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

Community
21

I would argue that ‘On chain ID’ is the same as KYC and ask WHY do we need KYC? for what purpose? The DAO has no power to scam and having a KYC does not automatically prevent scammers

There are MANY instances worldwide of businesses and fully doxxed crypto teams pulling scams.

IMO KYC will provide a false sense of security and can easily be faked anyway.

Not allowing the possibility to scam in the first instance is a better strategy and this is what the DAOs should be working towards and scrutinised and voted upon by the community.

2 Likes
22

I don’t think it’s necessarily about scammers we still have issues like fake accounts, duplicate accounts, bots etc…
I guess it would be up to the body issuing the IDs to determine what level of documentation would be required to create a half decent system it wont stop anyone from pulling a scam but it may deter some people/organizations as there would be some form of liability.

In my opinion if you are in a position of power be it a DAO council member or project owner and you are in charge of peoples finances, critical decision making and investments there needs to be some form of liability.

I personally would like to know what and who I’m investing in and be able to verify that information.

2 Likes
23

Why is this an issue? The community has to vote these people in. What do you class as a fake account? How would a bot make election? I think the prospect of managing many duplicate accounts for the possibility that ALL of them get elected would be quite the deterrent.

Which body in which countries? There is no cover all option here and even if you did manage to setup KYC in every country in the world you are still asking centralised and potentially corrupt organisations to do the verification. This is seperate from weather a fake ID can be used or the fact that someone can be paid to do the KYC for the potential scammer.

What is the point then? The solution is to not allow the possibility to scam in the first instance. Making it possible and then somehow attempting to punish them after the fact seems a bit counter-intuitive .
Why give the option in the first place?

The DAO has no power, the community has the power. If the DAO has the power then this needs to be amended.

Liability to who? in what country and under what laws? What would you expect to happen to a bad actor?

Why though? for what purpose? what will you do if they scam you? Who will you call?

I would say that you should focus on the contract, dev wallets, locked supply etc where the actual proof lies and cannot be amended or in this instance the Charter of governance. Whether or not someone is ‘doxxed’ or not does not make a difference and this is proven throughout history in general, let alone crypto history.

As already noted, doxxed teams and many businesses that are registered for tax, have offices, linkedin whatever have ripped off many people and are still operating.

KYC does not equal honesty
KYC does not prevent scamming
KYC does solve the problem of allowing a scammer to scam.

A clear charter and strict protocol to follow that does not give power to any individual or small group can stop this and that is what we need to aim for.

Thanks for the reply and being part of this debate. It is important to engage and be a part of the discussion! :slight_smile:

2 Likes
24

In reference to fraudulent/fake voting.

No geographical boundaries because it would be specific in this case blockchain/cryptocurrency all done online. ( verifying the data might be a problem ) yes it’s flawed I recognise that.

It’s not really about prevention though its just a deterrent, how effective it will be at this point is speculative, wont know till you try it. more about damage control if any.

Crypto insurance ? well this is a good question in my case if I start a business that deals with any number of things including digital currency exchange sectors I’d like to cover my own ass.

Indeed.

2 Likes
25

I dont think KYC is needed at the moment and likely really difficult to implement.
Im on the side to embrace regulations, but as there are no regulations at the moment this serves no real purpose.

Also dont think we need Age restrictions, if someone at that age manages to become elected, they really deserve it in my opinion.

The Structure of the DAO really minimizes the impact one bad actor could have, so I would say we are good without😁

4 Likes
26

I’m torn here.

I recognize the inherent danger of a person pretending to be someone else, or possibly multiple people, and seeking multiple seats in order to control a DAO.

Anyone who dismisses that danger either has an agenda, or far more likely… not thinking the potential problem through well enough.

A am NOT saying that is the case for anyone here, but making the point.

The question is how do we stop them in a reasonable and realistic manner.

I feel like that is the intent of the KYC & Age requirement from the original charter. A means to protect the body from corruption. Possibly from legal recourse… but that’s moot. As stated. DAOs aren’t legal entities, and aren’t really governed by any laws currently.

KYC is completely impractical, as @Maffaz and others have pointed out. A Digital ID of some sort is plausible, but I don’t think that the tech has evolved to do that in a secure, cost effective, and reasonable way yet.

Instead of running away from the best solution the previous members have, maybe we should be discussing how we solve it?

Let’s run TOWARDS a solution, instead of AWAY from an unviable option.

How can we be reasonably certain that one person is not holding multiple seats, with options that we have available today?

@StrongMindsHold brought up that the DAO holds video chats. Is it required to have the video feed turned on during them? Maybe it should be.
Maybe we opt to make it so someone can’t vote if they don’t have their video on. Both solutions have flaws, yes… but it illustrates the point that we can achieve the same level of certainty that the DAO has not become corrupted by one person holding multiple seats.

If someone wants to run for a public office, they are essentially volunteering to be a public figure. Public figures don’t have much privacy. If someone wants to remain anonymous, they probably shouldn’t be running for public office.

DAOs are a form of government.

