Re: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC

If you are really concerned you can object to the next did WG charter,
unless it specifically removes the method registry and does not define any
methods that rely on Blockchain.

OS

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023, 8:29 AM Kyle Den Hartog <kyle@pryvit.tech> wrote:

> Do you have a specific action you’d like to suggest the CCG take? I don’t
> think there’s much we can do here as we’re not the authoritative group for
> DIDs. I suspect you’re on the wrong mailing list if you’re suggesting that
> did methods should be removed from the registry as that’s not maintained by
> the CCG. The correct mailing list is
> public-did-wg@w3.org to discuss DID WG related action items.
>
> From the sounds of it you’re suggesting a change not defined by the
> registry definition[1] of the did method registry be made. Given the
> editors are acting on behalf of the DID working group under the rules
> defined by the registration process[2], which is the did spec registries
> registry definition, after many hours of debate I don’t think this will
> come easy. In any case, you’ll require a new consensus from the DID working
> group and not the CCG to make changes to the registry definition.
> Unfortunately, the DID WG’s charter has expired at the moment as well so I
> think you may need to wait until it’s been rechartered to move this forward
> because of this resolution [3]. Note, the chartered group is the one who
> can “officially manage the registry” but it’s not been rechartered.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Kyle
>
> [1]:
> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#reg-def
> [2]:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/#the-registration-process
> [3]:
> https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2021-01-05-did#resolution1
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 9:34 PM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
> wrote:
>
>> W3C operates on consensus, and the registry is a note.
>>
>> You are welcome to raise a PR removing an entry and provide your
>> justification, if the working group can't resolve the issue, it can be
>> escalated all the way up the chain.
>>
>> (Pun intended).
>>
>> The working group might also consider removing the method registry
>> entirely, since it is not necessary for URNs to remain namespaces, and has
>> been cited as a point of market confusion.
>>
>> Be the change you want to see in the world.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023, 5:25 AM Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well I’ve said before that it looks to me like all but a dozen or so did
>>> methods are really just marketing for “me too cryptocurrency ponzu schemes”
>>>
>>> Feel a like a government blacklist is more than enough rationale for w3c
>>> to remove those methods from the register
>>>
>>> Probably a lot more ought to get shot too but it’s not obvious what is
>>> the fair criteria for shooting
>>>
>>> Steven Capell
>>> Mob: 0410 437854
>>>
>>> On 7 Jun 2023, at 8:02 pm, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> This issue has been raised previously, but the severity of the situation
>>> has escalated recently. The US government has started taking legal action
>>> against companies that allegedly promote unregistered securities, as
>>> outlined in this document:
>>>
>>> https://www.docdroid.net/I02zzqT/sec-v-binance-4-pdf.
>>>
>>> Specifically, twelve blockchains have been named: BNB (BNB), Binance USD
>>> stablecoin (BUSD), Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA), Polygon (MATIC), Filecoin
>>> (FIL), Cosmos Hub (ATOM), The Sandbox (SAND), Decentraland (MANA), Algorand
>>> (ALGO), Axie Infinity (AXS,) and Coti (COTI). There may be more beyond this
>>> list.
>>>
>>> What is particularly disconcerting is the visibility of many of these
>>> potentially problematic instruments under the auspices of the W3C logo,
>>> particularly in the DID method registry:
>>> https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/. It's worth noting that many
>>> of these also finance standards work.
>>>
>>> In securities law, the attitude of "If you think something is illegal,
>>> don't use it" is insufficient. The potential risk here is that W3C's
>>> reputable image could be tainted by these developments. Urgent action is
>>> required to rectify this situation.
>>>
>>>