Election by lot from those with skin in the game? (However defined.)
Discussion
Yeah, this is always a problem with a board sitting on a big pot of money: figuring out who should be on the board and for how long.
I think term limits would make sense. Election is difficult because there is no clear electorate.
Term limits are often useful.
Donors could be electors. 🤔
Not sure about that, otherwise it would be the ETFs indirectly deciding what gets developed.
Do you think things will be developed that the ETFs don't want?
For sure. Likewise, I think ETFs may want (or be compelled) to have things developed that most Bitcoiners don't want
No, I mean...
You think that's even a possibility? That the fund would ever finance a project that the biggest donors don't want?
With the current board, definitely
nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl This is what I meant:
nostr:note1acv2njun5x8cyv8nv55z3yvzvlkjxtz879cl6hn8s7ehpuj0myus3n0f28
