- From: Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 16:56:19 -0500
- To: Jacob Pratt <jhprattdev@gmail.com>
- Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>, Tom Haas <tjhaas@gmail.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Interledger Mailing List - IETF <ledger@ietf.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPS+YFJ3SXHhBWk1k=B2ox1G0qLgUtcqsFdqjVQ6NU4Z55riXA@mail.gmail.com>
If it's designed right, you won't have any regulatory concerns. I offer $10 My terms 1 OSTK You offer $8 I offer $9 You agree I deliver $9 You deliver 1 OSTK End transaction. Time stamps on each "event". That has sufficient granularity to describe any transaction (currency, stock, bonds, grocery store transactions). It's a real-time system, and provides its own audit trail. Algorithms monitor for status. Andrew B. Brown (512) 947-8282 http://KidsCourtyard.com On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Jacob Pratt <jhprattdev@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I'm a bit confused by this email. Will the testing for ILP be done > using actual currency or dummy currency? Initially you say dummy currency, > which is what I think would make more sense, but later you are speaking of > the risk and potential losses, which would only be affiliated with actual > currency. > > Jacob H. Pratt > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> My suggestion is that if you start getting into "credit units" of some >> kind, you're on the wrong track. I say this from an accounting and trading >> perspective. >> >> The value being traded exists somewhere at all times and its location and >> owner must be known at every step in the transaction. >> >> Andrew B. Brown >> (512) 947-8282 >> http://KidsCourtyard.com >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com >> > wrote: >> >>> As I mention in the wiki, the goal is to test the capabilities of the >>> protocol by bootstrapping a real network of ILP nodes (not create an >>> unregulated payment network). >>> >>> I think it's important for this to be a network moving real value >>> otherwise it's difficult to motivate people testing things built on top of >>> the protocol to even consider ILP. We're only going to test this properly >>> when there is some skin in the game, we just need to make sure nobody >>> stands to lose more than they can afford to risk. >>> >>> As I have also said in the wiki, we have the advantage of a number >>> highly valued crypto-currencies that offer us "permission-less innovation" >>> and the opportunity to move real value without (in most cases) breaking any >>> laws. If your particular situation prohibits you from running an ILP node >>> for fiat currencies but you can transmit and exchange crypto legally then >>> that's the way you can move real value. >>> >>> Obviously, every person that chooses to run an ILP node should evaluate >>> their own situation and not do anything illegal. For some, that might mean >>> sticking to fake money initially or developing a community currency system >>> between small groups of peers. >>> >>> Most importantly though, we should continue to only move small amounts >>> both because we don't want anyone to risk more than they can afford to lose >>> in helping to bootstrap this project (which is still under heavy >>> development) but also because we don't want to raise the ire of regulators >>> when our immediate goal is to test the protocol not become an unregulated >>> payment network. >>> >>> Finally, and this may be obvious, but I want to be clear, that by >>> running a node and exchanging real value using this immature protocol, you >>> are taking a risk. I (and I think I speak for everyone else involved in the >>> project) take no responsibility for any losses anyone incurs, whether >>> direct or indirect, in being a part of this. We are being pioneers and >>> there are risks. >>> >>> Be responsible, only exchange small amounts and make sure you understand >>> the applicable regulations for your specific case before you proceed. >>> >>> >>> On 9 November 2016 at 21:59, Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Andrew Bransford Brown < >>>> andrewbb@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd suggest a State exchange to avoid SEC regulations while building >>>>> the market. Once you cross state lines, then pass the SEC regs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's a little more complicated than that. Individual states within the >>>> US have their own money transmitter laws, which often apply to money >>>> transfers within the state in addition to transfers between states or >>>> countries. >>>> >>>> Setting up a test network with a fake currency that has no actual value >>>> sounds ok, but if you are moving real money, even within a single state >>>> (state laws providing), you'll want to have a money transmitter license >>>> before you do so. For transmitting money between states, you'll need >>>> licenses for every state you plan on operating in. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tony Arcieri >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ledger mailing list >>>> Ledger@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledger >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2016 21:56:53 UTC