- From: Kyle Den Hartog <kyle@pryvit.tech>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 21:11:22 +1200
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Chaals Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, W3C DID Working Group <public-did-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+_U+e1yvkEx0Q8L-Dva3C6B_N4dVK4oOFCq_M5S7kztyuLMCw@mail.gmail.com>
If that was your interpretation of my comments then I think there’s been some confusion. This entire debate relies upon a misframing of the registries and I've authored a PR to clarify as such: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/519 This should resolve the issue. -Kyle On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 8:05 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > ne 18. 6. 2023 v 23:33 odesílatel Chaals Nevile < > charles.nevile@consensys.net> napsal: > >> >> >> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 12:13:25 (+02:00), Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> >> >> >> čt 15. 6. 2023 v 17:06 odesílatel Kyle Den Hartog <kyle@pryvit.tech> >> napsal: >> >>> ...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... >>> >> >> While it's true that regulations vary widely across different >> jurisdictions, this discussion is fundamentally about aligning our work >> with legal frameworks, particularly those which carry significant penalties >> for non-compliance, such as US securities law. >> >> >> While as far as I can tell the US is pretty happy about killing people as >> a legal sanction, I believe they only have it for certain classes of crime >> that do not include financial crimes. Whereas China does seem to apply the >> death penalty in such cases. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as >> a significant penalty and indeed significantly more so than a fine and >> lengthy term in prison. >> > > Chaals, I'd appreciate a clear response to this straightforward question: > > Do you agree that our groups should adhere to US securities laws? > > If yes, we can move forward. However, if your answer is otherwise, kindly > state it explicitly as it seems, to my knowledge, you're the only member > expressing such a viewpoint. > > >> >> Notably, it's not about proposing that W3C adheres to every regulation in >> every jurisdiction. That may indeed lead to an impractical "slippery slope" >> situation, as you've outlined. >> >> Promoting potentially illegal activities under the W3C banner is >> concerning for a couple of reasons. >> >> Yes. But promoting adherence to one country's law that doesn't cover >> somewhere in the order of 80-90% of Web users, while explicitly ignoring >> that of other countries seems to me a terrible idea, and I plead with the >> working group not to follow such a path. >> >> Firstly, it could be seen as an endorsement or promotion of these >> activities, >> >> This seems a stretch. Apart from the fact that you can add something to a >> registry, where is the endorsement? >> >> Can you please explain a particular case where it seems like the group is >> (or may, by following its current approach) endorsing something that has >> been *formally alleged* to be illegal by a body such as the SEC? I mean, >> not an assertion by some smart person, but something that is clearly at >> least *very* likely to end up in court - because this gives us some sense >> that it's worth following up to see how reality turns out. By the same >> token, I am not asking you to demonstrate that something *is* illegal >> (although by assuming the right jurisdiction this probably becomes trivial >> for anything involving trading in a cryptocurrency), just that there's a >> serious allegation that's likely to be tested. >> >> I don't see any endorsement of tokens that might be securities, let alone >> any endorsement of people who are selling them in a way that is illegal. >> Remember, there are legal ways to sell securities in the US. Being a >> security is not an inherent problem, that's why there is "securities law". >> >> It's hard (and I believe irresponsible) to endorse a decision whose goal >> is to avoid something that one doesn't believe is a risk. >> >> which could lead to an increase in network effects and, subsequently, an >> increase in token prices.This could be problematic as it can be interpreted >> as a violation of securities laws if these tokens are deemed unregistered >> securities. >> >> Perhaps that could happen. There are a lot of conditions being stacked up >> in this hypothetical. I am afraid that as I look at them, they seem to add >> up to "in a particular set of circumstances, it is possible to imagine an >> idiosyncratic interpretation of our actions that suggests we are >> responsible for promoting a security". >> >> This approach also seems to me to very obviously fail the "reasonable >> person" test that would be applied at law in a number of countries, such as >> the US. Likewise, it seems to ignore reality. (Those are pretty similar >> claims in practice). >> >> This is why I think it is important to demonstrate the practical issue, >> as requested above. >> >> Secondly, doing so could risk damaging the reputation of the W3C and >> undermining the transparency and trust that are critical to its operations. >> >> Sure. However, as explained above with regard to the necessary chain of >> what seem to be incredibly unlikely interpretations and events, I think the >> risk is risibly small. This is particularly so when I compare it to things >> that damage our reputation like not being a suitable place to do the work >> we aim to take on. >> >> It seems to me that accepting the argument of reputational risk you have >> repeated as a reason not to accept blockchain-based methods for DIDs would >> damage our reputation as an organisation capable of holding complicated >> technical discussions and making systems that are suitable for use around >> the world more than rejecting the argument and running the risk you are >> describing. >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals >> >> >>> [1]: >>> >>> https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cryptocurrencies/Chinese-crypto-activity-slows-but-not-dead-despite-ban >>> >>> 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/ >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> -- >> Charles 'Chaals' Nevile >> Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc >> >
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2023 09:11:39 UTC