HIP19 discussion: Revocation of Nebra’s Approval as a Helium Hotspot Manufacturer

[AdaKuz]

Proposed Addendum to HIP 19: Revocation of Nebra’s Approval as a Helium Hotspot Manufacturer

Author: @AdaKuz Start Date: August 30, 2021, or upon adoption Category: Third Party Manufacturer Original HIP PR: 19 Tracking Issue: Unknown

Summary Terminate and revoke any and all approvals and/or contracts and/or agreements and/or relationships with Nebra and all it’s executive officers, including, but not limited to its CEO, Aaron Shaw. Furthermore, impose a lifetime ban for Mr. Shaw’s to have any involvement whatsoever, directly or indirectly, with the manufacturing of Helium hotspots and/or accessories that require Community approval.

Stakeholders

• Who is affected by this HIP?
• The Helium Network
• All past, present and future customers of Nebra.
• All owners of Nebra hotspots, approximately 6,564 hotspots worldwide.
• A future third party updater who will maintain grandfathered Nebra hotspots.

Solicited Feedback Feedback can be found at https://chng.it/7krsJvtv “Helium Community to Revoke Nebra’s Approval (HIP 19)”. This petition was started seeking the support of those affected by Nebra. Currently, over 110 people have signed the petition.

Further information discussed on Tactical Investing: https://youtu.be/pMiOo-QV9Fg

Detailed Explanation This proposal seeks Helium/the Helium Community to immediately terminate and revoke any and all approvals and/or contracts and/or agreements and/or relationships with Nebra and all it’s executive officers, including, but not limited to its CEO, Aaron Shaw. Furthermore, we are seeking Mr. Shaw’s lifetime ban from any involvement whatsoever, directly or indirectly, with Helium related projects that require the approval of the Community. Through its actions, Nebra has deceived its customers by offering and accepting payments for a product that they had no capacity to manufacture or deliver. Nebra has also allegedly edited its Terms and Conditions abdicating any and all responsibilities to their customers. These actions have been exacerbated by Nebra’s complete lack of communication since late July, 2021. All appearances illustrate that Nebra may be a fraudulent entity.

Seeking Nebra’s revocation from Helium and its Network is a fair and measured response to Nebra’s corporate conduct. Nebra has tarnished the legitimacy and reputation of Helium and caused irreparable damage. Nebra has orchestrated financial hardships for its customers; presumably to the benefit of Mr. Shaw. Through the revocation of Nebra’s and Mr. Shaw’s relationship with Helium, it is our hope that no further consumers will be harmed by their practices and that Mr. Shaw is denied participation in similar projects in the future.

In time, the Helium Network’s legitimacy and reputation will be restored.

Implementation Implementing Nebra’s removal as an approved manufacturer would be a phased approach coming into full effect on January 1, 2022.

Phase I On approval of this Addendum, Nebra’s approval is withdrawn. All Nebra hotspots currently on the network are transitioned to a third party updater. This includes all remaining onboards (approximately 4,324). No new orders for Nebra hotspots are accepted by Nebra or third party retailers.

Identify and engage a third party that will assume the updates for grandfathered and newly synced Nebra hotspots.

Phase II Although the Helium Network cannot dictate Nebra’s business operations, it is recommended that all open Nebra orders are fulfilled or canceled and refunded. Nebra shall be given until December 31, 2021 to fulfill open orders. Units not shipped by this date will be considered undeliverable and not permitted on the Helium Network. It is recommended that Nebra will cancel and refund any monies (including cryptocurrencies) paid. Third party retailers will invoke their own policies as it relates to refunds or store credits.

Phase III January 1, 2022: Administration of updates is assumed by a third party. The number of Nebra hotspots on the Helium Network is determined by February 1, 2022 and at such time, that number is finalized and no further Nebra hotspots may be deployed on the Helium Network.

Drawbacks In relation to the integrity of the Helium Network, there are no expected drawbacks. This proposal sets precedent and serves as a warning for other manufacturers that there are consequences to their actions.

Regarding individuals and businesses that chose to do business with Nebra: Their decision was an assumed risk. However, this risk is reasonably mitigated through the phase-in approach.

The Helium Network would require a third party updater to assume the maintenance of grandfathered Nebra hotspots.

Why shouldn’t Helium revoke Nebra’s approval? At this time there are no critical reasons as to why Helium should not revoke Nebra’s approval.

Rationale and Alternatives Nebra has tarnished the legitimacy and reputation of Helium and caused irreparable damage. Nebra has orchestrated financial hardships for its customers; presumably to the benefit of Mr. Shaw. Seeking Nebra’s revocation from Helium and its Network is a fair and measured response to Nebra’s corporate conduct.

The nature of the proposed revocation of Nebra makes this an “all-or-nothing” event. Either Nebra’s participation in the Helium Network is revoked, protecting consumers and the Network, or, Nebra is permitted to continue to the detriment of the Network and consumers.

Unresolved Questions How will grandfathered Nebra hotspots be updated? Who will administer this? Deployment Impact How will current users be impacted? Once a new updater is engaged, grandfathered users would not be impacted

Success Metrics The following metrics must all “pass” for a successful implementation of this proposal:

1. Has Nebra been banned from the Helium Network: Pass/Fail
2. Has Mr. Shaw been identified and banned from being involved in projects requiring Helium Community approval: Pass/Fail
3. Has a third party updater been identified and engaged? Pass/Fail
4. Have Nebra hotspots been delivered or cancelled by January 1, 2022? Pass/Fail
5. Are Nebta hotspots being maintained by a third party on January 1, 2022? Pass/Fail
6. Have all Nebra hotspots that are permitted to join the Helium Network been allowed to do so by February 1, 2022? Pass/Fail

[anthonyra]

I just want to say thank you for writing up an amendment for this discussion! However, I think an important question that should be answered is what's the purpose of HIP19?

Does a HIP19 approval mean that Helium and the community as a whole have a written contract with terms and conditions for the manufacturer?

Does a HIP19 approval mean anything more than verifying that the hardware that will be manufactured meets the security requirements that's needed to operate that hardware on the network?

Question regarding this write up: Is it going to be one strike you're out or will there be different strikes prior to this happening to a future manufacturer? Could the manufacturer in the future return if they get approval via another HIP19 application?

