Official Supervisory Council Announcement The Supervisory Council has reviewed

the public materials regarding the merger and had several one-on-one discussions with Foundation members. In our opinion, the merger is potentially damaging to the community, the token holders, to decentralization, and to the SNET development effort as a whole. The potential upsides do not justify these risks, and we recommend voting against the merge.

The Supervisory Council has not received control of the tokens due as per the community vote, as such we’re unable to vote. We have been told that it is because of technical reasons.

We believe that it is of benefit to SingularityNET to form well thought-out cooperative agreements, partnerships and even token swaps with Fetch.ai and Ocean Protocol. However we believe that such partnerships should be formed prior to taking the enormous step of a multi-billion dollar decision, not afterwards.

Full details of our reasons for concern: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ODYFnE32XYVd8y_n5hsxyLzdGcDPchM9RZJuMw5BtNg/edit?usp=sharing

The reasoning is bad: 1. centralization, they say the decision is not decentralized even though the majority of the community is in favor of it. 2. why would $FET be insolvent? 3. the future of the $AGIX token is also unknown, both are speculation. 4. they don't want to risk it, to me it sounds like they want to keep their authority over the $AGIX network without considering that the majority of the community is in favor of the merger.

It is hypocritical to say you are for decentralization but at the same time disregard the majority of the community, we are for the merger! 👎🏻

When was this released? Pretty brutal

In the last hour.

This should have come out Before The vote

We let the community know yesterday that we would make an official statement. The vote is going on for 10 days. This was the earliest we could give a well-thought out response.

The vote shouldn't have been rushed and the community should have been given more time to discuss and provide input and feedback 🤷‍♂

I appreciate that. No disrespect intended.

Wow. This is a terrible piece of toilet paper. Using words like hostile takeover and insolvency are just flat out garbage. I don't think Ben agreed to a hostile takeover. He would also be the CEO. As far as insolvency, you can see what happened to FET. And.... No company is going to give 200 million in grant money to a business that goes bankrupt. It's FUD... Literal FUD. If you want to put a paper together to try and explain why someone should vote no, it should be over long term projections with charts of where we are, what investments are coming, what projects are releasing, what capital do we have to promote such projects, do we have the capital to scale up the project. Not FUD. Hostile takeover just flat out shows me there's no business acumen involved here

The language is very certain and clear and very much appreciated. I will give a full read before making my decision.

Why would $FET be insolvent? 👎🏻 Bad reasoning! 🤦🏻‍♂️

This is FUD and baseless accusations

Imagine being responsible for the community and calling $FET insolvent.

We're not calling it insolvent. We're saying due diligence hasn't been done properly and the vote is rushed

We have updated the terminology, the comment was correct. Thank you to the community for the constructive feedback.

I think the ‘supervisory council’ are delighted to be centre of attention. 😂

Not really. This sucks for us big time. We're doing it out of principle and at personal loss

Do you KNOW DD hasn’t been done? Who told you?

You speculate about the risks of $ASI as if there were currently no risks for $AGIX!

IF all your cons in the document were based on proven facts - then OK. But as I said...it's just some emotional colored assumptions...

You basically did. So can you explain to me how you came up with the hostile takeover FUD? Do you know what a hostile takeover even is? A hostile takeover happens when an entity takes control of a company without the knowledge and against the wishes of the company's management. I don't think that happened here So keep up the written FUD

I don't know what the council stands for, what I do know is that huge parts of this documents are completely wrong. I can understand that with statements like what's in this document they don't get voting power. If you want to give advice do this based on facts and research and don't go the way of insinuating things or blatant lies like "Hostile takeover of SingularityNET: In this merger, AGIX gives up its token, and none of the other partners are giving up theirs. " It's not a hostile takeover and all of the involved parties are giving up their respective tokens. And this is just one of the many false or wrongly presented statements. Do your homework properly and be treated as an adult. What I'm trying to say be of use for the community, this is not the way.

