbying groups.
>>
>> For a while I had assumed the Foundation claimed 501(c)(3) tax exemption
>> as a nonprofit software developer with a specific charitable purpose and
>> charitable class. This alternative form of organization tells me more than
>> I had expected about the direction of the organization.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>