[AdaKuz]

Great points. I'd like to share some of my thoughts to help illustrate my position.

The Helium network is a decentralized wireless network that enables devices anywhere in the world to wirelessly connect to the Internet and geolocate themselves. With the introduction of a blockchain, Helium injects decentralization into an industry currently controlled by monopolies. The result is that wireless network coverage becomes a commodity, fueled by competition. --Helium Whitepaper

In general terms, my position is that HIP19's primary purpose is to protect the integrity of the Helium Network. Currently, by all accounts, the Helium Network resembles an oligarchy with the expansion of the Network controlled by only a few hotspot manufactures and their business decisions. Nebra has made incredibly lofty projections, that, in turn, have stalled and hindered the expansion of the entire Network. They were approved based on criteria designed to help grow the Helium Network. Through their actions and decisions, Nebra has done the opposite, creating irreparable damage to the integrity, trustworthiness, and legitimacy of the Helium Network.

Whether or not there is a "written contract", there is certainly, at the very least, an implied contract: The Helium Community agrees to admit a manufacturer and the manufacturer agrees to help build the Network. It is safe to assume that this agreement comes with an understanding that the manufacturer has the ability to do so in a functional and timely manner while maintaining the integrity and reputation of the Helium Network to consumers.

HIP19 must mean more than just verifying the security integrity of a manufacture's hardware. It must also include the manufactures' ability to contribute to the network by deploying their hardware in the manner that they publish. This is a critical feature for "the people" to make strategic (and financial) decisions regarding deployment.

Question regarding this write up: Is it going to be one strike you're out or will there be different strikes prior to this happening to a future manufacturer? Could the manufacturer in the future return if they get approval via another HIP19 application?

My position is that once a manufacturer is exited, it is a lifetime ban.

Specifically, in Nebra's and Mr. Shaw's case, a lifetime ban is warranted as the monetary value of the matter is estimated to be in excess of $10,000,000 USD.

However, there must be reasonable evidence to get to this point. I would like to point out Tactical Investing's YouTube video on the matter https://youtu.be/pMiOo-QV9Fg. In this video, he deconstructs Nebra's ability to deliver hotspots using their own releases. Whether intentional or not, Nebra's inability to deliver its hardware has become habitual. There is no evidence to suggest Nebra's behaviour or operations will change for the better or that they have the ability to contribute to the Helium Network. The damage they have caused has been done. It is now time for damage control and reparations. Ergo, Helium must be exited and any future Helium projects requiring community approval that include Aaron Shaw must be rejected.

[anthonyra]

Nebra has made incredibly lofty projections, that, in turn, have stalled and hindered the expansion of the entire Network.

With Nebra their most recent update states that they have 30,000 miners that need to be shipped. Bobcat is about to ship their 80,000 miner... Without Nebra the network at time of HIP19 13,000 miners has increased to almost 150,000! Did they independently hinder the growth of the network?

https://etl.dewi.org/question/199-hotspot-onboarding-by-maker-over-time?Days=90

They were approved based on criteria designed to help grow the Helium Network.

They were approved because the hardware that they wanted to sell and connect to the Helium Network met the security requirements to be capable to earn via PoC and nothing more...

If as consumers you want to hold manufacturers to legal requirements than manufacturers should also have the same rights in my opinion. Would they have continued if they were aware of the fact this could occur? Would they have attempted to expand the Helium Network if due to chip issues result in them in being kicked out?

[AdaKuz]

@anthonyra - I truly appreciate your comments. There are two, related, but independent matters at hand: 1) the philosophical foundation (spirit) of HIP19 as it relates to the responsibilities of manufacturers, and 2) the application of HIP19 as it specifically applies to Nebra. The two cannot be confused.

The extent that Nebra hindered the growth of the Network is irrelevant. The fact is, Nebra did. Additionally, Nebra did profiteer from over $10 Million in sales. Nebra benefited while the Network and consumers suffered.

Regarding the rights of manufactures, you essentially answer your own questions. Intentionally, or not, you have proposed the framework for a system of checks-and-balances. That would be a win-win-win-win for the Helium Network, hotspot manufacturers, consumers, and end-users.

A final thought... When faced with any project-related business decision, one of the most critical factors to be considered is the likelihood of success. Closely related is the consequences of failure. In go/no-go matrixes, often the answer is "no-go". But, we're not here to debate the business practices of manufactures.

[wolfenhawke]

"They were approved because the hardware that they wanted to sell and connect to the Helium Network met the security requirements to be capable to earn via PoC and nothing more..." Agreed. All manufacturers are validated as such. "The extent that Nebra hindered the growth of the Network.." If you consider delays in shipping product orders, then many if not all manufacturers have hindered the growth. How do you apply HIP19? It's like saying Tesla hindered the adoption of EV's by not being able to ship enough cars annually. Really, the manufacturers are just lining up to provide a supply for a demand. I listened to Tactical Investing's YouTube entry. Just seems like complaining about shipment delays. While there is a response discussed from Nebra, it is discounted because of the timing. So, note the eMMC issue has also hit Tesla - who are recalling certain cars to replace the center console because of eMMCs that could fail prematurely. Not sure what happened at Nebra, but there are several situations that this could be caught, including good QA testing prior to products being shipped.

Overall, I think this is severe punishment for a situation several manufactures are running into. It potentially opens Helium to legal issues from Nebra. It leaves those that have Nebras out in the cold while the adoption of shipped units is resolved. And, it will limit new manufacturers coming on board when severe business decisions that effects Capex can be made by the folks driving the Opex. I can see putting in a clause to require an audit of operations under certain non-compliant situations. This clause should be known by manufacturers in advance as well as a definition of how this happens.

Based on the risk and the disruption to the Helium network, and the possible disruption to the maker pipeline, I disagree with the implementation of HIP19.

[AdaKuz]

Consider that events surrounding Nebra are a catalyst that have exposed a hole in the Helium approval process. Nebra's actions must be used to set a precedent that profiteering and deception are unacceptable (as they typically are in a court of law). However, first, the hole in Helium Policies must be plugged, and only then can Nebra can be dealt with.

