Has anybody done any due diligence on the interaction between Swirlds and Hedera and the framework for handling conflicts of interest on the management team? If not, I think this would be a good topic for Mance and Leemon to address at the next Town Hall.
I ask because there seems to be a lot of uncertainty and confusion around how Hedera's public use of the hashgraph tech might come into play with private implementations such as CBDCs and AppNets. Here are some examples of questions I have:
* Who would benefit the most from CBDCs using hashgraph, Swirld's investors or HBAR holders? How are interests aligned or misaligned?
* Do Mance or Leemon have incentives to steer businesses and governments to build private networks using Swirlds tech, and only offering HCS as the public timestamping and ordering service? How do they prioritize interests and align incentives on what to recommend to customers? When do they encourage public vs private implementations and why?
* When Mance and Leemon talk about raising new financing, are they talking about raising money for Swirlds or for Hedera? Are new innovations and discoveries owned by Swirlds, or by Hedera?
* Are Mance and Leemon selling their hBars? Are they also selling Swirld's shares? Where do they stand to make the most money? Are Swirlds employees comped in Swirlds option or in HBARs?
* How does the Governance Council think about conflicts of interest between public and private applications of the tech and how will it assert its rights when the lines get blurry in hybrid solutions, especially when Leemon and Mance may have conflicts?
These are just a few of the many questions I have seen from others or had myself. The glib response from some HBAR holders is to accept the fact that Hedera GC doesn't care about or owe anything to HBAR holders (we aren't shareholders) and to just hodl because the core objectives/structure/strategy of Hedera will ultimately result in value to HBARs (or sell if you don't believe, the net...