Quote from: YoYa on March 25, 2014, 09:48:36 PM

Quote from: His Most Eminent Highness Grand Caesar Imperator Goat on March 25, 2014, 09:15:50 PM

some of the largest holders are already working on this. Garr needs to be gone since we cant leave on our own.

Goat, shouldn't we be doing this using the appropriate forum of shareholder meetings, motions, and agreements?

You've made clear your feelings towards Garr, now let's find the means to secure COG's future by using the appropriate processes and procedures necessary to form an agreeable corporate structure going forward.

Now with regard to that, we should establish a corporate structure which would basically be an board to which operations would report. In COG's case, we are somewhat limited by the options available, but I do believe we could form a three or four person board representing: Operations, Large Shareholders, Small Shareholders, and Chairperson. Operations will be held responsible to the board, who may raise a motion to remove anyone they may feel isn't completing their duties. The board will be responsible for scheduling shareholder meetings, agendas, and ensuring that reports are published in a timely manner. The board might also be a good interface for the exchanges in dealing with COG.

Operations will consist of:
Finance
Mining Support
Shareholder support and PR
Hardware acquisition.

Given the size of the operation, it will be acceptable for one person to hold more than one role starting out. This should give us enough flexibility to secure the smooth running of the operation as well as ensuring that shareholders interests are looked after and maintained.

This is just a constructive suggestion to try and share my knowledge on the matter, any other suggestions would be welcome.

This is along the lines of what I am thinking. There is no reason necessarily to exclude Garrett from the operation but it is clear that some experienced operators need to step in for certain oversight and finance roles. Best case scenario is agreements that avoid court action as a very last resort yet make a large majority of shareholders relatively whole. It's clear there are holders here who have skills that could be put to cognitive mining's best use. There is no reason not to use talent that is available provided they are able to prove trustworthiness or are able to escrow some coin as Tafelpoot mentioned.

Quote from: Tafelpoot on March 25, 2014, 04:08:30 PM

Garrett would you be willing to be responsible for the mining part, while leaving the management part to someone else?
You were still not able to give a detailed and provable overview of the expenses and income of the last 6 months and a lot of bitcoins seem to be missing in the fund.
Some external person could produce new 1cog adresses for you to put the miners to and take care of issuing the dividends.
While it doesn't protect cognitive from you pointing the miners to personal addresses, it does safeguard the reinvestment fund from you using it for personal loans (FIMB) and other projects (HF bailout).
I'd be willing to do this and even put some of my own btc with a reputable escrow to show that I wouldn't just run away with the funds.