In this debate and discussion, in counterarguing the proposal, it must be presented as to what it is that Nebra is doing that is acceptable? How is precedent not applicable? How can the risk of Helium participants losing millions of dollars be mitigated? How has the Helium Network not become an oligarchy controlled by a few CEO's of miner manufacturing companies? How has Nebra not tarnished Helium? It is one thing to disagree with the proposal at hand. It is irresponsible to not justify an opposing position in meaningful or articulate ways.

[AdaKuz]

The petition at https://chng.it/7krsJvtv has surpassed 125 signatures.

[likeroman89]

I think we shouldnt bann now Nebra, after wait so long. We are all in a beta period on the Network. But I Support the idea to get a compensation in HNT for all who had to wait their Nebra. I dont know from where we can get this compensation, maby from Consensus Pool? Next year should come the easy Miners for around 200usd. But Helium let allow selling still for around 400usd. I think Helium or Nebra can easy return some Money.

[shortonnyc]

My concern is the people who have been waiting for their hotspots being canceled. I think for this to go through another manufacturer should take over their timeline for deliveries. Otherwise you’re creating more victims but this time with the addition of a HIP. If you do Nebra you have to do Syncrob.it as well. They’ve been just as bad if not worse. If you don’t do Syncrob.it it’ll appear as favoritism because of the owner’s past relationship with Helium. And it’s not fair to Nebra if they get booted and Syncrob.it doesn’t for basically the same thing. So it’s kind of like either both go or none go.

[jasonlcarlton]

At a minimum the Nebra situation should force us to address the situation where a vendor's fleet of hardware is abandoned for any reason.

I think we can agree that it's probably more likely for companies to fail than succeed and thus it's likely only a matter of time before this happens to one of the approved hotspot vendors. If service and support stops being provided to a large fleet of hotspots it WILL compromise the operating ability of the network. Without a sufficient solution, this could be a non-starter for some customers as they evaluate the Helium network as a viable and reliable network for their products.

Perhaps it should be part of the HIP19 approval process that a vendor must agree that if they stop supporting hardware then they effectively surrender it to be maintained by a 3rd party via some standardized process and are required to develop the hardware/software/firmware in a manner that this failsafe can be executed.

Hopefully this important issue doesn't get lost in this separate (and emotional) discussion about how to revoke a vendor's approval due to poor operations or malfeasance.

[anthonyra]

My concern is the people who have been waiting for their hotspots being canceled. I think for this to go through another manufacturer should take over their timeline for deliveries. Otherwise you’re creating more victims but this time with the addition of a HIP. If you do Nebra you have to do Syncrob.it as well. They’ve been just as bad if not worse. If you don’t do Syncrob.it it’ll appear as favoritism because of the owner’s past relationship with Helium. And it’s not fair to Nebra if they get booted and Syncrob.it doesn’t for basically the same thing. So it’s kind of like either both go or none go.

What about FreedomFi, they posted a plan to ship in September and they provide even less updates than Nebra or Syncrob.it... the biggest difference is pre-ordering. It's the company that decides wether to allow pre-orders or just do a waitlist. It's also up to the consumer to understand and decide if a pre-order is worth the risk. Do you take the gamble to try and get the miner as soon as possible or wait until there is supply outside of pre-orders or waitlists?

Needless to say, I'm not for a complete life ban or revocation. I believe we need to create a standard on what a HIP19 approval is and also provide better information to future buyers the best that we can as a community...

Phase I: Standardize what it means to be an approved manufacturer. Phase II: Update the table on https://www.helium.com/mine#hotspots to include refund policy and any other political jargon that seem fit. The results of MoC approval should also be easily viewable from this page. Phase III: Accept Nebra, Syncrob.it, and any future miners when they come with open arms

[AdaKuz]

I absolutely agree with @jasonlcarlton's position. There is a larger issue at hand which is the "hole" I discussed previously. Nebra was the catalyst. It could have been any manufacturer. I am observing that many feel that this proposal is a witchhunt. Although it targets Nebra, it is not a witchhunt, rather a call to hold them (and other manufacturers) accountable to the Community.

The Helium community cannot dictate the business practices of manufactures. What I am proposing is that the Community sets a more detailed minimum standard for approval that protects the Network and its users from abuses such as Nebra's (the catalyst for this issue). Allowing Nebra to continue in this manner opens the door to having their business model be acceptable and even scalable. For example, knowing that inclusion on the Helium Approved Vendor List has proven to be very lucrative, I would hypothesize that a savvy, but unscrupulous businessperson could have the ability to produce a prototype, get it approved, produce manufacturing contracts, launch a storefront website, accept non-refundable pre-orders, and never deliver a single production unit. This clearly illustrates that checks-and-balances are required.

Perhaps it should be part of the HIP19 approval process that a vendor must agree that if they stop supporting hardware then they effectively surrender it to be maintained by a 3rd party via some standardized process and are required to develop the hardware/software/firmware in a manner that this failsafe can be executed.

This well illustrates the spirit of my intentions but can be taken one step further. The planned obsolescence of Helium hardware must also be considered. For example, the full adoption of 5G may render non-5G hotspots obsolete. New policies must also address this.

The question remains, should Nebra be subject to sanctions, including expulsion, for its practices? My position is, yes. Should other manufacturers be subject to sanctions? Maybe. However, I wrote this proposal to address the Nebra matter. Others are welcome to author further proposals.

[AdaKuz]

Relevant parallels:

I. Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder and former CEO of Theranos, is set to go to trial this week, more than three years after being indicted on multiple federal fraud and conspiracy charges over allegations she knowingly misrepresented the capabilities of her company's proprietary blood testing technology. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/30/tech/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial/index.html

II. A federal grand jury charged Nikola founder Trevor Milton with three counts of criminal fraud for lying about “nearly all aspects of the business” to bolster stock sales of the electric vehicle start-up. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/29/us-prosecutors-charge-trevor-milton-founder-of-electric-carmaker-nikola-with-three-counts-of-fraud.html

[AdaKuz]

It is also fair that Mr. Aaron Shaw be given the opportunity to officially address the issues and defend Nebra. We, as a community, need to hear what he has to say.

