Re: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC

st 14. 6. 2023 v 10:50 odesílatel Chaals Nevile <
charles.nevile@consensys.net> napsal:

> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 14:14:14 (+02:00), Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> st 7. 6. 2023 v 15:20 odesílatel Michael Prorock <michael.prorock@mesur.io>
> napsal:
>
>> Personal hat firmly on, I would be a fan of removing the did registry.
>> Especially in favor of standardizing of few methods, such as did:web
>>
>
> That makes sense to me, Mike, as a possible way forward
>
>
> I'm not so sure it is a *good* way forward. In any event I think the
> argument advanced here for it doesn't stand up, so I would be very
> disappointed to see us make such a decision based on that argument.
>
>
> The Wall Street Journal recently published an article titled "The List of
> Crypto Coins the SEC Says Are Illegal Is Growing". The word "illegal", when
> used by such an eminent publication, commands significant attention and
> should not be taken lightly.
>
>
> With all due respect to their eminence, the WSJ doesn't make law nor
> determine what is or is not legal. More to the point, they are merely
> reporting an allegation, made by a particular bureaucratic entity, that
> some people are doing illegal things in specific ways of dealing with
> crypto coins. Whatever that is, it isn't remotely a declaration by the WSJ
> that blockchains are illegal, nor even a report that someone thinks so.
>
> We know that many people use the Web to do illegal things, and that
> doesn't stop us developing its capabilities, including the ones people are
> using for criminal activity.
>
> We also know that people do illegal things with crypto coins that are
> almost definitely not securities and are not the topic of the SEC's case.
> We know that happens with all instruments of value, whether US dollars or
> integrated circuits or electronic documents or personal information or
> sacks of wheat.
>
>
> <https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-06-06-2023/card/the-list-of-crypto-coins-the-sec-says-are-illegal-is-growing-VDghHoLBchVk5hzYxox6>
>
>
>
> https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-06-06-2023/card/the-list-of-crypto-coins-the-sec-says-are-illegal-is-growing-VDghHoLBchVk5hzYxox6
>
> Working groups and community groups, particularly those associated with
> reputable bodies like the W3C, should be vigilant about the materials they
> produce.
>
>
> Yes
>
> It's imperative that such entities abstain from promoting or associating
> with these unregistered securities which have been deemed illegal.
>
>
> Promoting things that have been "deemed illegal" (but see below about the
> SEC) is often a very bad idea both reputationally and legally. But trying
> to use this as an absolute "bright-line" principle is IMHO not a clever way
> forward.
>
> It is my personal belief that the Russian war against Ukraine is a Very
> Bad Thing™. "Discrediting" it is deemed illegal under Russian law. But I'm
> not very concerned about "abstaining from promoting" people or groups who
> do just that, and I actively work with organisations who, among other
> things, do discredit the invasion. Fighting the Russian occupation of some
> of Ukraine is likewise deemed illegal under Russian law. I don't work with
> anyone who is doing that (except very remotely the Ukranian government),
> but I do not support a blanket prohibition on promoting groups associating
> with such organisations, let alone constraining the design of technologies
> that can help humanity in order to meet the goal of avoiding such
> association.
>
> (FWIW I also don't support constraining the technology in order to avoid a
> possible association with those who promote what they call a "special
> millitary operation", despite my personal goal of avoiding such
> association).
>
> I doubt there is a preponderance of support for enabling
> people-trafficking for the purposes of "modern" slavery (which is widely
> accepted as illegal, although definitions vary significantly). Speaking
> personally I think it is a morally reprehensible activity and I'm happy for
> it to be illegal and prosecuted - although there are specific instances of
> prosecution that my government has undertaken that I believe are faulty in
> law and reprehensible in practice. But despite the extensive use of the Web
> in facilitating this appalling activity, I don't think the answer is to
> stop enabling the creation of "social networks" through web technology, or
> even to avoid working on that myself.
>
> Association is in general a more complex question - the "right to free
> association" is important for good reasons I won't go into here.
>
> Given the gravity of securities laws and the extensive ramifications of
> their violations, we cannot afford to be complacent.
>
>
> True. But again, the SEC doesn't make the law either, it is charged with
> enforcing a bit of it. Their allegations get tested in a court, charged
> with interpreting the law, and the outcome is what determines whether
> specific actions are illegal.
>
> Such a situation demands proactive action, and it's crucial to remember
> that the gravity of securities laws supersedes even the consensus within
> the W3C.
>
>
> Actually, that's a slight stretch too. They are somewhat orthogonal. W3C
> creates global consensus. Different jurisdictions (countries, groups of
> countries, religious authorities, provinces, cities, local associations,
> swimming pools, ...) create or copy laws that are relevant within those
> jurisdictions.
>

Minimizing the relevance of securities laws and suggesting they exist in a
separate sphere to W3C's work is both inaccurate and precarious. Not only
can disregard for such laws result in severe legal and financial penalties
for the W3C and its participants, but it can also critically damage the
organization's credibility.


>
> We don't always build the Web to facilitate a particular government's goal
> to shut down conversation on a particular topic they don't like. But we do
> work to build the Web to facilitate certain things we think are important
> to a society governed by a concept of law, and in some cases quite specific
> laws such as some privacy laws.
>
> I don't think our work is, or should be, "values-free". I've put
> considerable work into trying to improve the web's ability to support a
> right to privacy, despite its obvious value for criminal activity that I
> abhor, and the fact that many laws explicitly curtail that right. I've put
> even more into trying to ensure the Web is accessible to people with
> disabilities, regardless of the legal underpinning of the rights of people
> with disabilities to equal participation in "society" (although I support
> efforts to provide a stronger legal framework that better supports those
> rights in practice).
>
> It would be facile to say "cherry-picking the laws we want to be seen to
> support is a bad idea". In my opinion, it is also a bad practice to base a
> technical decision on simplistic discussions of specific laws, and even
> more so on specific opinions about a particular law, without considering it
> very very carefully.
>
> Nonetheless, I think it is important that we carefully consider the
> ramifications of any law that impacts our work, and that we do not simply
> adopt a position that we're bound to respect (in the sense of "treat with
> high esteem" as opposed to "obey") all laws, or all laws from some
> jurisdiction. W3C, as a company incorporated in Delaware, is bound by
> certain legal constraints. W3C China, by different but overlapping ones.
> Individual participants, by a whole mess of others, some the same and some
> contradictory.
>
> I also don't believe that "code is law", nor that it should be - IMHO
> that's essentially a return to the "machtpolitik" that most legal systems
> constrain. I have a lot of respect for law as a concept and an active
> practice, the more so when that law is developed and managed in a
> democratic way. I think that is an approach that serves W3C groups well.
> But it is explicitly not an uncritical acceptance of what "eminent
> authorities" pronounce is legal or illegal, despite most often defaulting
> to accepting those pronouncements from a selected set of authorities.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Charles 'Chaals' Nevile
> Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc
>