Yeah, here's the problem with these conflicts...

With the Steem Alliance, he's sitting on the board (if I'm not mistaken) and will presumably have rather large influence over foundation proceedings, procedures, and any kind of committee selections they make there (if any). Of course this is assuming that this foundation actually goes anywhere. As more time passes, it looks like this will probably be defunct soon, or rendered pretty much irrelevant.

As a committee member for this STINC delegation, he will be charged with approving or disapproving support for businesses and/or development and marketing projects that may very well compete with his own - or he will be charged with approving or disapproving support for those businesses and projects that directly and positively impact his own projects/community.

As the owner of Steem Engine, he has many different token owners, communities, and developers that will likely be submitting delegation and funding requests from both the foundation (if it becomes a thing) and STINC's delegation program. Any funding or delegation for these tokens/communities/developers will very likely directly and indirectly benefit him financially.

Sure, aggroed (actually, his developers) get some stuff done (whether it has made a difference in adoption or value is certainly debatable), but there's absolutely no reason why he ought to be on this delegation committee. Can STINC really not find a third person to take that spot instead? Were there only three potential candidates? If so, we're worse off than I had originally thought.