3 ms·
>Writing small novels in response to simple questions ("who owns the company", "in what countries are you a legal entity") was never going to work with the CA f
by treis 4y ago
>Writing small novels in response to simple questions ("who owns the company", "in what countries are you a legal entity") was never going to work with the CA forum
>Unknown until recently by any employee officers of TrustCor we and Measurement Systems S de RL had in common a group of investors who represented funds (groups of companies and other funds), not individuals. Even though we shared a common group of investment funds, we have always operated our business independently of any other company and have exclusion provisions in place to protect the CA business from having access-to or being controlled by or influenced from any third-party, investors, equity-holders, or anyone other than TrustCor’s CA Approving Officials and employees. To the best of our knowledge (and our focused investigation) there is not and has never been shared ownership with any defense company or any USA company. This common group of investors with Measurement Systems S de RL. had already dissolved mid 2021, before these recent claims were publicized, meaning as a natural course of business and not as a reaction to any claims or adverse events. In 2021 TrustCor ownership was transferred from the initial investors/founders to the employees of TrustCor. The legal process has been very step-by-step and very slow, especially due to the protracted treatment and recent death of one key founder, Ian Abramowitz. Nonetheless, it is underway and irreversible, and the common investment vehicle was dissolved over a year ago.
I'm not sure how that isn't a straightforward answer to a somewhat complicated situation in transition.
- ethbr0 4y agoYeah... I feel like a lot of people on HN are seeing a wall of text, not reading it, and jumping on the bandwagon. Don't fault a person for giving a comprehensive answer when you ask an important but complicated question. If people knee-jerk from that, that's a listener problem, not an answerer problem.
- zchrykng 4y agoThe thing is that it wasn't a comprehensive answer. It was a wall of text that attempted to appear like it was giving an answer while not actually clarifying anything. As a CA, even a hint of malfeasance should require in depth transparent answers. Not this legal BS peddling.
- ethbr0 4y agoSo you think other CAs would field these questions better? Because from what I read, I could see a decent chunk of them getting tossed out at the end of the star chamber as well. And then we'd be left with a more centralized system with a few large players. If corporate structure, ownership, and governance is important (it is!), then there should be standard processes, not ad hoc lines of interrogation whenever a CA happens to be noticed.
- Nullabillity 4y ago> And then we'd be left with a more centralized system with a few large players. The CA system is already designed like a centralized system where the operators (CAs) have full privileges. Adding another CA just means adding another potentially malicious or vulnerable single point of failure that could bring down the whole system.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]