Re: The United Humans investment offer

I agree that these non-spec discussions are valuable. Sometimes they go 
off the rails but overall think they are a plus. I was hoping to 
announce a project to the group in January. Is doing so now forbidden?

Kim, when you mentioned that RWoT is a more appropriate place to 
announce such projects are you referencing a slack channel?

Where is the best place to discuss business models and philosophical, 
regulatory, and marketing type concerns around SSI tech?

Adam


On 12/21/2018 10:27 AM, Kerri Lemoie wrote:
> Hi Sam & all,
>
> I am also grateful for the discourse of this group. I can see why 
> these topics don’t fit here but they are valuable. Does anyone have a 
> suggestion as to where we can shift these discussions elsewhere 
> outside of this list?
>
> Thanks!
>
> K
>
> —
> Kerri Lemoie
> OpenWorks Group
> http://openworksgrp.com
> @kayaelle @openworksgrp @badgechain
>
>
>> On Dec 21, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Sam Chase <samantha@venn.agency 
>> <mailto:samantha@venn.agency>> wrote:
>>
>> I deeply apologize this was meant to be a private email to both 
>> Bohdan and Moses.
>>
>> I hope everyone has an amazing holiday, I am grateful for the 
>> discourse of this group.
>>
>> Wishing you all the very best!!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2018, at 7:13 AM, Sam Chase <samantha@venn.agency 
>>> <mailto:samantha@venn.agency>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> First, happy holidays and I appreciate this discourse.
>>>
>>> I have two things I’d like to clear up:
>>>
>>> Bohdan, my issue with your email(s) to the group is nothing to do 
>>> with UH and everything to do with your disregard for the purpose of 
>>> the mailing list. You have defiantly ignored multiple people trying 
>>> to explain why your approach, not your idea-is flawed and 
>>> frustrating. It’s disrespectful to pitch ANYTHING to the group and I 
>>> will be bringing it up with leadership.
>>>
>>> Moses, you started the monetization discussion. The only reason I 
>>> volunteered to host the discussion was to steer the group away from 
>>> the dangerous and careless language being used. That language 
>>> continued even after multiple discussions about its lack of tact. 
>>> You started and initiated and quite adamantly when it’s the end of 
>>> the year and the group has more than enough on it’s plate.
>>>
>>> You speak eloquently of the problems facing us a commons and the 
>>> challenges ahead in making SSI sustainable. But then you speak 
>>> clumsily and without adjustments after critique of your words and 
>>> continue to push this outward while passing it off to volunteers. 
>>> Not taking ownership for initiatives you suggest for the community 
>>> and then piling on someone else about their lack of tact isn’t 
>>> tactful either.
>>> You left the webinar you suggested 20 minutes in and found a 
>>> volunteer to do the next one. Where is the accountability?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bohdan and Moses, thank-you for this discussion and I look forward 
>>> to discussing these ideas you both shared at RWoT; and I am grateful 
>>> to be working with you further on emerging technical standards with 
>>> the w3C.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Dec 21, 2018, at 6:41 AM, Bohdan Andriyiv 
>>>> <bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org 
>>>> <mailto:bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear chairs, and CCG community,
>>>>
>>>> I think we as a community should be able to discuss new projects 
>>>> that are based on the specifications that we develop here 
>>>> (especially, if these projects are open source and philanthropic in 
>>>> nature).
>>>> The whole point in making these specifications is to do great 
>>>> things with them. How can we create great things if we are not 
>>>> allowed to talk about them with each other, find like minded 
>>>> people, experts in SSI, DIDs, VCs etc?
>>>> I do not think these discussions would overwhelm our forum. If they 
>>>> do, we can think about tags to use in email subjects for example - 
>>>> [spec], [proposal], [spam].
>>>> If we cannot do these discussions in this mailing list we should 
>>>> have another forum where such discussions can happen. If we decide 
>>>> to go this route I am volunteering to communicate with w3c to open 
>>>> and administer such mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding this specific thread:
>>>> The reason for the initial email of this thread was to publicly 
>>>> announce about The United Humans seed offer, and if some members of 
>>>> the community find the idea of the UH interesting, to publicly 
>>>> discuss it _with those people_. I was in particular interested to 
>>>> have discussion about technologies that makes UH possible - 
>>>> simplified undirected web-of-trust, verifiable credentials with 
>>>> human readable verifiable layer (using Resource Integrity Proofs), 
>>>> as well as many technological, social and economical implications 
>>>> of the UH. It is really frustrating when the person who did not 
>>>> spend time to understand the idea and for whom I struggle to find 
>>>> artifacts or conversations that can be considered as interesting 
>>>> contributions to the specifications or community, gets to hijack 
>>>> and shutdown the conversation. My opinion is that if you are not 
>>>> interested in the topic simply ignore it, if you think it really 
>>>> distracts, spams, or scams the community, after checking that this 
>>>> is actually true raise your concerns in direct, but polite manner.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, anyone who is interested to discuss the idea of The United 
>>>> Humans organization please contact me. I think we will create the 
>>>> public forum to have public conversations about it.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I plan to present the UH idea and in particular its 
>>>> Web-of-Trust on the next RWOT conference. Rebooted Web-of-Trust 
>>>> (undirected, based on VC's with human readable visual verifiable 
>>>> layer) is one of the core things that makes possible The United 
>>>> Humans organization.
>>>>
>>>> -Bohdan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---- On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:05:22 +0200 Kim Hamilton Duffy 
>>>> <kim@learningmachine.com <mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>> wrote ----
>>>>> Dear CCG community,On behalf of the chairs, I'd like to clarify 
>>>>> that CCG's focus is emerging technical standards -- not business 
>>>>> models. We recognize the importance of the latter discussions, but 
>>>>> CCG forums (including calls and mailing lists) are not the place 
>>>>> for these to happen. Specific concerns are:it distracts from the 
>>>>> large amount of technical work we need to do
>>>>> it risks compromising the (perceived) integrity of the group
>>>>> it has an extremely divisive impact, which we've witnessed on 
>>>>> numerous occasions
>>>>> We have the following recommendations:For this specific thread: 
>>>>> Any parties with further discussion should follow up outside of 
>>>>> the CCG mailing list
>>>>> In general:
>>>>> Avoid discussion of business models or investment solicitations on 
>>>>> the CCG mailing list
>>>>> Rebooting Web of Trust community provides a better forum for 
>>>>> discussion of business models
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for understanding,Kim, on behalf of chairs
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 9:32 AM Bohdan Andriyiv 
>>>>> <bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org 
>>>>> <mailto:bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org>> wrote:
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Kim Hamilton DuffyCTO & Principal Architect Learning 
>>>>> MachineCo-chair W3C Credentials Community Group 
>>>>> kim@learningmachine.com <mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, see updated The United Humans pitch deck. On slide 11, a 
>>>>> typo in the amount of presale Kudos was made. It should have been 
>>>>> 285 Bln, not 274 Bln. Please, use the corrected pitch deck in the 
>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Bohdan
>>>>>
>>>>> ---- On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 20:25:17 +0200 Bohdan Andriyiv 
>>>>> <bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org 
>>>>> <mailto:bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org>> wrote ----
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am raising seed funds to establish The United Humans organization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The purpose of The United Humans organization is to create and 
>>>>>> maintain the set of core cooperation tools and services,
>>>>>> that enable human digital sovereignty, protect human rights and 
>>>>>> well-being, make human cooperation more effective, transparent 
>>>>>> and reliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More details are in the attached pitch deck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Bohdan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

-- 
Adam Lake
Director, Business Development
Digital Bazaar
Veres.io
540-285-0083