Back to collectionThe Question Inside a “Reasonable Time”
Background: The previous day's assurance said eligible Vanguard participants would receive their rewards “eventually,” but gave no date. Today: One poster made a legal argument: once a proposal passes, the foundation has a duty to carry it out within a reasonable time. Impact and next steps: The discussion moved from whether rewards would arrive to how progress should be explained.
A creative chronicle combining project history with imagined scenes. Story events are not verification of network activity.
Background: The previous day's assurance said eligible Vanguard participants would receive their rewards “eventually,” but gave no date. People on the forum were no longer content with repeated requests for patience. They began discussing what should constrain implementation once a proposal had passed.
Today: One poster made a legal argument: once a proposal passes, the foundation has a duty to carry it out within a reasonable time. A reply immediately asked just one question: “Reasonable?” It offered no alternative deadline, but exposed the gap in the argument. Without public steps or dates, who could judge how long was reasonable?
Impact and next steps: The discussion moved from whether rewards would arrive to how progress should be explained. The forum argument was not a legal ruling, and it did not create a schedule for the foundation. The poster planned to ask questions that could be answered directly: what stage had been reached, and when would the next update come? A response was still uncertain.