[shortonnyc]

I don’t think we should be so quick to cut off manufacturers. Especially when we approved them we knew they were brand new with no track record and they were learning as they went. Production problems are production problems. They happen. The issue I believe is how they manage them and their interaction with customers. Dishonesty, for me is the key issue. Giving false delivery dates, and leading customers on and setting up expectations they know they can’t meet has been a huge problem. People really just want the truth. They may not like it. They probably will complain. But they want the truth. And this should go without saying but a shipment or part of a shipment cannot be given to someone else because they offer a better price for it. And if someone does do that then they should have their approval revoked. For now, I think we institute at least a two strike policy and we create a manufacturer’s code of conduct or something to that effect. Which would only really be, in my mind anyway is don’t be shady. Don’t lie and cheat people. It’s tragic that you actually have to spell that out. And even have to be more specific than that. But people have different views on what level of dishonesty is acceptable. So we need to spell it out. When there’s no real guidelines or rules it’s kind of hard to hold someone accountable when they can say “Well, I didn’t know you shouldn’t do that.” That’s my suggestion on how to proceed. Set up a Strike policy. Establish rules or guidelines and try not to cause more disappointment for those who are waiting for their hotspots. Though we could suspend them from taking new orders until their shipment begins delivery and they’re keeping their word.

[shortonnyc]

My concern is the people who have been waiting for their hotspots being canceled. I think for this to go through another manufacturer should take over their timeline for deliveries. Otherwise you’re creating more victims but this time with the addition of a HIP. If you do Nebra you have to do Syncrob.it as well. They’ve been just as bad if not worse. If you don’t do Syncrob.it it’ll appear as favoritism because of the owner’s past relationship with Helium. And it’s not fair to Nebra if they get booted and Syncrob.it doesn’t for basically the same thing. So it’s kind of like either both go or none go.

What about FreedomFi, they posted a plan to ship in September and they provide even less updates than Nebra or Syncrob.it... the biggest difference is pre-ordering. It's the company that decides wether to allow pre-orders or just do a waitlist. It's also up to the consumer to understand and decide if a pre-order is worth the risk. Do you take the gamble to try and get the miner as soon as possible or wait until there is supply outside of pre-orders or waitlists?

Needless to say, I'm not for a complete life ban or revocation. I believe we need to create a standard on what a HIP19 approval is and also provide better information to future buyers the best that we can as a community...

Phase I: Standardize what it means to be an approved manufacturer. Phase II: Update the table on https://www.helium.com/mine#hotspots to include refund policy and any other political jargon that seem fit. The results of MoC approval should also be easily viewable from this page. Phase III: Accept Nebra, Syncrob.it, and any future miners when they come with open arms

I think the difference with FreedomFi is that it was a deposit to hold a position to order from them. You didn’t actually buy the equipment Essentially you bought a place in line.

[AdaKuz]

I could get behind suspending Nebra's license for new units for 30-90 days following the shipment of the last outstanding unit ("Batch 5"?). This would serve a dual purpose of, 1) forcing Nebra to suspend sales and 2) hopefully sort out their internal issues so they're able to deliver units following their timeout.

But, the bigger picture that @shortonnyc raises is developing a Code of Conduct. Can the Helium Community have the authority to enforce a Code of Conduct? I would suggest, yes. Currently, Helium is working towards a solution for cheating miners. In this vein, a Manufacturers' Code of Conduct can also be developed.

I do want to clarify one item: It is not my intention to "be so quick to cut off manufacturers". In the case of Nebra, their early shippings were promised in May 2021. It is now four months later and those units are still outstanding. There was an update at the end of July and nothing until Nebra's latest update a few days ago. But, this update even suggests that they will be 10,000 shipped units short at the end of September. (I also remain curious about Nebra's timing to release this latest update as it relates to the timing of the release of the petition calling for their removal...) How long is too long for consumers to wait for a paid-for unit? Six months? Nine months? A year? A Code of Conduct could address such items.

[AdaKuz]

My concern is the people who have been waiting for their hotspots being canceled. I think for this to go through another manufacturer should take over their timeline for deliveries. Otherwise you’re creating more victims but this time with the addition of a HIP. If you do Nebra you have to do Syncrob.it as well. They’ve been just as bad if not worse. If you don’t do Syncrob.it it’ll appear as favoritism because of the owner’s past relationship with Helium. And it’s not fair to Nebra if they get booted and Syncrob.it doesn’t for basically the same thing. So it’s kind of like either both go or none go.

It is not my intention to cut any consumer off. That is why I proposed a multi-phase, multi-month rollout of sanctions. (In this case) Nebra must remain accountable to its consumers, the Network, and the Community. I have said this many times now: I am not proposing a guillotine approach; that would simply not work.

[shortonnyc]

I could get behind suspending Nebra's license for new units for 30-90 days following the shipment of the last outstanding unit ("Batch 5"?). This would serve a dual purpose of, 1) forcing Nebra to suspend sales and 2) hopefully sort out their internal issues so they're able to deliver units following their timeout.

But, the bigger picture that @shortonnyc raises is developing a Code of Conduct. Can the Helium Community have the authority to enforce a Code of Conduct? I would suggest, yes. Currently, Helium is working towards a solution for cheating miners. In this vein, a Manufacturers' Code of Conduct can also be developed.

I do want to clarify one item: It is not my intention to "be so quick to cut off manufacturers". In the case of Nebra, their early shippings were promised in May 2021. It is now four months later and those units are still outstanding. There was an update at the end of July and nothing until Nebra's latest update a few days ago. But, this update even suggests that they will be 10,000 shipped units short at the end of September. (I also remain curious about Nebra's timing to release this latest update as it relates to the timing of the release of the petition calling for their removal...) How long is too long for consumers to wait for a paid-for unit? Six months? Nine months? A year? A Code of Conduct could address such items.

It was not my intent to accuse you of being quick to cut off manufacturers. I’m sorry if that’s how it came across. There are a lot of people reading this and making up their minds. It’s more of general statement to whoever decides to be involved. We can’t just do a casual “Off with their Heads” approach that I know from reading a lot of posts that they’re are plenty making a quick decision. I look at the impact the decision could have. It’s life changing for some. It’s going to impact Helium. It’s going to impact thousands of people who ordered hotspots. It’s not a decision anyone should take lightly IMO. But that’s just my own feeling towards it. Again that’s not directed at anyone.

