Re: [EXT] Re: Potential list of securities in the US [was: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC]

čt 15. 6. 2023 v 19:42 odesílatel Drummond Reed <
Drummond.Reed@gendigital.com> napsal:

> Phillip captured wonderfully why I have been uncomfortable from the start
> of this thread: “DIDs work with chains, not tokens.” The fact that the DID
> registry includes a DID method that works with a particular chain has
> nothing directly to do with any token involved with that chain.
>
>
>
> I get the potential perception issue, but when it comes to the reality,
> there is no connection, and we will only confuse the market by inferring
> that there is.
>

I appreciate the perspective that the relation between DIDs and blockchains
does not directly involve tokens. However, it's important to recognize the
inseparable relationship between a token and its respective chain, as the
latter records the state while the token triggers state changes. They
inherently function in unison.

The implications under U.S. securities law are clear: if an entity offers a
token for public sale with the expectation of its value increasing, it
constitutes the sale of a security and legal responsibilities follow.
Furthermore, promoting such a token also carries legal obligations.
Noncompliance can result in severe penalties and reputational harm.

Many developers express concern that DID is not a single specification, but
rather over 100 different specifications, as per the method registry. When
we feature these blockchains under the W3C logo, it could potentially cast
a shadow on our work that is otherwise compliant with the law.  It is
uncomfortable to be adjacent to this at the W3C, especially as groups tend
to work on interoperable ideas.
I welcome Chaals comment: "W3C should strive not to engage in illegal
activity".  However, I would suggest that "striving" might not sufficiently
express the gravity of this matter. Perhaps we could agree collectively to
confine our work to projects that are unequivocally within legal
boundaries.  That still leaves plenty of scope.  More legal ambiguous items
could be registered outside the w3c.


