I’m a bit annoyed to be honest with this being my first proposal. @L1bertyLad has acted unprofessionally and not in line with the proper procedures of TAO in my opinion. Certain Council members can no longer hide under the ruse of “personal opinion” when they are interfering with proposals through their own unmonitored Telcoin Telegram group, which currently consists of 2,200 members (from which I’ve been banned).
Swiss Law: Under ZGB Article 65, Council members must act in the Verein’s best interests. Mocking a community proposal while seek validation for your ownin a public, unmonitored Telegram group could harm the Association’s mission to foster community adoption and collaboration, potentially constituting a breach of fiduciary duty.
⸻
Soliciting Validation for Their Proposal
What This Means:
The Council member sought community support for their own proposal in the Telegram group before countering mine. This may have been an attempt to bolster their proposal’s legitimacy or sway sentiment against mine.
Implications:
• Bias and Conflict of Interest:
If their proposal competes with mine (e.g., for funding, resources, or priority within the Telcoin ecosystem), soliciting validation while simultaneously mocking mine clearly indicates bias. Potential conflicts include:
• Misuse of Influence:
Using their Council position to rally support in a public group leverages authority unfairly—especially when I was excluded from the conversation.
• Transparency Violation:
Discussing their proposal in a group I had no access to limits my ability to respond or engage, undermining the Association’s commitment to transparency. Council members are expected to post proposal updates on Discord (e.g., the TELIP updates channel), not just in Telegram, to ensure open access for all.
• Governance Breach:
The Telcoin Association requires that Council members debate proposals transparently—either during biweekly Discord meetings or through official snapshot voting updates. Soliciting validation in an unofficial Telegram group may bypass formal processes, particularly if the proposal hasn’t been formally submitted or disclosed.
Swiss Law (ZGB Article 65):
Council members are required to remain impartial and to disclose any conflicts of interest. Soliciting validation for a competing proposal—without transparency or disclosure of personal interest—could be a direct violation of this duty, especially if it unfairly influences decisions made within the Association.
This wasn’t in the forum it was in a telegram group before he made his proposal. Using his own telegram group with over 2000 members to undermine proposals and ask the members to validate his own is unprofessional. Looking at the comments and the way this was handled is shocking and crosses the line of the whole purpose of TAO. Constantly seeing certain council members over stepping the line between, council member and community member when it suits their narrative
While I agree with your proposal and its intent, I disagree that’s what’s going on here in regards to the response or his opinion.
With that said, it wasn’t the right place to post a counter proposal - that’s the first time I’ve seen that. Even so, Council members are allowed to have an opinion, that doesn’t mean that your proposal isn’t applicable to be voted on.
My goal has never been to mock your proposal or shut it down. I raised concerns based on strategic direction, not personal feelings. And just like any member of the community or council, I offered a counterproposal because I genuinely believe Telcoin’s current focus should lean toward infrastructure and ecosystem growth. It wasn’t meant to undermine you—it was meant to add another option to the discussion, which is exactly what the governance process is for.
Regarding Swiss law and fiduciary duty—I appreciate you bringing that up. But let’s be careful not to escalate this into something it’s not. Raising concerns or promoting an alternative idea isn’t a breach of duty. If anything, we all have a duty to make sure proposals are challenged, refined, and pressure-tested before getting pushed forward. That’s not bias—that’s good governance. We’re all here for the same reason: to build something great for Telcoin. Let’s not let debate get mistaken for disrespect.
As for the telegram; that is a private account unaffiliated with the Association or Telcoin Holdings and I never undermined you or your proposal. Like others in that chat, I had some concerns about the proposal and addressed them professionally.
While we can agree that your counter proposal and the original proposal run contesting ideas, I do think this conversation fosters a lot of great discussion.
Right now, we aren’t doing enough to market, in either way. I think we all agree on that. I appreciate contesting ideas with the goal of reaching the best possible outcome and direction for the project.
That’s not true, I’ve read the comments. This platform is supposed to be for discussion on proposals. Council members shouldn’t be going out of official channels and having debates on proposals before it’s discussed under a monitored format (hence the whole purpose of TAO)
What’s the point of proposals coming up for debate if a selected few have already had the debate amongst themselves unmonitored?
The Telcoin power users telegram is not an official Telcoin channel, if that’s what you are referring to. They’re certainly allowed to have their opinions and state them - that doesn’t mean they supersede the proposal process.
and I feel it’s been a respectful dialogue here
Furthermore just because a parallel discussion happens, doesn’t make your proposal invalidated. I (and others) think it holds some great ideas.