A "hostile takeover" involves buying up the majority of the shares of a company too 😂

How? I think the personal loss is something you have no idea of what's to come. Creating useless pieces of paper that have factual inaccuracies and biased terminology is absolute bullshit. You shouldn't have made any recommendations as to whether we should or we should. That's basically illegal anyways. You can put a paper together that states your concerns and you would like them addressed, but in a decentralized environment, you should be presenting FACTS and Concerns as a non-biased. That was about the most ridiculously biased piece of garbage I've read

Language

Oops, sorry

The document is clearly our opinion. We're not claiming you need to agree nor claiming it's the word of god and should be treated as such. We were put in an awkward position to put this together really fast. And are taking the feedback in, but my conclusion hasn't changed

Conclusions based on what? That are no conclusions. It is just a sum up of opinions. Conclusions are based on logic.

Maybe publishing as such rather than pronouncing it from the Grand Council of Super Genius Experts or whatever. As somebody mentioned above, it is fair from impartially worded and so you have kinda failed to perform your role.

I disagree. My role is not to be impartial, I was elected to champion decentralisation and this proposal goes in the opposite direction so I oppose it. Simple really

If you are on the council, you SHOULD NOT BE GIVING YOUR OPINIONS AT ALL!!!!!! You should be gathering all info from both sides to present it in a combined form with possibilities. Not lies. You basically just told the entire AIGX community that you just supplied a document that was based on YOUR opinion. If you are on the council, your opinion should be checked at the door. Data is what's important. Not your opinion

It goes fair beyond decentralisation and accuses other projects of nefarious actions

my point

So why were you talking about price also in the document when it is all about decentralization?

Which nefarious actions?

the ones edited out after sharing 😉

Hostile takeover Being bankrupt

Ooohhhhh. Deleted. Fine

This is just sensless

Making unfounded accusations is nefarious.

Dude. That is exactly your role. As a cha point you're supposed to represent everyone not use the role for your own biases and to unduly influence the process.

You mean like using 18 months of price data to set the ratios for the ASI token? That kind of data.

We're elected to advise... We're advising. There are some points which were not as robust as we'd like and we will edit them. The conclusion hasn't changed

We have no mechanism to know what everyone thinks other than electing people to represent you. If you don't like it you should propose direct democracy instead of representatives

its not unfounded - it was stated that the doc would be changed

Well, with the lies and inaccuracies in that paper, you sir are no champion of decentralization, you are a fact gatherer that didn't even explain any of this correctly.

A point would be clarified. Anyway I was just trying to put into perspective using words like nefarious about someone who just like you wants the best for the protocol ❤️

Thanks for advocating for cybility The ad hominem attacks are pretty bad form when we're just trying to do what's best for the community and you're free to disagree with us

Please give me even just 3 wishes for your renegotiation. I want fetch crew to be informed about who they’re dealing with

Again, you guys are just clueless. Just clueless. You're literally going to sink this project. If you go back 120 days, the only thing it can change is the ratio of the companies coming in. You don't weaken the largest company because people that don't own anything in the company merging feel they are getting screwed. It's about money. Everyone winds up with equal money. That's what you're looking for. Everyone is diluted in their investment, not just AIGX

there is no attack - you yourself stated the document would be edited to correct the “hostile takeover” - at that time i also mentioned that the harm is already done and changing the doc now to make it look better is disingenuous, as any harm is already done

bETtEr rAtiO

Could be changed by adding a parenthesis with a clarification. No need to assume the worst

Is that the same kind of harm when SDAO tries to cast 774,000 votes by obscuring their origination wallet (but was too daft to remember they funded the ETH from an SDAO wallet?) Is it THAT level of harm?

I still believe it was essential to share our views given the vote was rushed. It's unfortunate all this is happening the way it is and if the foundation hadn't rushed, it wouldn't have been a problem

i dont disagree that you should share your views - only that if you are doing as comunity rep - it should rep the community - not you -

it should also be factually accurate

Well, it's unfortunate that you published a piece of garbage like that which is basically slandering other projects

The challenge was 1. Lack of information 2. Having to respond fast due to the Vision Paper and vote being the same day

Love you too man. I hope you find ways to argue without being nasty to others

1. Commercial agreements that back the claims that we will have access to the resources of the other organization. 2. Clarity on the due diligence process undertaken and some validation of the findings of that process. 3. Commitments to the power that will be granted to the community of voters.