Would you be comfortable having someone completely random and unknown representing you in your current government? Is this something that we should allow in DAOs?

I agree that KYC should be removed, but it needs to be replaced with something… not just thrown away.

As for the age requirements, refer to statements about the unviability of KYC. I recognize that we cannot enforce them, so what’s the point?

Someone who is too juvenile to be in that sort of position, won’t likely be elected to it. If they’re 15 and have the emotional age of a 35 year old, why shouldn’t they be allowed to be in a governors spot? (I recognize that the example above is somewhat unrealistic. That is intentional.)

3 Likes
28

I most definitely am not dismissing the danger of someone taking advantage of the DAO by impersonating multiple positions; was pointing out that we operate with video/audio meetings which would make it real tough to play multiple roles. I’ll agree it’s not impossible though.

In addition, the Community DAO functions in a supportive role. The community controls the direction of the DAO, governors facilitate proposals and take action on what the community has voted on. It would be tough for someone who fakes multiple accounts to control anything since the control remains with the community. We won’t be voting on actionable items; that is the responsibility of the community. We will be voting internally on unactionable items such a finalized drafts for proposal submissions, etc. Obviously I am open to points made concerning other nefarious ways they could assert some kind of control.

2 Likes
29

Thank you for your post… Great to see you involved in this debate!! Community engagement is very important for decentralisation and you are always here to answer the call. Respect and love to you!

I cannot see the government analogy here because when politicians are elected, they are given power to yield as they see fit.

They and they alone are allowed to make decisions for an entire area / region / country. The citizens (community) do not get a say in this.

Even though we know exactly who politicians are that does not mean that 1 person or group of people cannot control many many politicians.

They are allowed to be corrupt and get away with this on a daily basis in every country in the world and there is nothing anyone can do most of the time.

They plunder the public purse, give to their friends and ship it offshore. Publicly, legally and without any input from anyone other than themselves.

We would have exactly the same issue, even if we had a full KYC on every governor. Governors could be blackmailed / bribed / manipulated in the same way and gain power / control for the bad actor(s).

KYC gives a false sense of security IMO. I am 40 years old and I cannot remember a time when I have been scammed by someone I did not know… Banks, mechanics, car hire, insurance, shops, utility companies, friends, family… etc… I don’t get this thinking of KYC === Trust. Scammer RELY on trust to pull off the con and cannot do this very well anonymously.

It is not about ignoring the possibility of corruption, it is about REMOVING the possibility of corruption. This is what DAO’s should be facilitating.

If you are unable to yield power or take control then it would be a pointless exercise to place yourself as multiple identities (or individuals under your control) into that position.

I have no interest in WHO someone is, WHERE they are or HOW old they are. What I AM interested in is what powers they have (or do not have) and what the possible problems that can occur if they have that power.

I don’t want governors to have power, I don’t want the possibility for them to be corrupt. I don’t want a potentially innocent and good human being with the best of intentions put into a position where someone with nefarious intentions can manipulate, bribe or blackmail them.

Power should be removed and put squarely into the hands of the community, then we will have no issues regarding identity.

2 Likes
30

A few days later, but alas…

Your point as to who would be the KYC overlord is a valid one. I have the same question. What about creating a “KYC for Harmony DAOs DAO”? lol. I’m only half-joking… But they would need to KYC themselves (to the extent voted on by the Harmony community) to the Harmony community to be on that DAO. Before anyone says it, yes, I acknowledge that starts to get convoluted. I’m just thinking aloud here

As far as corruption, trial, punishment, etc., the community would have to decide that via vote. All governors should be required via DAO charter to report (suspected) governor corruption to the entire community, imo. Bring it to the people and let the community decide

The main point: Trust and Accountability are absolute musts. Speaking for only myself, I would prefer to have some type of limited KYC. And if I were part of a DAO, I would be willing to comply with said limited KYC

I’m also willing to concede that trust and accountability may be possible without KYC. What is “possible” and what is “preferable” are different things, however. Which is why this discussion is happening in the first place, I suppose. And if no KYC is approved via vote, it could also later be reversed via vote. So that theoretically alleviates some of my reservations there

In regards to no KYC for voting, Giv said on the recent YouTube “Oct 4th All Hands Meeting” that there were issues they were looking to resolve in regards to the voting process. Offhand I don’t remember if it was on that video or elsewhere, but I believe I’ve also recently seen that a DAO governor is in the process of being removed. I don’t know who or what DAO. But that is the type of information that needs to be made public and brought forward to vote on (maybe it is and I just don’t know where to look?)

As far as the age limit, I don’t think 18 years is wrong. I probably prefer that over any other option. But if an age limit were to be removed, then I would only support no age limit. As I previously said, anything under ~18 just becomes arbitrary. At least 18 has some established rationale behind it. [EDIT: If there’s no KYC, then you can’t verify anyone’s age. So, if yes Kyc, then 18 year age limit. If no KYC, then no age limit at all. But I prefer a limited KYC. That is my position.]

