The idea is that "externally facing" there is value in having these voices united combating quantum FUD (or the overstated quantum claims) and elevating the discourse about work being dont by Bitcoin researchers on the topic. This is the "inform" part of the organization's activities.
Additionally the Consortium members also want to actually support that existing Bitcoin research work being done. But to me that is more "internal facing" and I think its dangerous to pool funds or for the Consortium itself to be personified to have a stance on protocol changes. Thus, for these "support/fund" activities of the organization, Ive advocated that member company retain their autonomy and act independently (although Im sure companies will agree on some things over time).
Its a good question.
The idea is that "externally facing" there is value in having these voices united combating quantum FUD (or the overstated quantum claims) and elevating the discourse about work being dont by Bitcoin researchers on the topic. This is the "inform" part of the organization's activities.
Additionally the Consortium members also want to actually support that existing Bitcoin research work being done. But to me that is more "internal facing" and I think its dangerous to pool funds or for the Consortium itself to be personified to have a stance on protocol changes. Thus, for these "support/fund" activities of the organization, Ive advocated that member company retain their autonomy and act independently (although Im sure companies will agree on some things over time).