I second this. With those 3 things in place I support the merger fully

Ok... Read that again

Point 3 is something that was your part to take care of. Understood and agreed. Points 1 and 2 not.

Are you suggesting we should have handled the governance design?

No I mean the content of your paper.

I don't understand what you're suggesting. That we should have only addressed the governance side?

Yes. Only things that are related to decantralization and gov concerns. Would have made you sound more legit.

And you would expect this to take how long? 6-12 months?

Could be done in a month perhaps

Could perhaps maybe take multiples of that. Why don’t we just hand over all the tech innovations and market share to Microsoft, Google et al for free 🤦‍♂️ Things are moving apace. Just not in the minds of idealist luddites

I could design a better governance structure in a day 🤷‍♂ Having no agreements in place could lead to conflicts, broken promises, all kind of messes. If you want to move things fast, why not a token swap to start for say 20% Then start evolving a proper merger agreement instead of rushing ahead without clarity

im still looking forward to seeing that, it was the mandate right?

Basically what is happening to AGIX, except people are being gaslit into giving it away for free

LOL

Ben's gaslighting you?

no, the community / FET fanatics. I think Ben is (rightfully) hyper-focused on getting beneficial AGI out before big tech creates a dystopian version. I believe that Ben's priorities are perfectly compatible with a merger... just disagree with this particular instantiation due to the ratios built on volatile temporary mCAPs.

Which market capitalization do you prefer? 6 months ago?

market-cap is the wrong framing entirely. the fundamental value add of each project to the whole, and the desired goal of achieving AGI. it is a deeper analysis that I believe favors SNET (OpenCog Hyperon, METTA, AI-DSL) + Hypercycle + Nunet

So, again... Your gonna FUD another project and it's community. FET Holders weren't sitting with the Ceo's when the ratios were established. Ben was tho. So, if you feel your gaslit, it's Ben not FET Holders who also have no say and are suffering thru the same type of dilution

Pecos, I've been in this telegram and on twitter getting plenty lit up by FET holders. They sought out the confrontations and did the gaslighting.

You said you were against the merger "due to the ratios built on volatile temporary mCAPs". So I assume you prefer a market capitalization from the past that doesn't correspond to today's value, which doesn't make sense.

Ohh pls will u guys jst stop it with your temporary manipulated fetch spike 🤣

no, MarketCaps are the wrong framing entirely in hyper-volatile crypto markets. I explained the alternative approach.

The alternative you propose sounds like a merger.

We have a lot of data and time that we can use to formulate correct ratios… Like 12 or 18 months… So we need to use that 12 or 18 months – … now I know why they chose not to, they chose not to because the plan is to absorb other assets that have less time data and they don’t want to create a line in the sand that they can’t traverse… NTX, CGV, RJV… so on so forth, and the only way they can get that done is by pumping the tokens for a few weeks, then looking two weeks or 15 days backwards, figuring out the ratios and melting them into the ASI token… So if you actually use real data, none of that is possible

i think thats assumption stated as fact 😛

I doubt it. I can see people pushing back on your statements because they are FUD. You're putting all the blame of the things you don't like in this merger on FET holders instead of directing it towards Ben if you don't like the deal. If you think you're truly getting screwed, tell Ben and sell your stuff. FET holders believe in their product and the future of AI. They heard three ceo's say we need this and they said ok

correct

wrong

You would take a value that is 18 months old? I think that's a worse idea.

It’s an assumption stated as a statement of an opinion on an empty stomach

remedy that immediately! popcorn!

Doubt it... It's all you have done in here

(Buries head in hands). #MSGA

BS

Maybe I misunderstood you. I'm all for mergers, but I don't see why market capitalization should matter, and you seem to be saying the same thing.

hmm. I think we all know how hyper-volatile crypto markets are. projects can surge 200% in a week's time, hold it for a few weeks, then dip while a competitor surges 300%. drawing a box around a market cap differentials and saying "these differences will be permanent" is the wrong approach. I think we agree

Thank you for explaining your point of view.

Why is this not pinned?