Re: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC

st 14. 6. 2023 v 20:55 odesílatel Martin Riedel <web@riedel-privat.de>
napsal:

> Thank you Chaals, Manu and Christopher,
>
> I was feeling very uncomfortable following this thread as well, but the
> recent messages have eased my concerns a bit.
> The W3C taking proactive action at this point in the legal process would
> send the catastrophic message! Can Standardization efforts be influenced by
> just starting a lawsuit (in whatever jurisdiction)? Maybe next time, just
> threatening one might already do the job. Also note, that I specifically
> don’t see any difference if that suit is brought by a government or private
> entity.
>
> I’m happy with the group discussing the implications and “having it on the
> radar”, but I’d strongly advice against any shots from the hip.
>

While respecting concerns over premature action, it's crucial to avoid
conflating caution with inaction.  Securities laws, in particular, carry
substantial penalties for non-compliance, and demand the utmost caution.
The DID method registry remains highly problematic, in this regard.

Especially crucial is an awareness of the risk of "taint" from potentially
illegal work. It's not just about protecting W3C and the individuals
involved; it's also about safeguarding the reputation and integrity of the
vast majority of W3C groups that are engaged in unambiguously legal work.
Ensuring that the potential shadow of a few does not obscure the legitimate
and valuable work of many is of the utmost importance.

>
> Best,
> Martin Riedel
>
> On Jun 14, 2023, at 11:53, Christopher Allen <
> ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 5:19 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm very uncomfortable with this discussion by our community (ccg) and
> standards (did). We are not qualified.
>
> I read through the Filecoin/IPFS portion of this doc, and it is very
> biased and is based on unsettled law. They did not mention the utility use
> of the tokens, which in some jurisdictions (Wyoming and a few other states)
> should be considered a factor.
>
> The key point is that these topics are unsettled. There are many
> congressmen and senators that are very unhappy with how the SEC is handling
> these matters and are working on bipartisan bills. There are also cases
> before judges where they appear to be critical of the SEC approach even
> before making judgment. Other parts of the Federal Government are also
> critical of the SEC here.
>
> Though I'm not a big fan of Filecoin for other reasons, they went to a lot
> of effort to do the best practices of the time and avoided many bad
> practices that were common. I, too, want us to avoid scams and bad
> practices, but I don't know where the line is.
>
> So to say that we need to remove, for instance, Filecoin-related DID
> methods because they are included in an SEC document feels to me to be very
> premature. I suspect that this may not be settled law in the US for a few
> years. In addition, this will likely only be US — it feels like the UK is
> going the other way. This is the WORLD-wide-web consortium. What if a token
> used in a blockchain becomes illegal in the US, but is legal in the UK?
> What to do then?
>
> -- Christopher Allen
>
>
>