Re: [EXT] Re: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC

https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#tr-end

The did spec registries is a wg note.

It contains both the JSON-LD extension points and the did method registry.

But to change things, I think you would need a new working group, or
someone from W3C or the council / AB to take some emergency action... I'm
not even sure if the process allows such a thing... I'm not a W3C Process
expert, and the process changes.

The next DID WG charter is being debated.

The charter could allow the working group to continue registering new
methods, and potentially standardize specific methods, that could include
methods that are in the current registry.

The working group could also decide to make a new method that is not in the
registry.

The working group could also decide to edit documents at other standards
organizations, and not produce any specifications hosted by the W3C.

And/or there could be no new charter at all.

I don't see the W3C doing anything that the community group was not
previously doing... Perhaps handing the work back to the community is the
most responsible thing to do.

Prior to the DID WG, there was decentralized open world semantics with
JSON-LD and there was various blockchain method incubation work happening
in the W3C CCG.

There is some financial incentive for W3C to try for a new charter since
members must pay fees to participate in the DID WG, of course this assumes
members joined the W3C to work on DIDs which may or may not be true, and
possibly doesn't matter anymore.

w3id.org is doing fine managing a registry of identifiers without being a
formal working group, it's very similar to the did method registry, it just
manages a path based namespace on a web origin, instead of a URN name space
on a verifiable data registry.

OS












On Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 7:39 PM Steven McCown <steve@mccown.me> wrote:

> Reading the SEC’s filings on Binance and Coinbase, there are some very
> serious charges / allegations.  Both specify “Jury Trial Demanded”, so this
> should go on for a while.
>
> I’m wondering, what is the W3C / WG policy for how to proceed when such
> lawsuits are filed (esp. by governments)?
>
> In the email thread below, Orie commented with "You are welcome to raise a
> PR removing an entry”.  That seems like a reasonable discussion.  Presuming
> that there is (will be) a PR, could someone post the link?
>
> The other thing I read below was a suggestion for “standardizing of few
> methods, such as did:web”.  While I can appreciate the desire to act given
> the SEC’s actions, that seems like a fundamental change in direction rather
> than a modification directed towards the subjects of the SEC's filings.  I
> propose that we defer that to a separate discussion.
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 13, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> You don't often get email from melvincarvalho@gmail.com. Learn why this
> is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>
>
> út 13. 6. 2023 v 22:16 odesílatel Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
> napsal:
>
>> I got one, thanks to a lovely person on the list. DM me if you need it too
>>
>
> For a more comprehensive understanding, I recommend reading the original
> SEC guidance, which you can find at this non paywalled link:
>
> https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2023/comp-pr2023-102.pdf
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sec.gov%2Flitigation%2Fcomplaints%2F2023%2Fcomp-pr2023-102.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Csmccown%40anonyome.com%7C6ae281346ccc4711db5f08db6c53ccab%7Ce5dd2ea3e8fb4509a85d30f0c43986dc%7C1%7C0%7C638222880159621263%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=m4z2q60jV5OL2mubakWKExS%2BgBly4S%2BISVXASnePyV8%3D&reserved=0>
>
> This document provides thorough case studies, including insights from blog
> posts, Twitter posts, and transcripts. For an illustrative and relevant
> example, you might find the Filecoin / Protocol Labs case study
> particularly informative, which is covered in parts 163-189.
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 11:28 AM Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Non-paywall link please?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 5:15 AM Melvin Carvalho <
>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Flivecoverage%2Fstock-market-today-dow-jones-06-06-2023%2Fcard%2Fthe-list-of-crypto-coins-the-sec-says-are-illegal-is-growing-VDghHoLBchVk5hzYxox6&data=05%7C01%7Csmccown%40anonyome.com%7C6ae281346ccc4711db5f08db6c53ccab%7Ce5dd2ea3e8fb4509a85d30f0c43986dc%7C1%7C0%7C638222880159621263%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ae7PB1tZCOw%2ByYxgR1dDdPsY1tfe6NL7gGutHvff%2FDw%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>
>>>> Working groups and community groups, particularly those associated with
>>>> reputable bodies like the W3C, should be vigilant about the materials they
>>>> produce. It's imperative that such entities abstain from promoting or
>>>> associating with these unregistered securities which have been deemed
>>>> illegal. Given the gravity of securities laws and the extensive
>>>> ramifications of their violations, we cannot afford to be complacent.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Prorock
>>>>> CTO - mesur.io
>>>>> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmesur.io%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csmccown%40anonyome.com%7C6ae281346ccc4711db5f08db6c53ccab%7Ce5dd2ea3e8fb4509a85d30f0c43986dc%7C1%7C0%7C638222880159621263%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SCwVKP6GkkfTCoSaC2oD6ttmXL3TjN5mJczmR8szfWg%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023, 08:34 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
>>>>>>> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.docdroid.net%2FI02zzqT%2Fsec-v-binance-4-pdf&data=05%7C01%7Csmccown%40anonyome.com%7C6ae281346ccc4711db5f08db6c53ccab%7Ce5dd2ea3e8fb4509a85d30f0c43986dc%7C1%7C0%7C638222880159621263%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YLzsQngRaZCkoh6OLy4xjRt7pZbaR3fyKAI7%2Fd%2BQa2E%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fdid-spec-registries%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csmccown%40anonyome.com%7C6ae281346ccc4711db5f08db6c53ccab%7Ce5dd2ea3e8fb4509a85d30f0c43986dc%7C1%7C0%7C638222880159621263%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H7wB0kBNt87z8oo75EkjkSw%2Fy%2BuIFZgO7AJWsduWcBE%3D&reserved=0>.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>