Hey @eosrio, I am reaching out to you guys to get some information verified. Is it true that Dan dropped the constitution due to BP’s bitching like little kids about the addition of “owning 1% of another BP needs to be disclosed”.
Please tell me this is just bs rumors?
Hello @aclarkuk82, sorry for the late response. Apparently, this was removed from the constitution because it was not viable on the real world.
The term "ultimate beneficial owner" mean to trace back ownership to a human.
In the case of a BP which has owners which are other companies, it means that you must find all owners of that company. If the company is publicly listed on a stock exchange, there may be regulations about such disclosures.
If the shareholder in the BP is a fund, it may be illegal to disclose the owners, often called "Limited Partners". In some jurisdictions, privacy of limited partners is enforced by law, and it is almost always enforced by contract.
We would like to state we had no part in this discussion. We are a self-funded BP who is not owned by any company or fund. EOS Rio idea was conceived inside Rede Entropia, a blockchain & AI Lab here in Rio de Janeiro, but we are an independent front from them.
Ultimately, Dan removed the constitution because he wants the community to take charge. EOS now is a utility token owned by the community who should do its own constitution.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you for the clear response guys
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is true but we are working as a community to add a set of governance documents ourselves
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit