Proposal - Change Community DAO Governance Structure – KYC/Age Requirements

Original Proposed Charter Discussion Link:
The “Community DAO Governance Structure”
https://talk.harmony.one/t/the-harmony-community-dao-governorning-structure/3620

Proposed Modification:

Discussion/Poll to determine broad community input on change/removal of KYC and age requirements.

Summary:

The intent of a DAO charter is to ratify solid ground rules for any future governors to refer to as they begin their journey as stewards of a DAO. The initial council of any DAO will be consistently learning during this time as best practices and new innovations are taking place daily in the broader space of decentralized governance. That is an amazing truth about the time we are all building in and something that should be a source of pride for the community. There are many themes in the original charter that are excellent and we want to congratulate the initial council on constructing the charter under such a tight deadline; no easy feat!

However, during the initial meeting of the newly elected Community DAO (CDAO) term 2 governors, it was brought to attention via community feedback (thanks to @Maffaz) that there are a few areas of the process that could and should be improved upon before such a document as a charter can be ratified. This proposal addresses these valid concerns and turns them over to the community for direction. The two areas identified that need clarification from the community are KYC and age requirements.

Background:

The main charge of the initial council was to develop three mandates for the CDAO to operate under in perpetuity, as well as write up a charter to govern the council. Several areas the charter touched on were establishment of initial requirements for council seats, multisig wallet access, funding and future proposal methods. The original charter document was constructed during the final period of term 1 for the initial council as tooling methods for elections, governance, etc are in the process of being currently integrated into Harmony. In lieu of these proposed methods, an ad-hoc system was utilized that didn’t allow for broad community input and poll statistics. This resulted in the absence of a community consensus on several important topics: KYC and age requirements.

The KYC and age requirement (18 years old) section was written in an attempt to be forward-thinking, but without community input this simply cannot be enforced with current methods and resources. Until genuine legislation is brought forward from governing bodies around the world, rules like this can only act as a “gatekeeping” mechanism and empower governors in a way that goes against the standards set forward by Harmony itself. Currently DAOs are not legal entities and therefore not subject to legal requirements. If DAOs ever become legal entities in the future, then the charter and council seat requirements can be addressed by the sitting governors and community.

Motivation:

The current council seeks to solicit community feedback concerning these two areas; with the goal of a resolution consensus being reached by the community and voted on via Snapshot. The council will then bring any other potential issues concerning the original charter to the community in form of a proposal; with the ultimate goal of capturing all the community desired inputs in the updated charter. We look forward to having a ratified charter based on the desires of the community!

Request for community feedback:

Again, governors were originally intended to serve a simple role in the DAO process; to act as caretakers of the funding proposals passed and encourage the community to become active and involved. Ultimately each DAO proposal voted and approved is meant to be organically brought from the community. “Open Consensus for 10 billion” can only be achieved by providing a voice to all and we are proposing tackling this issue first.

We are looking for active engagement from the community and want to hear your thoughts. Please provide comments and use the attached poll in reference to this discussion; your inputs are highly appreciated!

16 Likes
  • No KYC or age requirements at all
  • Keep KYC and 18 years of age minimum requirements
  • KYC only
  • 18 years of age minimum requirement only
  • KYC and lower than 18 years of age minimum requirement
  • No KYC but lower than 18 years of age minimum requirement

0 voters

4 Likes

Thank you for allowing the community to provide input on KYC and Age and I hope you are also going to look into the other points I highlighted.

I personally don’t believe that KYC / Age verification is relevant to a DAO and goes against what it is supposed to represent. It will also discourage many people from considering being part of the DAO.

I work quite a lot with data protection and GDPR and I face these challenges daily in my work.

I have a few questions and because the DAO is not actually a registered business, it is no doubt not bound by any laws but the following I would expect as a bare minimum to even consider having some sort of KYC

  1. Why do we need KYC / Age verification? What is the purpose of the dao obtaining this information? What will it be used for?.

  2. Specifically, what information are you asking for? name? age? address? social security number?

  3. Who will do the checks?

  4. Will checks be available for every country in the world?

  5. If not, which countries can and cannot have checks done?

  6. Have you sought out any legally recognised organisations in each country that is legitimately allowed to carry out the checks?

