The Telcoin Association is the correct entity for this engagement. Telcoin Holdings is a commercial member within the ecosystem. The Association’s mandate is to govern Telcoin Network and advance its adoption by GSMA mobile network operators, which is precisely what this advisory engagement is designed to accelerate.
On STORM: the accountability framework governing their revised engagement is detailed in Part 2 of this proposal. It includes defined scope areas, monthly tracking, bi-weekly check-ins, and quarterly reviews with exit provisions. The community’s frustration with sentiment and visibility is a fair challenge and one we take seriously. The STORM amendment directly addresses scope: refocusing their role on community stability and BD pipeline support rather than broad marketing, and the accountability framework gives the TAO and Councils structured visibility into whether that is working.
On the month-four announcement: this is the most consistent piece of feedback in this thread and it deserves a direct answer. The sequencing is not about confidence - the Councils are fully briefed and fully convinced. It is about effectiveness. In telecom and enterprise environments, early conversations are meaningfully more productive when they are positioned as neutral, relationship-driven exchanges rather than immediately framed through a formal advisory role. A senior operator approaching peers as a trusted voice in the industry opens doors differently than that same person approaching them as a named advisor to a blockchain project. That distinction matters in the early weeks of relationship building, and protecting it for an initial period is how you get the highest-quality introductions and the most candid conversations. The community will see the substance of that work: the articles, the framing, the ideas - before the announcement. The name follows the track record, not the other way around.
On execution: agreed. The community has been patient. This engagement is one part of a broader push into the execution phase, not a substitute for it.
These are legitimate concerns and they deserve direct answers.
On transparency: Council members have full visibility into the advisor’s identity, credentials, and contract terms. The community has a detailed profile and will have a name at month four. We recognize that asks for a degree of trust during the interim period and we do not take that lightly. The governance structure of the Association — elected Councils accountable to the community — is the mechanism designed to carry that responsibility on the community’s behalf.
On the metrics: the accountability framework deliberately distinguishes between directional indicators and outcome triggers. Meetings and introductions are tracked because they are leading indicators of outcomes that move on 12 to 18 month cycles in the telecom industry. The milestone bonuses — GSMA institutional positioning and a first design partner LOI — are the outcome markers. They are the only payments above the base retainer and they do not pay unless they are achieved. Additionally, the engagement is subject to mutual quarterly reviews, meaning the TAO and Councils assess progress and retain the ability to exit if the engagement is not delivering.
On timing: the narrative tension you are identifying is real and worth addressing honestly. The Association has made genuine progress in MNO engagement. What this TELIP funds is the specific capability required for the next layer of that engagement — GSMA standardization — which requires a voice from inside the operator community. That is not a retreat from progress already made. It is the next level of what has to happen for Telcoin Network to become the blockchain standard for telecoms rather than simply a compelling option that operators are evaluating.
Thanks, Evan.
On additional advisor signal: we understand the request. We will discuss at today’s Council meeting whether there is additional profile detail that can be shared without compromising the operational rationale for the pre-announcement phase and will follow up in this thread.
On the GSMA Working Group milestone: the distinction you are drawing between genuine institutional engagement and baseline GSMA member access is well-taken. What I would say is this: the contract terms as agreed are not something we are reopening at this stage. Doing so introduces renegotiation risk into a relationship we have worked carefully to structure, with an advisor who has committed to meaningful terms — including deploying his own blockchain products on Telcoin Network — that we are not prepared to jeopardize over language refinement this late in the process. More importantly, we do not need to reopen the language. The quarterly mutual reviews built into the engagement exist precisely for this purpose. Whether any claimed milestone achievement represents genuine institutional progress — named contributor status, a defined working group role, a published output — versus baseline member access is a judgment call the TAO and Councils retain full authority to make at the point of the claim. The review structure is the safeguard, not the contract language.
On the STORM reporting structure: valid point, and addressed. The proposal has been updated to clarify that the TAO owns the submission of advisory performance reporting to Council. STORM coordinates and translates advisory inputs into council-ready formats, and the advisor reviews and confirms each quarterly summary — but accountability for what reaches Council sits with the TAO.
1 Like
Not the right forum but there’s literally no response from holding’s on Discord but this is why I struggle with STORM:
https://x.com/storm_partners/status/2042569485920432571?s=46
A post about‘Navigating Digital Assets in Banking and there’s literally zero mention of Telcoin Digital Asset Bank…am I missing something?
The Platform Council portion of the TELIP14: Strategic Telecom Advisory Engagement passed here
It is now up for voting on the Treasury Council Snapshot page here
The Treasury Council Snapshot passed on Apr 25, 2026. Results here.
1 Like
The advisor’s identity is disclosed to all Council members under the confidentiality obligations set forth in Article 32 of the Telcoin Association Constitution and will be publicly announced at month four following an initial content and evaluation phase.
Just observing that 3 months from April 25th 2026, is July 25th 2026. Please be ready to divulge this information to the community.
It’s not from the date the snapshot passed. It’s when the contract was signed. Early september
Oh ffs of course, taking as long as possible I see, silly me, how could I not have realized.
