PACnode is not owned by PAC Global LLC or vice versa - from a legal point of view they are independent entities which share the CEO. "A CEO is elected by the board and its shareholders." (source:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceo.asp).
In any case, thank you for clearly going out on a limb to hurt this project - I am sure that owners of over 6000 active masternodes are all happy about it. I personally would not want anyone, who believes your claims, to get involved in the project - that would simply mean they either did not do their research or have little clue about legal aspects of business.
Lol... Cookiess the guy from a team which tweet about a fake youtube account, a fake exchanges scam, want to educate me. The same team which are leaded by a house painter, an industrial engineer student, want to teach me what is a CEO and a conflict of interest.
Start by educating yourself.
Who are you trying to fool?
PAC team VS thousand of professor in business who have hundred years of experience. Are you fucking serious?"A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party. "For example, if you have to decide if the collateral for a masternode should be increased or NO, Don't you think that your stupid CEO will be influenced by the fact he has a company making money by masternodes? Are you that stupid Cookiess?
How could you be sure that Drew will make the right choice for the best of the interest of masternodes holder or Pac company?
Please don't put yourself in a bad situation by answering to this question.
Let me educate you Cookiess:
"Conflicts of interest abound at the board level. They constitute a significant issue in that they affect ethics by distorting decision making and generating consequences that can undermine the credibility of boards, organizations or even entire economic systems.
Many corporations require board members to sign a conflict of interest policy at the time of appointment or to declare any conflicts of interest at the beginning of board meetings. Conflict of interest policies normally specify how directors should avoid conflicts of interest. This narrow focus only scratches the surface, given the scope, responsibilities and dynamics of decision making in the boardroom."
Now, 6000 of masternodes does not give a proof of you being taken seriously. I remember one guy complaining 1000 NO votes in once against his DAO. This is a proof that at least one guy had 1000 masternodes. Another one ex-team member saying he holds 700 masternodes.
"A director occupies a position of trust in a company and must therefore avoid situations in which the directors own interests conflict with those of the company. This is enshrined in the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) as the duty to avoid conflict unless the company releases the director from that duty. This briefing looks at some points to consider when faced with conflicts and how they can be either avoided or mitigated and managed.
Directors Duties
The directors duty to avoid conflicts of interest is linked to the duty not to make a personal profit from his or her position. It also applies to the duties to act in the interests of the company, to act honestly and responsibly, to act in accordance with the companys constitution and for the director to exercise an independent judgement.
Questions of Conflict
Does the director have a financial, business or familial relationship with a party to the arrangement that would reasonably undermine the directors impartiality to the companys detriment?"
I have to try to educate you since you are either wrong or mixing things up - for example:
1. You have been claiming that PAC Global CMO is mechanical engineer (although I have been telling you he is not that). Now, all of the sudden, you are claiming he is industrial engineering student. Please, go and look up the difference between the two. In any case, clearly your "research" yielded wrong results.
2. In the initial post you were commenting on PACnode being declared as a third party. When I responded to your comments, you switched subjects and instead of "third party" you are suddenly talking about "conflict of interest". Clearly, you are mixing the terms up: being a third party and being in conflict of interest is not opposite to one another. The term "third party" is about which entity is responsible for what (in a legal sense, towards customers etc.). For example, if PAC Global board would decide (btw. "The board has the power to overrule the CEO's decisions, but the chairman of the board does not have the power to overrule the board") on something, PACnode (and its board) cannot be held responsible for it and vice versa. They are third parties.
As for the very same definition you picked out:
"A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party. "
you mentioned following example:
"For example, if you have to decide if the collateral for a masternode should be increased or NO, Don't you think that your stupid CEO will be influenced by the fact he has a company making money by masternodes?"
This is irrelevant, since PACnode is not making profit for itself - the owners of PAC are making profit. In addition, there is no difference between a PACnode managed masternode and other PAC masternodes. In other words, every decision which PAC Global makes affects every masternode owner in the same way, regardless where their masternode is managed by PACnode or not.
and another example:
"How could you be sure that Drew will make the right choice for the best of the interest of masternodes holder or Pac company?"
Same as above: your example/question affects all masternode owners in the same way and not only the minority of masternodes which are managed by PACnode and is, therefore, irrelevant.
Any other examples?
So, as to the first sentence of the above definition: How can serving interests of PACnode be working "against interests" of PAC Global or vice versa?
As for the second sentence of the above definition: What duties (which can be adversely affected) are we talking about in our case?
Before you answer, please note following:
1. PACnode and PAC Global have no political or law-making power or influence.
2. The two entities are not competitors.
3. The PAC Global project is an open source project - everything what is being done can (but does not have to) be used by everyone willing to do it.
4. The two entities, while one is essentially aiming to develop the PAC blockchain network as a technology and the other is helping PAC owners to make profit by managing their masternodes, are not profit-oriented companies/organizations themselves - they are aiming to work at 0 profit (income = expenses).
In addition, PAC owners that use PACnode as a service can put PACnode out of business by simply withdrawing their PAC (at nearly 0 cost) from it. As PACnode is slowly growing, this seems not to be the case - nobody seems to be worried.
Also, you have heard about a guy having 1000 PAC masternodes? Right, please stop using hearsay as arguments.
More importantly: Could you, please, address someone without insulting them first?