[jamiew]

As a matter of process, the MOC handles approvals and prospective revocations of maker keys. The repository for managing their process was moved out of this repo last month and now lives at https://github.com/dewi-alliance/hotspot-manufacturers/

It is not possible to move an existing GitHub issue between organizations so I will leave this issue open for the time being, but I would advise opening an issue in that other repository and directing future commentary there

[AdaKuz]

I could get behind suspending Nebra's license for new units for 30-90 days following the shipment of the last outstanding unit ("Batch 5"?). This would serve a dual purpose of, 1) forcing Nebra to suspend sales and 2) hopefully sort out their internal issues so they're able to deliver units following their timeout. But, the bigger picture that @shortonnyc raises is developing a Code of Conduct. Can the Helium Community have the authority to enforce a Code of Conduct? I would suggest, yes. Currently, Helium is working towards a solution for cheating miners. In this vein, a Manufacturers' Code of Conduct can also be developed. I do want to clarify one item: It is not my intention to "be so quick to cut off manufacturers". In the case of Nebra, their early shippings were promised in May 2021. It is now four months later and those units are still outstanding. There was an update at the end of July and nothing until Nebra's latest update a few days ago. But, this update even suggests that they will be 10,000 shipped units short at the end of September. (I also remain curious about Nebra's timing to release this latest update as it relates to the timing of the release of the petition calling for their removal...) How long is too long for consumers to wait for a paid-for unit? Six months? Nine months? A year? A Code of Conduct could address such items.

It was not my intent to accuse you of being quick to cut off manufacturers. I’m sorry if that’s how it came across. There are a lot of people reading this and making up their minds. It’s more of general statement to whoever decides to be involved. We can’t just do a casual “Off with their Heads” approach that I know from reading a lot of posts that they’re are plenty making a quick decision. I look at the impact the decision could have. It’s life changing for some. It’s going to impact Helium. It’s going to impact thousands of people who ordered hotspots. It’s not a decision anyone should take lightly IMO. But that’s just my own feeling towards it. Again that’s not directed at anyone.

All good, @shortonnyc. You raise some great points. We're all seeing how those giving their two cents are making emotional, all-or-nothing assumptions. Presumably, a lot of people have a lot of money tied up in miner orders. I was a few bucks in (canceled now). Any actions have to be carefully planned and executed.

[AdaKuz]

As a matter of process, the MOC handles approvals and prospective revocations of maker keys. The repository for managing their process was moved out of this repo last month and now lives at https://github.com/dewi-alliance/hotspot-manufacturers/

It is not possible to move an existing GitHub issue between organizations so I will leave this issue open for the time being, but I would advise opening an issue in that other repository and directing future commentary there

@jamiew - First, I apologize for the mistake. Second, do I need to do anything?

[jamiew]

@jamiew - First, I apologize for the mistake. Second, do I need to do anything?

No, fine to have here now since this is a better-known place for discussion. Per Discord convo I've flagged this thread to MOC and will advise in future if we should try moving discussion

[AdaKuz]

I have emailed the noted people and will share any relevant information that I receive.

[sandub]

This should be extended to all sellers / manufacturers who take money in advance and do not have ongoing orders. Helium should impose stricter rules and make them harder to control. At the time of approval of a seller / manufacturer Helium indirectly guaranteed for its seriousness.

[coreydrysdale]

I think that AdaKuz could really help his initiative by starting his own company with his own funds and offer to reverse engineer the Nebra owned software and offer to support it and update it for free as would be needed by a third party.

I'd also like a better explaination of how Nebra has tarnished the Helium network. Maybe providing some examples is warranted.

While I disagree with the business practices of Nebra, this type of activity happens in nearly all industries.

[AdaKuz]

Update: This discussion has been forwarded to the Decentralized Wireless Alliance for further consideration. I have been advised that I will be informed in the near future should any further actions are required. I anticipate a complete rewrite that takes into consideration this discussion in its entirety may be required.

[shortonnyc]

Update: This discussion has been forwarded to the Decentralized Wireless Alliance for further consideration. I have been advised that I will be informed in the near future should any further actions are required. I anticipate a complete rewrite that takes into consideration this discussion in its entirety may be required.

So what does that mean? Is it still a proposal? Or are they taking it under advisement?

[shawaj]

Whilst this is clearly a witch hunt from a disgruntled (group?) of customers, I wanted to address some points here directly.

Through its actions, Nebra has deceived its customers by offering and accepting payments for a product that they had no capacity to manufacture or deliver.

This is categorically false. We have been manufacturing electronics for 10 years. We have already shipped in excess of 10k units, will be shipping another 30k units in September and a similar quantity in October. We have had production issues and delays, but at no point have we done anything deceptive. We have always been clear that the shipping dates were estimated and subject to change.

Nebra has also allegedly edited its Terms and Conditions abdicating any and all responsibilities to their customers. These actions have been exacerbated by Nebra’s complete lack of communication since late July, 2021. All appearances illustrate that Nebra may be a fraudulent entity.

This is completely unfounded and incorrect. You can use the "wayback machine" to check this if you so wish. We offer full refunds up until the time of shipping as well. There has been plenty of communication and you can find this on our blog and social media platforms.

Seeking Nebra’s revocation from Helium and its Network is a fair and measured response to Nebra’s corporate conduct. Nebra has tarnished the legitimacy and reputation of Helium and caused irreparable damage. Nebra has orchestrated financial hardships for its customers; presumably to the benefit of Mr. Shaw.

Just like everyone else in the company I'm am employee, paid under UK "PAYE" system. The company is not mine (or anyone elses) personal bank account. As per standard UK accounting practice, until we ship a unit on an order the money sits as deferred income (a debt) on our balance sheet and categorically can't be taken as profits in any way.

If anyone is suffering financial hardships as you suggest, a refund is just an email away. We have a large support team processing these requests.

We have, on several occasions, apologised for the delays in manufacturing we have experienced - some of these due to issues with component shortages and delayed deliveries, and others due to issues on our side. However by the end of October we will have in excess of 50k hotspots shipped... The third most after RAK and Bobcat.