The proposal states that Council members had already been briefed on the advisor’s identity before the vote:
“The advisor’s identity has been disclosed to all Platform Council, Treasury Council, and Compliance Council members…”
and
“Council members have been briefed on the advisor’s identity and credentials.”
Both are written in the past tense.
Can you point to the part of the TELIP that says this disclosure only occurred upon contract signing or contract execution?
I can’t find any language that says the advisor’s identity would only be shared with Council after the Snapshot vote passed. Likewise, I can’t find anything that says the “month 1–3” evaluation period wouldn’t begin until some later contract signing date.
If that was the intended timeline, it should have been explicitly stated in the proposal, because it materially changes when the community should reasonably expect the month 4 public announcement.
The councils knew who it is from the start. The vote was to authorize the setup and payment process but no matter how hard you try the introduction of this person wasn’t happening from that date
I understand that’s your interpretation, but I’m asking where the proposal actually says that.
The TELIP never states that the month 1–3 evaluation period begins upon contract execution or that the month 4 announcement is measured from the contract date. It says council members had already been briefed, and then describes a three-month evaluation followed by a month 4 announcement.
If the intended timeline was “contract signing + four months,” that should have been explicitly disclosed in the proposal because it’s materially different from what many readers would reasonably infer.
tl;dr this was poorly communicated but that’s par for the course at this stage.
It’s not my interpretation. I’m a council member and we have known who it is from the start. The public being told has been the same from the start. A snapshot passing wasn’t the start of this persons job. There’s a little more that goes into it. So again. Early September is around when it will happen
1 Like
I’m not disputing that internally everyone understood the timeline. I’m questioning whether that timeline was actually properly communicated to the community in the TELIP that we were asked about and you voted on.
What aren’t you getting here?
Nothing in the proposal tells readers that the month 1-3 evaluation period only begins after contract execution or that the month 4 announcement is measured from that date rather than from the proposal’s approval. Your glibness doesn’t change this.
If i have over-looked a line in the proposal, by all means, quote it back to me??
I think we can both agree how time works and that April 25th through to September (1st?) is approximately 4.25 months, which is well past when many would have otherwise expected an announcement on this.
This proposal was to consider the execution and finalization of a contract as outlined in the proposal. The finalization of the vote authorizes the TAO to proceed. You cannot have a contractual timeline without the contract itself being legally executed.
I don’t see how this statement in any way addresses what I’m asking about, but .. thanks for commenting I guess.
Explaining that this is semantics to argue contractual obligations versus voting on pursuit of execution of a contract - but this also has been discussed multiple times.
You asked when this will be announced, a council member clarified.
This was also elaborated on June 19th council call when asked.
Q: How long will it be until the advisor becomes known to the community?
Parker: “I want to say we’re about a month of the engagement … so, it’s after the first three three months, we’ll formalize the public announcement and acknowledgement of it.“
Also in another meeting, same question: “end of August, early September, somewhere in that time frame.”
I hope this helps clarify and answer your question.
1 Like
Why are you pointing to statements made in council meetings, when I am talking about the proposal itself? I have specifically asked for you to quote any part I’ve overlooked (or misunderstood even) in the proposal. Instead you both keep pointing to the councils own internal understanding of this matter.
Genuinely baffled by these responses - I guess i’ll consider writing a proposal relating to how timelines are communicated to the community/and request that the council has a standard slightly higher than “well we mentioned it in our zoom call”.
Alright, if you’re specifically narrowing scope asking for the words in the proposal, they’re there: “effective date.” I pulled some stuff from the bilaws and Swiss verein laws to illustrate the process and point.
“Effective date” is a contract term — the date an executed agreement takes effect. It can’t attach to a vote, because a Snapshot result isn’t a contract and has no effective date (a contract forms by assent of the parties — the Association and the advisor — CO Art. 1). That’s not loose drafting; it’s the structure of the Association. Telcoin is a Swiss Verein (Civil Code Arts. 60–79): a council vote is a resolution that authorizes (Art. 64); executing and signing is the managing body’s job (Art. 69). By using “effective date,” the proposal already tied the clock to execution — the vote authorized moving forward, it didn’t start the count.
Where you’re right: the TELIP didn’t define “effective date,” and the execution date wasn’t published in the doc. But the answer to that is to ask the council — which is exactly what’s happened. When the question was put to them, they confirmed the execution-based reading: on the June 19 public council call, another public council call in May, and again in this thread just now, where you asked for clarification and it was given (posts #33, #35, from a council member). It’s certainly mot meant to be some arbitrary mystery.
If you want to argue technicalities, it’s also why the specific thing you’re asking for is unrealistic. A governance proposal operates against background law — it doesn’t, and can’t, restate the Civil Code or Code of Obligations inside itself. Demanding a sentence that spells out “the month 1–3 clock begins upon contract execution” is asking a proposal to recite a legal default that the term “effective date” already carries. Proposals authorize; they don’t reproduce contract law. The absence of that sentence isn’t evidence the clock runs from the vote — it’s just how proposals are written.
So: not the vote date, and not merely because a call said so — because the proposal’s own chosen term means contract execution, and the council has confirmed that reading each time it’s been asked. We’ll look at improving how these type of things are reported moving forward. Thanks for your feedback.