Firstly, we would like to apologise for changing our position. It is what it is, and we must be forthright about it. So here goes:

We have been in a supportive position of the fund, which come from a place of care for BCH. In saying that, we are always in a constant state of learning and questioning, and have come to the realisation that our previous position was incorrect. The merits of the fund are good, such as having the capacity to properly fund our developers and ecosystem, and professionalising our governance to take us to the next level. Though it has now become obvious to us, that the danger of the fund is too great. That danger of course is corruption.

There are of course ways to mitigate corruption through transparency, verification, accountability and constant vigilance. And although these methods have not worked very well in the history of governments, we held the belief that BCH was different because we had the fork. The threat or execution of a fork could effectively split off corrupt elements, and therefore natural selection would purify our culture to have very minimal corruption.

We now acknowledge that this way of thinking is idealistic and ignores the practical necessity for global money – the network effect. In other words, having multiple splits in an attempt to remain corruption-free is incompatible with the network effect needed for global money. The more likely state of affairs that will ensue is that the community will eventually accept corruption instead of shooting itself with continual splits, and then we are back to square one: corruption and government monopoly of money.

The voluntary donation model on the other hand is inefficient and chaotic. However, it is also a model that has worked quite well to date, and helps us have an abundance of passionate people who sacrifice their time for spreading freedom. In conclusion, the voluntary donation model will help us avoid both corruption and splits. Our focus should be on making our voluntary donation model work better. We have some suggestions listed below:

For donors:

- Improved ways to advertise the good deeds of donors e.g. read.cash showing the donors’ logos is great.

- Be proactive with donating, don’t just wait for somebody to ask for a donation.

For recipients:

- Have better organisational structure to depend on more people that have limited hours.

- Find ways of managing finances for when cash flow is low, perhaps a have good savings strategy.

- Improved ways of advertising your good and noble work, and have integrity and be as transparent as possible.