  7. Who will pay for this?

  8. What advice have you sought on the storing of personal data and in which country? If so, what is that advice and where can it be viewed?

  9. How long will you store the data for?

  10. Do you have provisions in place for the transfer of data to another party (new governors) or will you destroy the data beforehand?

  11. What advice have you sought about the transfer of data from one entity to the next? If so, what is that advice and where can it be viewed?

  12. If you are planning on destroying the data, how will it be destroyed and who will verify its absolute destruction?

Thank you again for taking the time to facilitate this debate and I look forward to discussing the other points mentioned in the Charter thread.

Onwards and Upwards, Onwards and Forwards.

9 Likes

yep, 100% why it’s currently not feasible. Fully agreed imo. Excellent post as always @Maffaz

6 Likes

Agreed Maffaz, I believe all your questions highlighted the issues with having KYC as part of the governing structure, the fact that some of these questions cannot be answered realistically at this time highlights the issues with the current structure furthermore. We look forward to continuing to review all processes and structures of the DAO to improve the DAO as it grows.

We really appreciate you reaching out and it’s great to see someone participating and having their say.

4 Likes

Fortunately I have the unwanted privilege of dealing with this kind of thing and I never expected my knowledge in this area to be used elsewhere lol…

I am happy to help as always but more importantly I am happy that this is transparent and discussed properly with the community.

There is no wrong in discussing and debating anything. Even something super silly like I dunno “The CDAO should build a Rocket bigger than Musks out of old soap bottles” …

Having the option and having it discussed is what is important and allowing the community to decide.

Power to the many, not the few.

I believe the CDAO will prove to be a solid example of how a true community DAO should operate.

Stay cool.

Onwards and Upwards, Onwards and Forwards.

8 Likes

Valid points there Maffaz! At first I was leaning towards have the KYC and age requirements but upon further reading and learning what a DAO does, I have realized that it is not needed. Sure it can be implemented if the DAO is recognized by a government entity but we are not there yet. It is up to the community to choose wisely on whom they want as a DAO governor. It’s the Governor’s responsibility to uphold the mandates and not abuse their roll for any personal gains. I’m happy these issues are being talked about and I am ready to learn more!

4 Likes

So, I prefer to have KYC

Namely, I wouldn’t want a single person/entity to be able to game the DAO in order to get multiple seats by using several aliases

I understand the concern over the inability to verify identification in every country or location. I dont have a proposal in how to solve that

I don’t know the answer to the following question off hand, but are the ID’S of current governors accessible to the public? I would be fine with keeping them private, if they aren’t currently. But I would want someone/something to be in control of that information in case a nefariously-acting governor does “something” to warrant their “doxxing”. I guess, in that situation, it would need to be voted on first, however (by the entire ONE community?)

As for the 18-year old requirement, it makes sense, initially. But then I think, “What if there’s some whiz kid or ‘influencer’ that wants to bring their talents to a Harmony DAO? They could certainly have the ability to add to and improve the ecosystem.”

So if it’s legally in the clear, I’m cool with allowing under 18’s. But I still prefer KYC, even with its limitations, given the alternative

I haven’t voted yet. I’m willing to see additional comments (note: I’ve only read a few comments thus far but wanted to get my thoughts “down” before I forgot)

3 Likes

In regards to the voting options, I feel like they aren’t standardized

Suggestions (in order of current options):

  • Remove all KYC and age requirements
  • Keep all KYC and age requirements
  • Keep KYC only
  • Keep age requirements only

Aren’t the following just the same as options 3 and 4 above, but worded differently?

  • Keep KYC but remove age requirements
  • Remove KYC but keep age requirements

Or are you saying “lower than 18” meaning you’ll set a new minimum age requirement? If so, what’s the new minimum? Is there a new minimum? Could an infant technically become a governor?

1 Like

Great Post :blue_heart::blue_heart: . Fully Agreed :ballot_box_with_check: . Thanx for the Proposal :blue_heart::blue_heart:

2 Likes

Thanks for your input! I’ll do my best to address your concerns.

"Namely, I wouldn’t want a single person/entity to be able to game the DAO in order to get multiple seats by using several aliases."

We conduct video/audio meetings on a regular basis and all governors attend (unless unable to). It would be tough for 1 person to act as multiple people in that situation.

"I don’t know the answer to the following question off hand, but are the ID’S of current governors accessible to the public? I would be fine with keeping them private, if they aren’t currently. But I would want someone/something to be in control of that information in case a nefariously-acting governor does “something” to warrant their “doxxing”. I guess, in that situation, it would need to be voted on first, however (by the entire ONE community?)."

Currently no IDs of the 9 member council have been made accessible to each other or the public. Depending on how this proposal poll/subsequent snapshot vote goes, if KYC is required then we will have to research methods to determine feasibility. That being said, all funds the Community DAO holds are kept in a multisig wallet. In order for any transactions to occur it takes a minimum of 6 governors to approve the transaction in order for it to be processed. I bring this up in order to put your mind at ease involving nefarious actions. We are currently addressing the proper steps required to remove a governor from the council, and the community will be involved with that process.

I hope I have addressed your concerns! Please bare with us, the DAO concept is very new and we are traveling through uncharted waters. I can assure you we are all motivated and want to get this endeavor right for the benefit of the community!

2 Likes

When we referred to “lower than 18” we are referring to a younger age. We didn’t want to give 10 more poll options in descending age order. If the community wants a lower age requirement we will do another poll with age options to identify the consensus on age.

2 Likes

Curious, who is the KYC submitted to?

Regardless, that’s almost besides the point I think. At least for me. As I still think it’s important for the entirety of the Harmony ecosystem to be able to know who, specifically, is in charge of these DAOs, if that need arises. There MUST be some type of accountability. That’s what I’m getting at. I don’t want some “anonymous” persons in charge of these things. And I’d imagine the vast majority of the world feels the same. Keep in mind that everyone here is an “early adopter”. We all likely have either more technical knowledge in regards to crypto, or were fortunate enough to have stumbled across it sooner than most. Or simply are more inclined to take a “risk”, per se. I’d assume most of the world doesn’t understand crypto, is skeptical of it, and/or doesn’t have much access to it. When they do come onboard - hopefully with Harmony or its bridges - are they going to want to be governed by some anonymous persons named “Smokey” and “The Bandit”? I very much doubt it

So, again, I’m very much in favor of KYC

I’m not asking that their names, addresses, date of birth, country of origin, social security (or equivalent) be plastered online. Just that it is known by SOMEONE in order to maintain credibility and accountability

1 Like

In regards to age, I think it should either be 16 or 18, or no minimum at all

I feel like a minimum age requirement below 16 would be arbitrary. What’s to separate a 13 year old from a 9 year old, or a 10 year old from a 5 year old, etc?

ONE would think the community wouldn’t vote in an unqualified 6-year old, for example. But I guess you never really know

Before removing the 18-years of age minimum, can someone first explain why that is wrong? Once we know why that is “wrong”, we could then try to improve it. But until then…

I asked this and some other questions in my post above. It is an idea that was not thought out in its entirety.

The community as a whole is in charge of the DAO. The DAO should not be making decisions for the community and anything the DAO does should require approval from the community first. This is why a charter that reflects this is so important - Not to give any power to the DAO or any single Governor.

Who will this someone be?

How can we trust this someone to do the checks correctly?

Does this someone also need to do a kyc?

Who will do the kyc for that someone?

If someone in say, in Iran, who was kyc, managed to to achieve something deemed corrupt

Who will decide it was corruption?
What mechanisms would facilitate their ‘trial’?
How will they be punished?
What would the dao do to enact this punishment?
What laws would be applied?
What would happen if later it was proven that they were completely innocent?

Also, what if the someone is corrupt or doxxes someone maliciously or gets hacked? what will happen then?

Or do we limit governors to countries that there is some control? Register as a business or other legally recognised entity? These options immediately make the DAO a centralised organisation and may as well not be called a DAO. It could just be a department at harmony HQ in the USA, governed and taxed in the US and bound by US laws. You can apply that logic to any country in the world.


As it stands now, Harmony is a registered company in the USA and is by definition a centralised entity and it is bound by the central government in the USA which and has zero control over it’s actions. If the US gov declared tomorrow that all crypto is illegal and it would seize all assets, that would be the end and there would be nothing we could do. China is a prime example of what a centralised government can do in this area and is not limited to the Crypto space.

