This was posted on ASI group. Where can I find

this article?

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

Beautiful, cheers!

This paper reeks of SC self interest in the name of 'community' lol

I had the impression that this document was born out of a position of frustration 😔. I guess they suffered from a bad market for a long time during the pandemic and the wars, which is understandable, but no reason to hinder growth 😄.

Oh man, it's been nothing but pain for us. We're paid by the foundation, were discussing partnerships, are not paid for the hours put doing this. We're shooting our self interest here on the foot. But we haven't been in web3 for years to make a quick buck. We believe in better governance and not in small teams making unaccountable decisions. Otherswise we might as well give in to big tech.

There are better ways to cause unrest than slowing down growth by imagining that $FET could be insolvent.

On the contrary, it shines with bravery and honorability. They are exposing themselves into the unpopular opinion but making prevail the sense of their existance as council. So just thebopposite of what you suggest.

That's brave, but I can't support their arguments.

The issue is that no due diligence has been made. Are you going to marry someone you barely know? Of course not, you spend time getting to know them. Instead here it's a rush to merge without thinking through the details

They have probably spent a decade together.

Is there any more data that could have been provided to you that wouod have changed your assessment ?

Without consulting with u, u mean?

Yes, due diligence on the other entities

No due diligence was done man. That's not about my opinion, is about not being reckless

But really for me the biggest issue is appointing an unelected and unaccountable council to rule the combined toke. That increases decentralisation and is a step away from a beneficial AGI

According to recent conversations, these people have been working together for years. How can you substantiate your claim that no due diligence was done? What is your evidence?

Стикер

please stop making unfounded claims https://t.me/singularitynet/987914

For me, some kind of commercial agreement or at least MOU that would show that we are going to have technological benefits. One of the compelling arguments is the hardware resources we could harness as a larger group. If I had seen at least a memorandum of intent around this it would mitigate my concerns.

please stop making unfounded claims https://t.me/singularitynet/987914

Great paper. I am really proud that the security council has the integrity and courage to speak up about these errors and go against the more popular opinion. To me this seems like an objective, well argued stance that they have taken.

That is consustantual to having yournown opinion, and that is fair. I would invite you to reasses your own bias as much as one can do that, and read again the communicate. If your opinion does not change after that exercise is good cause you found itnto be strongly rooted and in sintony with your previous sentiment. If your opinion does change, it is also good for you have shed a different light and perspective into the issue, gaining some knowledge in the way.

We asked the leadership and were told this hadn't been done 🤷‍♂

Please provide evidence that no due diligence has been carried out.

It has flaws. I wish we could have had the time to make a better argument but the details of the merger weren't released in advance.

Please provide evidence that no purple elephants exist. You can't, because all you can show is the absence of them. If they show us any proof of due diligence we will retract our claim that it didn't happem

So burn everything to the ground and throw around accusations and falsehood because of your ‘concerns’? Seems very selfish.

On the contrary, we are suggesting to do this properly, with due diligence, proper governance, commercial agreements and community consultation

This is bad reasoning because our CEOs are verified and have stated that they have been working together for a long time.

It depends on what you mean by working together. Seeing meaningful collaboration and commercial agreements would help. It's not clear the degree to which there are actually projects that Ocean or Fetch have done with SNET

I agree, but that doesn't mean they don't know each other.

Guess what? You’re not going to get that. What steps do you take it your no campaign flounders?

We never suggested they're unacquainted. We're suggesting a billion dollar merger should have some basic best practices in place

You can't prove a counter factual. But it would be fairly easy to prove it has been done if that is the case.

That does not prove that they have asked Fetch for financial statements and security protocols for financial failure prior to merge.

Maybe they’re *looking to the future*

I can't imagine $FET being insolvent, sorry, to me that's ridiculous, but I understand that this is a sudden change that some will have to get used to, I wish that wasn't the case, I want quick changes, learning from mistakes instead of not trying.

Correct. It is legitimate for you to believe that is an adequate basis for the merger. We don't but I certainly respect that you feel differently about it.

I try to see any trace of an argument here. But it is all in vain.

That’s because it’s a *suggestion* but thanks for patronising

Pivoting with agility is a good skill in bussines. But agility needs stability and balance. Moving quickly without a cross-check and correct valuation procedure is not agility, but invites to calculation erroes and instability.

But it does not help to understand and solve the voids in this debate.

Reeks is not a strong enough word.

This thread on Fetch being supposely insolvent is not well grounded in basic empirical observation. On-chain we can see the Fetch foundation wallet has directly 200m USD or so of tokens https://etherscan.io/address/0x8400ac235ed4f139a3e05670a9a3c724e448129b#tokentxns They have been sending a few million USD worth of tokens each month to exchanges, which anyone can also see with a little investigation. There are valid reasons to have a diversity of opinions on this merger, but making allegations like "Fetch is insolvent" without evidence (and with very obvious contradictory evidence available) doesn't help rational debate...

The man himself provides the data, thank you very much! ❤️‍🔥

Here's the post where Ben proves that he did his due diligence on $FET and that the company is not insolvent! 🔥

I can't share links, but see Ben's post for proof that the SC are lying manipulators.

The post does not actually say that. He just asked us to refer to on-chain evidence. Not much of a due diligence, if I may say.

On-chain evidence = proof.

Daniel, you were my top pick in the SC election for your fascinating track record in the DAO space but even more so because the sense of strong principles, philosophy and commitment to right kind of decision-making processes. The paper you now wrote with Grace just confirmed that. I really admire you honesty and independent thinking with information you had in such a difficult situation. I'm strongly favoring these proposals and, had I been in your position, I don't think I could have been able to express my concerns with such authenticity. I hope you will be providing your valuable inputs to this community in the future as well. Thanks!

Thank you for this open statement and your confidence in us.

Thank you for your support Henriq. Taking a principled approach when it can cost you lucrative relationships is never easy. So I appreciate it being seen

💪🏻