[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: General Resolution: Liquidate donated assets as soon as possible

Quoting Louis-Philippe Véronneau (2022-06-19 17:25:42)
> On 2022-06-19 03 h 18, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 11:14:31PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> >>>> Someone pointed out "assets" is very broad, and that would include
> >>>> things like hardware donations (something I don't think would be wise).
> >>>>
> >>>> I would hereby like to amend my proposal by replacing "assets" by
> >>>> "financial assets":
> >>>>
> >>>> ==== Text of GR ====
> >>>>
> >>>> Donations to the Debian project of *financial* assets other than the
> >>>> TO's currency of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> ==== End Text of GR ====
> >>>
> >>> I'd suggest you also provide a definition.  Do you intend to prevent a TO from accepting donated frequent flyer miles and keeping them long enough to provide an airplane ticket to someone who can't otherwise afford to go to Debconf?  I'd say that the current text would require them to be converted to cash and I don't think that would be the best thing.
> >>
> >> The definition of "financial asset" on Wikipedia is:
> >>
> >> "A non-physical asset whose value is derived from a contractual claim,
> >> such as bank deposits, bonds, and participations in companies' share
> >> capital."
> > So no cryptocurrency or other probably easily liquidated things?
> I'd argue cryptocurrency is a form of financial assets yes. This GR
> would force TOs to liquidate donated cryptocurrency when they receive it
> in the name of the Debian project.

In Denmark, crypto currencies are explicitly not "financial assets" by
the definition you quote: I am legally obligated to report both easily
liquidable financial assets like bonds and more complicated ones only
potentially later holding value (mentioning here to clarify that it is
not a matter of needing to report only what is immediately taxed), but
only when I "liquidate" crypto currencies is the resulting trade
evaluated regarding taxes: My understanding is that he danish government
do not currently want to collect taxes of "toy money" because that would
also mean that they would need to accept tax *deductions* from loss of
same "toy money".

My point is *not* to invite a debate about how to interpret this, only
to point out that your proposed GR is too vague.  If obvious to you what
you propose, then perhaps you need to expand with references to the
definitions you find obvious - i.e. something more substantial than
above quoted text if your intent is for the definition to unambiguously
include crypto currencies!

That said, you will not have my support for this bill - I agree with
others suggesting we leave it to the appointed leader and delegated

Kind regards,

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: