What about using Radix eXRD? They are launching mainnet shortly. The are layer 1 solution for DeFi. Swissprivatebanker has been invested with them. They are good team. Maybe we could reach out to the to see if their solution could solve our problem.
But then it’s not anonymous, or you mean David will keep their names anonymous but knows each individual person?
That’s liability I wouldn’t want if I were David.
Yes, this is the proposal.
There’s a chance David will have to do McAfee anyway.
Am I the only one who thinks that what we are starting will have serious political consequences for much of the world?
State secrets will be released in the Safe network. This is inevitable. When this happens, any person who has ever written in this public forum will be checked by the security services of more than one country. There are countries that directly kill their enemies…
Privacy. Security. Freedom
Let’s not venture into Roko’s Basilisk territory with unnecessary speculation and focus on the latest testnet.
This is what is the important thing at the moment.
Just to clarify that, before anyone get cold feet I do not believe anyone will have a problem with the national security services, it is still not a crime to participate in an open source project trying to create an anonymous network.
Privacy. Security. Freedom
It sounds simple (and lord would it be nice to have a simple solution) but isn’t this, from a legal POV, effectively a wrapping process, which would be regulated?
Sounds like we’d need to do KYC etc, and think about the liability side of things.
At the very minimum I’d imagine we’d need legal advice.
So you need to add this uncertainty to your cons list.
Yes @happybeing your question was not exactly clear so I crafted my reply to respond to both interpretations and so I believe I have already answered your query on the specific liquidity perspective, incentives etc. That said none of that has direct bearing on the proposal but is a question of what people would do with their Maid-e after protocol change, and the best to would be to open a new thread asking why exactly DEXs like Pankackswap, Uniswap, Sushiswap etc are so successful at incentivising such large amounts of liquidity pools to form.
Try to quantify that risk. The risk is as high as the two teams ability to keep their fraction of the private key secure, and the communities ability to judge that those keys are in good hands via a trusted proxy that expresses some level of confidence in it. In this case David and perhaps one or two others: David+2. As I highlighted in the proposal, your already relying on this level of trust for everything else to do with this project anyway so if anyone has a problem with level of trust, there would be trust problems with the whole project too.
Note that the alternative more complicated (but probably ultimately better user experience) “Wrapped” option with contracts for automatic swaps will also have unknown multisig key holders even further removed from this project and with even less skin in the game. They will also hide behind an army of lawyers and super high fees. Is that more “risky”, or not?
Note community member @seneca and team already launched exactly this for project Decorum. The reason I did not add that to the proposal is due to increased complexity. There is also no reason it could be added at a later date if there is demand and clear benefits to doing so. The simple proposal is bare bones, and sure a neat interface would be great but it requires more time, auditing, trust over and above the basic levels that I mentioned in the proposal. This proposal is base case, simple form. Any way to make it even simpler and secure?
Please note, from the proposal:
I could go through this forum and find many comments from David over the years expressing levels of confidence and trust in people and processes related to this project. Some of those comments could be interpreted by regulators to affect Maid price which is supposedly a huge potential liability and strictly regulated… if Maid was a stock security. Where is the liability in David expressing confidence views in this particular case though, exactly? Nothing in the proposal requires David provide absolute guarantees, promises of no risk, or involves David+2 saying anything other than extending the trust he already carries with this community a tiny bit further, without any guarantee. The same trust and guarantee that everything else in this project is already based on so someone does not like or trust it, they probably don’t trust this project anyway.
@JimCollinson you make some good points thank you, I will try to address them as best I can below to help find a way forward (or a dead stop):
So are you saying that when Maid Omni is swapped 1 for 1 to Safe Network Tokens, that Maidsafe has been legally advised that they need to do KYC? If so, then a system has to be setup anyway, no?
If we look to PDC or WrappedBTC or any number of similar examples, the custodians of the private keys do not to KYC, It is the merchant where you buy, sell, transfer BTC that does the KYC as makes perfect logical sense since this is where the tax events are also generated, not in protocol swaps. Why would 1 to 1 Maid-o to Maid-e (or swaps to Safe Network Tokens for that matter) be an outlier exception?
Sure, caution is prudent. Do you foresee this to be a stonewall block to progress for a long time (years already) and Is it more or less onerous than the legal requirements for dealing with the consortium of players behind Wrapped? It would help to measure against what David is already maxed out dealing with (and so I am on board with him dropping as a result).
Your comments raise the question of who exactly is to be seeking legal advice, and where: Anonymous community team members should seek legal permission from an array of jurisdictions that they reside in, asking if they can secure their fraction of a private key and facilitate a protocol change swaps (be fractional custodians)?
Or perhaps you are talking about David+2, which raises the question of whether he was required to seek legal advice before expressing confidence/trust in other people and future potential of parts of the project as mentioned above in reply to @Sotros25? If not why would this reversible protocol change singled out for special attention? Comment that may be interpreted to affect Maid price seem far more risky from a liability point of view.
We have at least one example to draw from that is very close to home: This community has already performed exactly this same operation. @seneca was the PDC protocol swap one big legal liability nightmare? Did you have to apply for a legal license? Is 1 to 1 swapping between protocols now somehow a regulated activity?
Nebulous Legal and tax concerns have been bandied about for a few years now almost as an excuse to shutdown this protocol swap. It would be nice for some realism and perspective and since the Omni to SN token must undergo exactly this kind of swap, would it not be better to test the water first with a voluntary limited liability Maid-o to Maid-e swap? Everything here has to be confronted before launch soon, anyway.
All that said I am not wedded to this idea. As I said here :
If the concerns linked in that post are already considered and covered in private (because there has been nothing posted to address these concerns that I can see on the forums), then all this talk of simple, straightforward concrete solution in Maid-e is just a huge waste of time for everyone. If come SN launch day we can tell all our work colleagues and acquaintances, blog post to world to fire up their mobile, buy SN Tokens directly or indirectly with their debit cards in a mobile wallet and swap/start using the SN then there is nothing more to discuss and Maid-e is a total waste of time. If however this level of usability might not happen for months to years after launch (or never:FATF), then we have a problem for the SAFEveryone. How to decide?. My personal shock test range to implement the execution layer on which DEXs will depend is 3 months to 6 years, so a target center of 3 years. @mav would have a more informed shock range though since my guess is based on his posts looking into how execution might actually be implimented.
Just a wee quick reply (I’m on my day off and up a ladder ) that yeah, it’s likely that any wrapping service would require KYC, and regulators involved for the wrapper. A lot of this would be jurisdiction dependent though.
Whether individuals who want to do swapping need to get legal or accounting advice, that is up to them, we can’t really make that call for them.
I’d also say that the legal landscape around all this has changed a lot since 2014, and we—MaidSafe—need to be particularly careful and do due diligence. I’m sure you can appreciate that. It would be a shame if the wheels came off because we barreled into something we don’t fully understand. And I’m certainly no lawyer!
Some aspects to this could be considered a 2-way door, but some not. I mean, it’s not like we are spending time and money changing how an app functions, and if it doesn’t work out then we just revert back… it’s not a 2-way door if there are handcuffs on the other side.
There are solutions to this, and they are being looked at, but none of them are perfect, and they might not suit everyone, but hopefully some can be laid out soon.
I dont understand why we should take risk and time to make Erc-20 maid right now.
There are some bugs like data loss or elder loss. Focusing on clearing these bugs is the most fastest way to get a value.
The ERC-20 maidsafe never guaranteed price up and exchange listing.
I take it that is a guess, because (edited with emphasis):
No it’s not a guess
Asking because other services like Wrapped that do the exact same type of protocol swaps, yet do not themselves do KYC (they specifically state that KYC is done at the merchant/exchange level).
I’m happy to be wrong though! But it’s the preserve of lawyers.
Although I’d imagine that becoming a custodian in this way, even if KYC isn’t required, will have other regulation involved. Again, not something you can just “give it a go” with.
It does, and regulators are taking KYC/AML very seriously.
Unfortunately KYC is required and regulation is increasing there. I was on a call last evening with @Sotros25 and a custodian (required for some services such as wrapped type systems) and there is no doubt about KYC checks.
There will be some automatic anonymous mechanisms for sure. However there are harder and harder to find these days and anyone setting one up should really be careful. If USA customers us it and the SEC long arm goes looking it’s not nice. Money transmitter etc.
However then things like uniswap if you are erc may be cool, some of the existing changley eric vorhees stuff and so on may be options.
I feel there will be a defo KYC option that some will want and be comfortable with (harder for highly regulated companies to steal/exist scam) and other happier with more anonymous mechanisms. I do feel this the landscape is dramatically changing and some regulators seem quite keen to leave no loopholes.
Well that is a pity… oh well on to the next. Maybe Shapeshift/Thorchain can pull through but looks like a really long shot since temporary Maid-o is last token left on Omni, no real reason for anyone to allocate devs to supporting it.
Thanks to everyone for the consideration and feedback.
Although, I wonder if it is worth investigating? We assume it is a no-go, but perhaps there could be collaboration? Joint community funding?
Looks like there are still Omni Tethers. I guess they’re just not issuing any new Omni Tether?