Through the revocation of Nebra’s and Mr. Shaw’s relationship with Helium, it is our hope that no further consumers will be harmed by their practices and that Mr. Shaw is denied participation in similar projects in the future. In time, the Helium Network’s legitimacy and reputation will be restored.

As an additional note, to say we are fraudulent or bad for the community is quite frankly absurd. We have made mistakes, sure. But we have always set out to support the community including by donating $1 from the sale of every unit to DeWi to put back in to growing the Helium network and community as well as releasing all of our software and hardware as open source. I believe we are the only Hotspot vendor that is doing this. Our staff members, myself included, actively participate in the community via code contributions and various other aspects including helping to build HIP19 in the first place.

Again, it seems that the purpose of this was just to provoke a response or a discussion, which in itself is not a bad thing, but in future @AdaKuz please refrain from unfounded and defamatory allegations against myself and Nebra. It's totally unnecessary and even just the smallest amount of research on your end could have disproven these false accusations you have presented.

Finally - on a personal level, I'm sorry if you feel you have been deceived by me or Nebra. That's not what we want to hear. And if you have any suggestions on how we can improve our communications please reach out directly via Discord PM and happy to discuss further with you. Hopefully we can turn this into a positive excercise.

[ganey]

if you have any suggestions on how we can improve our communications

@shawaj I have just the one suggestion, if an estimate / deadline is missed, please be public about it quicker, even if there isn't a solution, just be public about it. If it's bad news, everyone will then know a solution is being worked on, however long that happens to take.

Waiting until the end of August to update everyone on the 17,000 that in July were shipping "end of this week/early next week" left too much time for speculation and customers to get unnecessarily frustrated.

I guess this also applies to 'blog update soon', customers are likely to interpret this as 'the next few days', not weeks.

.

I do feel RAK, CalChip and Syncrobit should also take note of this, and all communicate more in general, for the benefit of the community and the vendors.

[cvolkernick]

For what it's worth (and I am just as frustrated by the delays & lack of communication as anyone), I was personally fairly impressed by the well-thought-out responses provided above by @shawaj.

Although I do believe communication (or lack thereof) has frankly been pretty bad (nearly nonexistent), and probably the single biggest contributor to the vast majority of the aggression & hostility around the ongoing situation, it seems hasty to say the least to ascribe poor communication to malicious or negligent intent.

As @shawaj rightfully pointed out himself, we as the community have already seen just as bad if not worse with respect to lead times (remember Cal-Chip, anyone? SyncroB.it.?), and a relative lack of information seems to be an improvement over others who have pathologically revised and moved goal posts to the point where it doesn't matter what they say, it can't be believed -- so it seems like most of the noise is coming from people who are just going through their first lengthly lead time (weird flex but okay, @cvolkernick).

To offer some friendly advice / make a request... @shawaj you guys really need to have a Discord like the others, and have some regularly available, reasonably responsive base-level support staff to at least acknowledge and respond to people in semi-real time. It really helped Cal-Chip turn a corner IMO when they started having someone (shoutout Jaz) who was available on a regular basis to at least patronize people with responses and acknowledgement.

[Thedailygrind]

Whilst this is clearly a witch hunt from a disgruntled (group?) of customers, I wanted to address some points here directly.

My original HIP request sought to enforce consistent communication for all manufacturers and was by no means a witch hunt. You even replied and when I asked you further what was the best way for a manufacturer to do this you ignored it and continued with your companies silence.

[Thedailygrind]

We have had production issues and delays, but at no point have we done anything deceptive. We have always been clear that the shipping

By only ever stating the original shipping dates and then not informing your customers of real production delays that you're aware of is being passively deceptive.

[Thedailygrind]

However by the end of October we will have in excess of 50k hotspots shipped...

You can in no way use something that hasn't happened yet as proof of your capability. This is unfortunately similar wording to messages you've sent customers making it clear why there's so much confusion and frustration

[Thedailygrind]

And if you have any suggestions on how we can improve our communications please reach out directly via Discord PM and happy to discuss further with you.

I'd estimate you've had about 1,000,000 suggestions as to how you can improve your communication and it's yet to happen so I don't think this a particularly inspiring statement.

[cvolkernick]

Tangent thought after reading @ganey response, and expanding on my own.....I realize that with the continuing expansion & increasingly distracting controversies, it made sense for Helium, Inc to move manufacturer support channels off of their own proprietary discord. However (at least in my personal experience) there is a significant downside involved here as well, as the more manufacturers are approved the more fragmented and convoluted the support channels get. There are only 5-10 approved or nearly approved makers at the time of writing yet I am already finding it difficult to keep up with each separate manufacturer's support processes, procedures & mechanisms.

Perhaps as part of HIP-19 as an amendment, a standardized support process / configuration could be worked out, or a community-managed discord server could be created that is independent & separate from Helium, Inc discord -- specifically for vendor support channels. Obviously the particular are up for debate, but as an example you could have a different channel category for each "subsection" of the market (hotspots, sensors, services) with each vendor having their own channel (or vice versa -- a category for each vendor w/ channels for each of their products/services etc).

Perhaps DeWi and/or Helium, Inc can play some indirect oversight role, and admins/moderators can be pulled in both from each respective company & from the community, so that there is no central authority per se, but rather a federation of community developers.

This honestly could apply equally to everything non-blockchain related currently in the Helium discord. The server is getting huge & a bit unwieldy, and only increasing in the pace of growth. Separation of concerns could seriously help by aggregating, indexing and simplifying available reference material(s) & support channels.

[shawaj]

@Thedailygrind replying to all your questions in one...

Whilst this is clearly a witch hunt from a disgruntled (group?) of customers, I wanted to address some points here directly.

My original HIP request sought to enforce consistent communication for all manufacturers and was by no means a witch hunt. You even replied and when I asked you further what was the best way for a manufacturer to do this you ignored it and continued with your companies silence.

Not sure how your other HIP suggestion (#268) relates to this one but the witch hunt comment was more directed at the OP.

We have had production issues and delays, but at no point have we done anything deceptive. We have always been clear that the shipping

By only ever stating the original shipping dates and then not informing your customers of real production delays that you're aware of is being passively deceptive.

