Rob,
You just made a quote before my post, stipulating that I've placed an address on everyones wallet where we have NO ACCOUNTABILITY for funds sent to it. You basically said "Rob handles this" but we dont even know what was sent to it. (Which I explained is not the case - I wrote an RPC report to show every BBP that goes to it). That insinuates that I created a system to hide money. But in reality I had a vision for accountability.biblepay.org to be able to reconcile every bbp In, and every bbp Out so it is all tied to an expense that has a receipt. So it felt like an attack on the system, meaning your system was going to replace my faulty one. So I pointed out how this new system does not actually solve anything, it creates less accountability. So I would suggest asking more questions and learning more about whats actually going on before making misleading posts and creating a system that adds complexity and attempts to work around the problem.
I have updated my post to say that there is no redundancy, sorry about that. I still stand by that the commission will be able to do more in an accountable manner. No matter how much reporting you have the fund is still handled by one person. I see a way to improve what we have now and that is all, I appreciate all the work you have done to make everything transparent and the current system will likely be sufficient for the immediate future.
Regarding Greed, you created a Good botnet that pulls in 20% of all Biblepay mining revenue for yourself, and then wrote a post in the vote for StakeRequired-Per-RAC that we shouldnt have any requirement. Obviously this triggers the personal feeling - of course, then you could control even more of the pie. I apologized for that, because I realize it was an ASSUMPTION on my part. Nevertheless it does point to some potential vote bias on your end.
We all have ideas on how the world should work and I don't agree with the current amount of staking that is required. It is evident from the poll that people have their own preference whether good or bad.
Anyway, please dont insinuate that I need to repent when Im defending the Orphans System, the system created for the orphans, only because you have a warped view - and have had your feelings hurt on this flawed idea, that automatically Im an evil person. Im also here for the children, and the system has to be designed properly, not in a fly by night manner.
There you go again, "only because you have a warped view". I'm not going to say much more about this if this is how you will respond.
First of all there is a difference between single point of failure for funds that are handled for long periods of time vs funds that are immediately spent.
The other issue is when you attack the compassion.com system, you are attacking one that is spent immediately. The superblock funds come in, they are converted and spent, they are not sitting around for months like they would be in a charitable sanctuary.
The fund will have assets that are held for a long period of time thus more redundancy would be better. If all the charities are handled through the commission by different individuals it would take load off of you. Of course if you want, you can also be on the commission and be the person to handle the Compassion funds as long as everyone agrees to it.
In my view we have been doing quite fine splitting up the load on charities by creating different people to handle each charity- BLOOM handles their own dispursement, Jaap for Cameroon, Me for compassion, etc. Im all for splitting the load and having more accountability. Its being doing through the proposal system naturally as it is.
The Commission will formalize all our charity efforts and create an organized system to operate on.
Thats why Im so confused as to what this Charity commission would be, I dont know what "ins and outs are".
Ins and outs (non exhaustive):
Charity fund disbursement.
Accounting and transparency.
Register as non-profit organization.
Management structure.
Charity research.
Charity Drives.
Documentation.