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

I’d like to second this viewpoint from Manu. Melvin I do think you’re
touching on a very important topic here that I think the group recognizes
we need to progress on more within the working group which is incredibly
useful. I had a similar insight and highlighted it within this PR[1] last
year. Ultimately, I think we all understand and appreciate the registry is
a bit unruly at the moment, but because of our communities values towards
transparency and anti-censorship the arguments made here for why change
should happen didn’t quite resonate with the community. This became pretty
evident to me when we were considering the impact of a potential did method
like did:Facebook and then the actual registration of did:ccp. As Manu
points out, you bringing this topic up will have an impact on the future
work of this group so I personally view this as somewhat useful. I also
want to say thank you for your persistence to push on this problem. I
personally believe your contributions to this topic will definitely prove
valuable in due time to lead to improving the registry overall even if your
motivations didn’t quite resonate with the rest of us.

[1]: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/433

-Kyle

On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 7:15 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 6:53 AM Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The compromise is that I'll continue to work in this space at the W3C,
> albeit with heightened caution regarding the instruments detailed in this
> document.
>
> I think that's an excellent compromise, Melvin, thank you.
>
> I applaud you for shepherding your concerns through the discussion;
> people seemed to both hear and understand what you had to say.
>
> I'll also note that you did effect change (Kyle's PR) and surfaced
> discussion around what a future DID WG could consider in order to
> clean up the registry (demonstrations of implementation). While
> entries might be removed on the basis of a lack of implementations,
> I'll note that would also eliminate a number of the items you were
> concerned about. I know that would not be done for the same reasons
> you were after, and some would still remain, but that could still be
> viewed as an  improvement, on both sides of the debate, over the
> current state.
>
> In any case, thank you for your engagement, Melvin. It was a good
> airing of the community's current (and evolving) position on the
> topic.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>