Even well known companies that are registered and fully doxxed / KYC and indeed crypto projects can be corrupt but this is mainly due to centralised power and for a single or small group of people making decisions. I don’t believe KYC, being doxxed or having a business address for example exonerates anyone from corruption.

There are many, many examples, not least the global banking industry who literally stole of the majority of the world and got rewarded for doing so.

This would not have been possible in a DAO setting with the community having the final say in what happens. I am not sure that shareholders of certain banks would have agreed to vote for share prices dropping / banks dissolving so that executives could have larger bonuses that year without scrutiny or punishment.


I understand you have some worries but all decisions will be made by the community via a vote.

This is what decentralisation is.

There is no kyc requirement to hold harmony, build or vote.

It is permissionless, decentralised and global and for any of these, you can be anonymous.

For your concerns, which are valid, the community would have to vote then into the dao and then that person / person(s) would have to convince the entire community to vote in their favour for their proposals.

The point here is that we cannot have it both ways. To be truly permissionless, decentralised and global, we cannot be bound by standard laws that everyone is used to.

It’s a new concept '100 DAOs on a global scale" and what you pointed out are exactly the challenges daos have to overcome.

The is why it is extremely important to not give the dao or any single governor any power and for all decisions to be voted on by the community. It puts true power into the community, into the many where anyone and everyone gets a voice. Thus making it much harder to corrupt and manipulate.

It is both exciting and scary at the same time. I don’t wish to change your mind only provide a different perspective so you you can consider all aspects of this.

That is a great thing about the DAO and decentralisation and something I will continue to champion and promote.

Your opinion counts, it matters, it is considered, no matter who you are or where you are and that is what all DAOs need more than anything to progress, community involvement in debate and voting.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply!

1 Like

Personally age should not matter. There is no specific ‘adult’ activities possible in the DAO and I regard it as a non-point.

Governors volunteer and have to be elected to be in the DAO and even the hours are optional.

In the UK I worked 14 hours a week doing a paper round at 13 and did other jobs for example… There is no age limit on being self-employed or running a business as long as you conform to the laws of school attendance.

One exception there is that you can only be a director of a limited company at 16 (CEO). You can still be on the board and own the company but to have that job, you have to have left school (or be about to)

I think maturity would be the defining factor that would separate a 13 from a 9 year old. It would be highly unlikely that someone that young could garner support and be elected to the DAO.

2 Likes

For a DAO to be recognised by a government entity, this means that the DAO is under the jurisdiction of that government and by definition becomes centralised.

The community may have control over the DAOs decisions but ultimately the government has control over the DAO’s very existence.

There will be names required to be on that legal sheet and that will make them liable as signees.

We could be in a situation whereby the community votes in favour of X, the DAO attempts to carry out this action but the government says no, or even worse, attempts to sue the DAO (maybe they got halfway)

Not to mention a few other things.

What country will is be registered and recognised in?
Who makes this decision?
Who will be registered on the company name?
How can we facilitate governors from countries that are not friends or do we just alienate them?
Who will pay the legal fees to create such an entity?
Who pay the legal fees if the DAO is in breach of an old / new law?
Will each DAO require a legal department just in case?

Laws can change at any moment in any country and can affect any entity. I am confident that if crypto became a threat to certain industries that they would lobby to get them shut down (like in USA / UK) or if the Government decided it went against that countries ethics (like Afghanistan / North Korea / China). This is common knowledge and not even disputed as a fact.

Centralised control leads to corruption and this is exactly what DAOs are trying to avoid.

1 Like

KYC shouldn’t be necessary to participate in a DAO as a governor. Obtaining and storing personal information is problematic for some of of reasons mentioned in other replies.

Although I don’t think we need KYC, some type of provable on-chain identity for our governors could be a good thing. Imposters and scammers are prevalent in the digital world. Developing a provable identity for our governors could help insulate our community from anonymous bad actors attempting to usurp the position/influence of our governors.

I look forward to reading more replies in this thread and more tools for DAO governance coming to Harmony soon

1 Like

KYC via DDID so you can confirm identity without revealing personal information but are we there yet ? Where would the database be to initially store and issue the DDIDs.

If it can be implemented then everyone should KYC with a DDID. :thinking:

5 Likes

Who will pay for, manage and maintain the DB? And how can they be trusted? who polices them?

We are back to the main question though.

WHY KYC? for WHAT purpose is this required?

1 Like