That’s 2025, I presume?
Sorry, yes it’s May 2025.
1 Like
Hi @kukabi - I never meant to impose any type of restrictions on voting by the community. I am simply stating the need to impose some sort of enforcement or requirements to be in compliance ASAP for beneficiaries and bounty curators to complete KYC/AML - in order to avoid penalties, audits and enforcement later in the future.
The Ooki DAO was mentioned to remind proposers and voters behind initiatives that are not in the community’s best interest or personal gain can have consequences. Proposing and voting to relocate to the Cayman Islands to try and hide from jurisdictional reach for past actions is one example. That will only raise flags and shine a huge spotlight on them - not protect them from various agencies.
Honestly, the group of bad actor or grifters/whale(s) are not the brightest by their continued efforts and trails of evidence when they started and attempts to cover those trails. So let them keep digging their graves. We should focus on showing how we are enforcing compliance consistently today going forward. The current Identity check is very inadequate and would not meet compliance standards and does not stop Sybil. There will need to be a temp solution in place like Deloittes KYC, unfortunately 5 months will be too long and too late.
For the Ooki case, this is a very interesting. It could lead to designing governance systems which are outside the law, to avoid prosecution. For instance, in this case, only people who “effectively exercised the governance rights associated with these tokens” were held liable.
What if you could set up a system whereby people vote constantly and more fluidly via their daily “actions”? For instance, a system whereby attention serves as a voting mechanism. What you give most of your attention to, is what you “support” most. So you could have an algorithm monitoring people’s engagements with different proposals/projects and after a set period of time, an algorithm or rather, an AI most probably, would examine several metrics including attention given to a topic (time spent examining it, debating and discussing it) and settle for a position without requiring a “formal” vote (which would translate to being liable).
On a more general note, the reading I have about the debates around complying with the law and regulations is more symbolic. When a child becomes a young adult and starts earning his own money, some parents freak out, are afraid of “losing control” over their “immature child” that’s going to spend all his money on drugs and alcohol. They want to have access to his bank account, monitor all his activities and transactions… When a society reaches the evolutionary stage of transitioning from representative democracy to self-governance, some governments freak out, are afrait of losing control over their immature citizens/society that will create chaotic communities of irresponsible ponzi scheme meme token shillers, and will want to have access to all of their actions to monitor their activities. Sure, we should abide by the law. Doing otherwise would be acting like a rebellious immature teenager. But I think we should remember the “bigger picture” of what’s happening here. The only constant is change. No governance system stays in place forever. I would design systems which comply with the regulation of AML/KYC, but which could be reversed very easily by the community when the time is right (whether this is when the regulatory environment changes, or when governments in their current form become less relevant).
1 Like
For the Ooki case, I believe the token holders that voted for Ooki to not to be compliant or to knowingly vote to break laws were held liable and not any or all tokenholders that participated in governance. That was the key point, voting for non-compliance can potentially be a liability.
Cheers.