>
>
> =Drummond
>
>
>
> *From: *Phillip Shoemaker <phillip@identity.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 9:37 AM
> *To: *Kyle Den Hartog <kyle@pryvit.tech>
> *Cc: *Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, W3C Credentials
> Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, W3C DID Working Group <
> public-did-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *[EXT] Re: Potential list of securities in the US [was:
> Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC]
>
> I don’t understand this witch hunt about securities and cryptocurrencies
> that this group seems to be focused on. A few important datapoints that
> have already been expressed by others, including Christopher Allen:
>
>
>
> 1. This is one government that has an issue with these tokens. And while
> it is the government that rules me and my company, we are working on a
> technology that has global impact.
>
>
>
> 2. This is about tokens, not chains. So saying that while Binance has an
> issue with the SEC, and their token might be considered a security by the
> SEC, this doesn’t mean that the chain that takes these tokens is in
> violation or in any way suspected of doing bad things. A chain is not a
> token.
>
>
>
> 3. DIDs work with chains, not tokens. So until we understand that a chain
> is “bad”, we should not entertain this conversation.
>
>
>
>
>
> - - -
> Phillip Shoemaker
> Executive Director, Identity
> E: phillip@identity.org
> M: 1.408.835.8444
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2023, at 8:06 AM, Kyle Den Hartog <kyle@pryvit.tech> wrote:
>
>
>
> Why is this just being brought up now? China explicitly banned all
> cryptocurrencies in September 2021 [1]. If we’re going to impose
> restrictions for a single jurisdiction we should for all therefore every
> did method that relies upon a cryptocurrency should be removed under this
> logic. Do you agree that’s a fair extension of your logic? Or should we be
> more subjectively selective, against the consensus of the DID WG which
> explicitly stated the registries were not to be used in this way? Won’t
> this just lead to a select few number of did methods being allowed based
> upon a non-unanimous definition of legality? Within the US this is still
> being interpreted by the judicial system about whether these even are
> securities.  Globally, there’s a patchwork of legal interpretations. I’ve
> pointed to China’s laws as one example but what about the regulations that
> suggest an immutable identifier is actually illegal under GDPR’s framework.
> Wouldn’t that mean all did methods, blockchain keys, and nostr identifiers
> are illegal and therefore should be unreferencable at W3C? Or are we not
> wanting to slip this far down the slippery slope we’re creating with this
> interpretation?
>
>
>
> [1]:
>
>
> https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cryptocurrencies/Chinese-crypto-activity-slows-but-not-dead-despite-ban
> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cryptocurrencies/Chinese-crypto-activity-slows-but-not-dead-despite-ban&source=gmail-imap&ust=1687446422000000&usg=AOvVaw2jmE9pjfnIT5XdpbJqxFFZ>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 2:17 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I was looking for a potential list of securities, that may be used improve
> the did method registry, and closest I came to was this article, there may
> be better:
>
>
>
>
> https://beincrypto.com/full-list-cryptos-securities-sec-lawsuit-binance-coinbase/
> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://beincrypto.com/full-list-cryptos-securities-sec-lawsuit-binance-coinbase/&source=gmail-imap&ust=1687446422000000&usg=AOvVaw3w57XnaieOgUJnVX71pbr8>
>
>
>
> criteria: an investment of money, in a common enterprise, with an
> expectation of profit derived predominantly from the efforts of others
>
>
>
> List:
>
>
>
> Cosmos (ATOM)
> Binance Coin (BNB)
> Binance USD (BUSD)
> COTI (COTI)
>
> Chiliz (CHZ)
> Near (NEAR)
> Flow (FLOW)
> Internet Computer (ICP)
> Voyager Token (VGX)
> Dash (DASH)
> Nexo (NEXO)
>
> Solana (SOL)
> Cardano (ADA)
> Polygon (MATIC)
> Filecoin (FIL)
> The Sandbox (SAND)
> Decentraland (MANA)
> Algorand (ALGO)
> Axie Infinity (AXS)
>
>
>
> Prominent cryptocurrencies previously declared securities by the SEC
> include:
>
> Ripple (XRP)
> Telegram’s Gram (TON)
> LBRY Credits (LBC)
> OmiseGo (OMG)
> DASH (DASH)
> Algorand (ALGO)
> Naga (NGC)
> Monolith (TKN)
> IHT Real Estate (IHT)
> Power Ledger (POWR)
> Kromatica (KROM)
> DFX Finance (DFX)
> Amp (AMP)
> Rally (RLY)
> Rari Governance Token (RGT)
> DerivaDAO (DDX)
> XYO Network (XYO)
> Liechtenstein Cryptoasset Exchange (LCX)
> Kin (KIN)
> Salt Lending (SALT)
> Beaxy Token (BXY)
> DragonChain (DRGN)
> Tron (TRX)
> BitTorrent (BTT)
> Terra USD (UST)
> Luna (LUNA)
> Mirror Protocol (MIR)
> Mango (MNGO)
> Ducat (DUCAT)
> Locke (LOCKE)
> EthereumMax (EMAX)
> Hydro (HYDRO)
> BitConnect (BCC)
> Meta 1 Coin (META1)
> Filecoin (FIL)
> Binance Coin (BNB)
> Binance USD (BUSD)
> Solana (SOL)
> Cardano (ADA)
> Polygon (MATIC)
> Cosmos (ATOM)
> The Sandbox (SAND)
> Decentraland (MANA)
> Axie Infinity (AXS)
> COTI (COTI)
> Paragon (PRG)
> AirToken (AIR)
> Chiliz (CHZ)
> Flow (FLOW)
> Internet Computer (ICP)
> Near (NEAR)
> Voyager Token (VGX)
> Nexo (NEXO)
> Mirrored Apple Inc. (mAAPL)
> Mirrored Amazon.com, Inc. (mAMZN)
> Mirrored Alibaba Group Holding Limited (mBABA)
> Mirrored Alphabet Inc. (mGOOGL)
> Mirrored Microsoft Corporation (mMSFT)
> Mirrored Netflix, Inc. (mNFLX)
> Mirrored Tesla, Inc. (mTSLA)
> Mirrored Twitter Inc. (mTWTR)
> Mirrored iShares Gold Trust (mIAU)
> Mirrored Invesco QQQ Trust (mQQQ)
> Mirrored iShares Silver Trust (mSLV)
> Mirrored United States Oil Fund, LP (mUSO),
> Mirrored ProShares VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (mVIXY)
>
>
>
> These instruments should not be promoted under the w3c banner, imho
>
>
>