CountZerpula

... yeah, we finally get to hear a bit more about the specific processes and what differentiates their solution from anything else on the market. I love the part in the second interview where he begins to describe the process by which they make their attestations ('proofs' ?) and he makes the distinction that, rather than that the solution simply replaces the 'need for trust', it's more that it 'replaces trust with truth' ... can't wait to see this thing in full daylight.

Last mention was that the project would likely roll out as initially planned, but could change as it moved forward.

also:

For those following along with Trustline/Probity Matt, from Probity Discord earlier today

No worries … overall we get a look at the source video, of which the entire discussion is fantastic - and we get Darren’s take alongside Mickey & Patty; always interesting to have a few different voices in the conversation, and without much fluff. Which is by no means a shot at the lovely @CryptoEri

Absolutely - some great discussion without a lot of the noise; I've been there all day ... time for a break ... about to head down to the beach while it's still light out ... cheers

Discussion is ongoing here in the Flare Proposal Group https://t.me/flareproposals

Well, I think it's been handled pretty well overall. Minority opinion though it may be ... to your last point, no it didn't really strike me as being as huge a deal as others might see it. An act of governance can dissolve the Flare Foundation and force it to burn all of it's holdings if that's what FLR holders wish, so I just saw it as a choice put in front of us. All better now though Happy that you got a reply on that one ... great question

That’s one way to look at it. I see it as that they recognized the concern amongst the distribution recipients and facilitated a way to allow everybody involved to come to a resolution. The only bit of criticism I’ll offer is that I think they missed an opportunity to address the distribution mechanics around the time Hugo gave that last interview. It would’ve been timely to unveil the tax memo they received in order for each of us to weigh out whether or not it’s a viable strategy. But that’s just my take. For my money, no big deal, because I was always happy to wait for whenever they’d release that info. I figured we were close, and we now had a bit more information to go on; so much the better. Since they first mentioned their tax memo last fall, I’ve given them the benefit of the doubt that it was sound, but ultimately need to see it for myself to come to my own conclusion. In the interim, we have people everywhere that claim to have a ‘better’ strategy, meanwhile - how many of them knew about the forward contract component until Hugo mentioned it a few hours ago? Exactly zero, so how can anybody claim to have a ‘better’ solution if they had no way of knowing what Flare’s solution was? If there has been a main contributing factor in the confusion it’s been the collective rush to conclusion absent the facts. I think you and many others are severely overdramatizing this entire ordeal, but we can agree to disagree. But also - we can vote

Sure, we could've had a clear conversation with all the facts present at the time that the tax memo was ultimately to be released. But people couldn't wait for the facts to emerge, and here we are. I think the right time to have released the memo/distribution mechanics rundown was immediately after Hugo introduced the topic in that interview. But that doesn't give license for anybody to have formed a definitive opinion absent all of the facts. We can't know that; this is brand new territory

We talked about that in another thread. I've already finalized my tax strategy for F-assets with my accountant. Just remember that Hugo implicitly mentioned that you are trading one asset for another asset, facilitated by Flare as a cross-chain DEX in that regard. So you may be able to form a strategy whereby you're considering the underlying asset as being 'wrapped' but it's really not. My argument puts forward that the basis should transfer from the underlying to the f-asset by virtue of both the design and intent of the F-asset protocol. This seems the most fair to everybody involved. Or this

Update to latest blog post: https://flare.xyz/flare-token-distribution-governance/

It was always the case that an act of governance could dissolve the Flare Foundation and force it to burn all of it's holdings.

BREAKING - Flare have updated the Claim Decision Tree

I'm open to either option, but frankly - not looking forward to the increased amount of whining around all of this. That Clinton Donnelly blog post, while containing a lot of helpful and correct information, is sort of an embarrassment. And now there are all these freshly minted 'tax experts' on social media who keep pointing back to it for reference. First of all, he went to one of the early Flare ILP blog posts for his source material - back then, part of the vision for the project was that it would've had no native token, and was just a very different 'thing' by conception. From that he concludes that FLR is a 'stablecoin' : For as much as he keeps saying that his post is a 'working document' and to keep following for updates, I just checked, this is still there: https://www.cryptotaxaudit.com/blog/XRP-Investors-Spark-Token-Airdrop-Tax-Not-As-Bad-As-You-Fear Typo - fine, that's one thing, but to let that stay up for more than a few days is just garbage. And then he comes up with some convoluted counter-argument to Flare's tax memo, that he has never seen, based on his interpretation of Hugo's off the cuff summary during that interview. I'm sorry - can anybody point me to where Flare had released that tax memo by June 16th? He must be clairvoyant! I truly hope that people are consulting their own tax professional through all of this.