We have updated the shipping estimates on our website at least monthly, if not more.

However by the end of October we will have in excess of 50k hotspots shipped...

You can in no way use something that hasn't happened yet as proof of your capability. This is unfortunately similar wording to messages you've sent customers making it clear why there's so much confusion and frustration

Of course we can. We have shipped many thousands of miners and have many happy customers. In manufacturing, in a global pandemic, with major chip shortages, telling you what production is upcoming is very much important. On the one hand, you say you want more information, on the other hand when it's provided to you you say that we can't use that information.

[Thedailygrind]

@Thedailygrind replying to all your questions in one...

Whilst this is clearly a witch hunt from a disgruntled (group?) of customers, I wanted to address some points here directly.

My original HIP request sought to enforce consistent communication for all manufacturers and was by no means a witch hunt. You even replied and when I asked you further what was the best way for a manufacturer to do this you ignored it and continued with your companies silence.

Not sure how your other HIP suggestion (#268) relates to this one but the witch hunt comment was more directed at the OP.

We have had production issues and delays, but at no point have we done anything deceptive. We have always been clear that the shipping

By only ever stating the original shipping dates and then not informing your customers of real production delays that you're aware of is being passively deceptive.

We have updated the shipping estimates on our website at least monthly, if not more.

And here lies the problem. Once again ignoring the bits you can't answer and spouting completely nonsense to top it off.

My first point being that this didn't start as any kind of witch hunt. But a request for more communication and an invitation of how to do so which was ignored and has since turned into a more direct approach.

How you can stand there and say you have updated your shipping estimates sufficiently is beyond me. You say 'monthly' when the estimate of arrival is an entire month in & of itself so of course you can wait a month and then update it to the next one with no bother.

You can in no way use something that hasn't happened yet as proof of your capability. This is unfortunately similar wording to messages you've sent customers making it clear why there's so much confusion and frustration

Of course we can. We have shipped many thousands of miners and have many happy customers. In manufacturing, in a global pandemic, with major chip shortages, telling you what production is upcoming is very much important. On the one hand, you say you want more information, on the other hand when it's provided to you you say that we can't use that information.

But THIS is the real issue you people and what I fully believe to have been the downfall of Nebra this year. Shawaj's ludicrous idea that you can use achievements you haven't yet achieved as real evidence of your capability.

This is like saying "I'm running the Marathon next year but give me the medal now because I've just finished a 5k walk and put me in the Olympics because I'm sure I'll win it" A complete logical fallacy and quite frankly a delusion that is ruining his and his business reputation.

Manufacturers can only use statistics that have ACTUALLY HAPPENED to prove their real world capability.

[cvolkernick]

@shawaj @Thedailygrind your point of disagreement honestly seems arbitrary. It seems like what you are both going back and forth on revolves around not principle but implementation. It seems @shawaj has contested that they DID update, on a monthly basis... While it seems that IS the point by @Thedailygrind, that once a month is not frequently enough or available enough.

But instead of acknowledging you're only arguing degrees of difference, you're going back and forth characterizing said degrees of difference as deception and twisted truths or maliciously motivated avoidance.

It seems fairly uncontroversial to simply acknowledge everyone legitimately believes they are doing the best that they can when it seems we're more arguing over the definition of "reasonable".

[cvolkernick]

It also certainly isn't helping to be emphatically using hyperbolic characterizations like "ludicrous" and "delusional".

All he's doing is projecting through uncertainty... Because you're demanding that he do so. Do you see the problem?

@shawaj (or any other manufacturer) really would prefer not to give any estimates at all, because they genuinely are making promises they have little to no control over being able to deliver on, when delays and uncertainty are coming from outside of their own business. But yet the squeaky wheels are out in full force demanding "wen wen wen wen wen" and backing them into a corner making a fundamentally unreasonable demand of answers to (to some extent) an unknowable question.

Again I should emphasize the frustration is real and valid, and I'm right there with everyone else (we have had to wait 6+ months on probably 85% of our orders to date across just about every vendor), however this really does seem to be a witch hunt of sorts to try and attribute generic widespread frustration to a particular concrete scapegoat.

[Thedailygrind]

@shawaj @Thedailygrind your point of disagreement honestly seems arbitrary. It seems like what you are both going back and forth on revolves around not principle but implementation. It seems @shawaj has contested that they DID update, on a monthly basis... While it seems that IS the point by @Thedailygrind, that once a month is not frequently enough or available enough.

My point was that if their shipping estimate states "June" and then they wait till the last few days of June to announce it'll be delayed until July. You then saying you update everyone every month is not exactly a fair representation.

If the estimate was the 4th week of June and you announced the 1st/2nd week it would be delayed until July I would concede monthly would be reasonable.

But instead of acknowledging you're only arguing degrees of difference, you're going back and forth characterizing said degrees of difference as deception and twisted truths or maliciously motivated avoidance.

Anyone can see Nebra was motivated to leave questions unanswered (and have messages deleted)

It seems fairly uncontroversial to simply acknowledge everyone legitimately believes they are doing the best that they can when it seems we're more arguing over the definition of "reasonable".

[shortonnyc]

Well, I think all this discussion has confirmed the need for manufacturer guidelines or Code of Conduct or whatever you’d like to call it to set the ground rules for acceptable behavior and what is reasonable to expect.

This is all subjective and unless there are clear set guidelines in communication, forthcomingness. and dare I say honesty (not directed at @shawaj, this is a general statement since my experience is with another manufacturer which has been worse than anything discussed here.)

If two parties or more don’t or might not agree on what is acceptable behavior or what are reasonable expectations then a third party, in this case the MOC, would need to set the standard the manufacturers go by.

Though that would be the minimum standards so hopefully manufacturers would strive to fly above that.

Until a manufacturer begins delivering the product he’s promised to there’s going to be little or no trust at this point. Trust is something that is earned. Not expected.

You cant use a track record for collateral that you don’t have yet.

So, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people to trust just yet. Once the shipments begin arriving then Trust can start building.

I think everybody wants you (@shawaj )to succeed. It means hotspots are being delivered. From that angle there’s a lot of support.

