It's not very amusing to me that geek culture can't handle objectively reading writing from a discipline other than their own. Imho, Matthew Hardeman makes the

It's not very amusing to me that geek culture can't handle objectively reading writing from a discipline other than their own. Imho, Matthew Hardeman makes the best point in the entire thread: "Something that yet again concerns me in this discussion is an issue that I touched on previously in the discussions related to Dark Matter: that unless the program is requiring transparency as to corporate governance and management/operations authority, and establishing a basis for trust and accountability at the level of those individuals empowered by participation in the program, I believe we will continue to see these subjective trust decisions again and again. [...] I once again humbly submit that I believe the executive and operational management teams of the CAs in the programs should be required to submit to the root program personal attestations as to their position and authority along with a commitment to inform the program promptly if anything has altered or replaced their authority. I believe there should be an explicit understanding that failures by such person(s) would be held against such person(s) individually and would bar their involvement at other trusted CAs for an indefinite period. I yet again advocate for a measurable standard for holding CAs accountable at the executive management / operations level with costs taxed upon those persons who have made commitments to the program and failed to honor them. It seems likely to me that one or more presently included CA could be reasonably described as owned by Blackrock or Vanguard. [...]"