That’s my point — it’s not official, and it’s run by a select few council members. It shouldn’t be used to go against proposals posted in the forum or to validate their own before posting. It’s biased and, as I mentioned, like it or not, goes beyond the ruse of “personal opinion.”
I’ve been more than happy to debate in the forum, and it’s been great dialogue, as you mentioned. Unfortunately, as a community member, watching your proposal being mocked in a council-run Telegram group — and then seeing council members pick it apart under the guise of “personal opinion” while promoting their own and offering no opportunity to reply — is far from professional. Surely, this isn’t what TAO is about.
You’re absolutely right that the forum is the official place for proposals, and that’s why I’ve taken the time to engage here in detail. But I want to be really clear about something: the Telegram group isn’t council-run. It’s an open community space that’s been around long before this proposal, and it includes people from all over—not just council members. Anyone who wants to talk about Telcoin is welcome to join and share ideas there. It’s not part of any formal decision-making, and it shouldn’t be treated as if it is.
If parts of your proposal were mocked there, that’s not okay. I didn’t encourage that, and I’ll stand up and say that everyone—especially someone putting their first proposal forward—deserves respect, even when there’s disagreement. I’ve only ever raised points about strategy and alignment with Telcoin’s mission, not taken shots at you personally or tried to shut you down.
But I also don’t believe that talking to the community—on Telegram, Discord, or anywhere else—automatically makes someone biased or unprofessional. Sharing a viewpoint, even strongly, isn’t the same as abusing a position. Everyone in this ecosystem has the right to weigh in early and publicly, and I’d hope that applies to you just as much as it does to me or anyone else.
That said, I don’t want this to spiral into personal accusations. You’ve made a thoughtful proposal, and we’ve had a solid back-and-forth on the ideas that is shifting in a direction I don’t think is at all warranted.
It does not apply to me—that’s the point. You pick and choose who can be in that group, and I’m not in it to defend myself.
Council members shouldn’t be picking apart community members’ proposals while validating their own on platforms that the community member can’t access. I only became aware of this happening not too long ago. Until then, we were all having a great, unbiased discussion in the forum where EVERYONE involved could respond.
Anyone can join that telegram group. You only get banned if you do not follow the rules; as with any social media platform. I’m certainly not trying to undermine you. In fact, I only addressed the proposal in there after someone in that telegram group initially sent your proposal to everyone and followed up with “anyone feel free to provide some feedback to my friends proposal”… which is what I and others did. Discord and the forum are the official channels.. That does not mean everyone is confined to only speak on those channels. I do not say anything in there that I am unwilling to say in here or anywhere else.
Not trying to undermine me? You classed my proposal as treating Telcoin like a meme in your telegram group. You totally undermined everything that was in the proposal.
A council members personal opinion still matters. But they were elected to represent a group of people and so far every council on every proposal has taken all factors into consideration when deliberating. Also just because you put in a proposal doesn’t mean it’s just gonna get done! I disagree with influencers at this point and lean towards what liberty is saying as far as aiming funds to developers on the network. Don’t forget the more mno’s, developers, company’s using the network we reap the rewards of THEM doing the promoting!!
Coming on to debate a proposal is one thing but comments like this?
“Also just because you put in a proposal doesn’t mean it’s just gonna get done!”
Implying I’m incapable of understanding that myself.
Let me guess you’re also a council member in charge of the telegram channel
I’m lost for words. I’ve witnessed it in the discord but never in the forum. It seems pointless complaining to the compliance council as you’re probably on it. I will raise this with the ESA.
Mocking community members with opposing views shouldn’t be in line with the laws of this council. It’s definitely don’t feel like a decentralised platform I for one won’t be posting a proposal again
That person was me, i was sharing the link to the forum proposal, and insited the community actually reply directly on this forum post, attached screenshot.
Unjust mocking a proposal out of context by a council in an unofficial telegram chat isn’t a debate. It goes beyond that even, right down to discord. The absence of clear boundaries allows council members to mock and belittle community members at will, fostering a toxic environment that dampens decentralization. In my view, this governance structure is broken and fails to reflect the inclusive ethos I believed TAO represented. As stated it’s pointless taking this to the compliance council I’ve gathered screen shots and will seek a complaint else where
I don’t understand how this is assumed as mocking. As a 3rd party onlooker and someone who supports your proposal, I don’t agree with your sentiment. The correspondence here has been professional and informative.
Your proposal will still be heard and voted on or incorporated in another proposal, so I’m unsure why there is such animosity, but maybe it’s best if this gets taken offline as it seems it may be personal.