I can tell you from personal experience with a different company that vague answers to direct questions, misleading statements, and giving delivery dates they know they can’t make and further dishonesty on top of that is very hard to swallow. Not saying you did that it’s more of a suggestion not to. I would rather have been told the truth. And this is where the crux of the issue comes in.

Had they told people what the real delivery date was most would have wanted their money back and tried their luck elsewhere.

It’s one thing to tell people it’s 6 weeks and offer their money back. It’s a whole other thing to tell people it’s 6 months and offer their money back

[Thedailygrind]

It also certainly isn't helping to be emphatically using hyperbolic characterizations like "ludicrous" and "delusional".

You're assuming I'm attempting to be hyperbolic and those aren't my genuine feelings.

All he's doing is projecting through uncertainty... Because you're demanding that he do so. Do you see the problem?

Absolutely no one has asked him to predict or project anything, he has been more than willing to make statements himself about his companies supposed capabilities. Ones we have now discovered have no real world evidence to back them up.

@shawaj (or any other manufacturer) really would prefer not to give any estimates at all, because they genuinely are making promises they have little to no control over being able to deliver on, when delays and uncertainty are coming from outside of their own business. But yet the squeaky wheels are out in full force demanding "wen wen wen wen wen" and backing them into a corner making a fundamentally unreasonable demand of answers to (to some extent) an unknowable question.

No one has demanded anything but clear communication. Nebra took it upon themselves to consistently make unfounded claims about their future production capabilities.

Again I should emphasize the frustration is real and valid, and I'm right there with everyone else (we have had to wait 6+ months on probably 85% of our orders to date across just about every vendor), however this really does seem to be a witch hunt of sorts to try and attribute generic widespread frustration to a particular concrete scapegoat.

Nope. This is to hold all manufacturers to the same standard business practices most other businesses use. Simple as that.

[gurpalw]

Shaw is here talking about future production capabilities when the stuff they have produced already is so unreliable it has to be constantly rebooted.

The discord is full of people who have tried contacting Nebra for support for miners that have stopped working(not syncing, not receiving OTA's, constantly have to be rebooted) and receive no reply, or replies that are extremely delayed and with advice that is irrelevant.

[ganey]

the stuff they have produced already is so unreliable it has to be constantly rebooted

To add a different perspective here, I feel some of this is due to the constant helium GA's that come out. They have to be tested then merged, then the hotspots update which takes time. When validators actually take over all hotspots should be more stable and not fall behind when having to download a new GA, then re-sync the chain again.

My first hotspot synced in under 20 hours and worked fine, the other took longer and has only just started getting PoC with the latest GA.

I haven't had to reboot my first HS at all, i'm guessing that was just luck on when it joined the network (it wasn't a messy point and getting multiple GA's per week)

[gurpalw]

the stuff they have produced already is so unreliable it has to be constantly rebooted

To add a different perspective here, I feel some of this is due to the constant helium GA's that come out. They have to be tested then merged, then the hotspots update which takes time. When validators actually take over all hotspots should be more stable and not fall behind when having to download a new GA, then re-sync the chain again.

My first hotspot synced in under 20 hours and worked fine, the other took longer and has only just started getting PoC with the latest GA.

I haven't had to reboot my first HS at all, i'm guessing that was just luck on when it joined the network (it wasn't a messy point and getting multiple GA's per week)

In any case, whether or not you have personally had issues or not, the fact that Nebra is the only manufacturer who has had one of these HIP amendments says a lot. A quick trip to the discord and you'll find a huge number of Nebra customers left out in the wild with no support and broken miners.

I'm not saying other brands don't have issues, but Nebra's dismissive attitude is clear to see from the replies here and on their Twitter, where they completely ignore legitimate complaints.

They have a 1.4 rating on TrustPilot! There's a reason for that, and it's not because it's a "witchhunt" like shaw says it is.

[Jayeshloveworld]

Indoor miners are unreliable. I have been chasing for faulty device since last three months. There are absolutely no support at all from Nebra. All they wanted to make money. Send so many photos, emails and request to give replacement unit for faulty device but no one seems to know what to do. They made plenty of money and still making one. But with support they are totally zero. I have missed so much on mining on top of that no response to deal with. Someone will reply you two weeks for just basic diagnosis which you will do after all that frustration. Rubbish in support and product.

[cvolkernick]

Is there any actionable outcome possible from all of this at this point? Seems this vent session has been going on for almost a month now and there is really no substantial discussion about action items, mainly soapboxing & defensiveness.

Regardless of Nebra's actions in the specific, it seems fundamentally odd to me that we are targeting a particular manufacturer in the context of a HIP. (Maybe this could be re-drafted as something more generic? Feels as if a lot of the valuable lessons from this are getting lost in the personalization of a particular company.) This issue could just as easily be defined by SyncroB.it or any of the others, who have also had serious communication problems; I'm not sure if there is a UK version of the BBB, but this issue honestly seems like it would be better addressed through conventional means as opposed to codified into chain governance.

To be clear, I don't mean to dismiss any valid criticisms; I personally have a good number of Nebras ordered in March I have yet to receive. I only mean to "zoom out" and re-assess the perspective & whether there is some specific & meaningful, actionable conclusion that is being discussed here. How much of this is scapegoating & how much is productive? Genuine question, to emphasize I'm by no means taking a sarcastic/rhetorical tone.

TL;DR -- To the best of my knowledge there are existing channels to resolve these kinds of issues that don't involve codifying policing of individual businesses into the core chain governance. These are requirements to onboard and everything after that is up to the market to sort out. Frankly in my own personal opinion HIP-19 is a stopgap measure while true persmissionless onboarding is sorted out, so it almost seems like wasted effort to put so much time into policing HIP-19 minutia.

[shortonnyc]

@cvolkernick this was moved to dewi. Thiugh I haven’t seen any mention of it.

Update: This discussion has been forwarded to the Decentralized Wireless Alliance for further consideration. I have been advised that I will be informed in the near future should any further actions are required. I anticipate a complete rewrite that takes into consideration this discussion in its entirety may be required.

[cvolkernick]

Thanks @shortonnyc -- my apologies, I hadn't realized that. Please excuse my earlier rant, in that case. 😅