2 Likes
31

This disclaimer informs readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author, and not necessarily to the author’s employer, organization, committee or other group or individual.

KYC is in place so to help enforce accountability. In case a member of a DAO (or any other recipient of funds) take those funds to enable another person to be harmed, law enforcers will need some traceability to find out who the perpetrator is via KYC documentation.

As for age minimum, there’s been scientific evidence that maturity (or a level-headed mind) comes with age. The pre-frontal cortex of the brain, which controls a number of things including emotions, is found to be fully developed at an average age of 25. So, age 18 is actually a rather low bar to begin with.

4 Likes
32

I do agree with @Jacksteroo. KYC is very much needed. It will prevent falsification of identity and will be of ease incase of any fraudulent activities. It has be a limited kyc, E.g. the data should be available to other DAO member, but not to the public. Also, age plays a very important role in decision making process that’s is the reason why only adults are allowed to take part in elections in most of the countries.

1 Like
33

Thanks for the reply! great to see a good discussion about this.

The main point: Trust and Accountability are absolute musts. Speaking for only myself, I would prefer to have some type of limited KYC. And if I were part of a DAO, I would be willing to comply with said limited KYC

In what way would KYC imply Trust and accountability?
Corruption and theft is widespread throughout the world. Many individuals, business and organisations who are fully KYC’d cannot be trusted and / or are never held to account.

As far as the age limit, I don’t think 18 years is wrong. I probably prefer that over any other option. But if an age limit were to be removed, then I would only support no age limit. As I previously said, anything under ~18 just becomes arbitrary. At least 18 has some established rationale behind it

I know many many people <18 who are much smarter than most adults. What rationale are we talking about here? It is incredibly naive to state that anyone under the age of 18 is not capable of things that someone over the age of 18 is… This is demonstrably false. More to the point, If someone <18 manages to be such an asset to the community that they are elected into the DAO, why not?

34

Thank you for your comments and being involved in this discussion. It is a great thing that the community is getting involved.

KYC is in place so to help enforce accountability. In case a member of a DAO (or any other recipient of funds) take those funds to enable another person to be harmed, law enforcers will need some traceability to find out who the perpetrator is via KYC documentation.

This is not possible under the rules of the DAO. A governor does not have the power to take funds without a community vote and with a majority of signatures on the Multi-sig wallet to release the funds.

The DAO should not give any governor the power to make any decisions without a vote from the community. The point of a DAO is power to the community NOT the governors.

As for age minimum, there’s been scientific evidence that maturity (or a level-headed mind) comes with age. The pre-frontal cortex of the brain, which controls a number of things including emotions, is found to be fully developed at an average age of 25. So, age 18 is actually a rather low bar to begin with.

I know many many people <18 who are much smarter than most adults. It is incredibly naive to state that anyone under the age of 18 / 25 is not capable of things that someone over the age of 18/25 is… This is demonstrably false, developing or not. More to the point, If someone <18 manages to be such an asset to the community that they are elected into the DAO, why not?

I would be very curious to see this scientific evidence that a developing brain makes someone <25 less intelligent or capable as someone > 25 as this is news to me.

By that logic you imply that people > 25 are somehow void from / in full control of their emotions…

35

Thank you for your reply and getting involved in this discussion!

This is not possible under the rules of the DAO. A governor does not have the power to take funds without a community vote and with a majority of signatures on the Multi-sig wallet to release the funds.

Corruption and theft is widespread throughout the world. Many individuals, business and organisations who are fully KYC’d cannot be trusted and / or never held to account.

The DAO do not make decisions, the community does. Governors are not given power, they are custodians.

The main reason only adults can run for elections is because it is a full time job and they have to attend school… Governors are 10 hours a week. I worked more than that when I was 13.

In school, they have elections in lots of countries. Why is this any different? What does age matter if they are voted in?

If someone ran for election and you liked and voted for them. They get elected and you discover they are <18, would you then be upset? would your opinion change on that 1 fact?

What next? IQ tests? English tests? Criminal records check? should there be an upper limit of say 65 because that is when dementia is more prevalent in adults, and maybe men a bit older because it is more common in women?

36

“Corruption and theft is widespread throughout the world. Many individuals, business and organisations who are fully KYC’d cannot be trusted and / or never held to account” It is not about lack of trust, it is about prevention of bad play. The KYC details should not be public, atleast it has to verified and the information should be contained within the DAO member. Regarding to age; May be I would I like to change my opinion on that, since the person is not going be the decision maker it could be disregarded.

37

How would you prevent bad play with KYC?

KYC, as already noted, does not stop a criminal from committing crimes.

This is also assuming that the bad actor in question is indeed a criminal and joined the DAO for nefarious purposes.

People can change, they can be blackmailed, bribed, get addicted to drugs / gambling, lose their job, get conned or manipulated etc. Can KYC predict the future of people?

We will also have to police the DAO if power is given. Who will do that? Who will check the DAO is not corrupt or stealing? What punishments will they face and by whom?

Surely not giving the power to steal anything in the first place is a better option then spending ALL the DAOS funds in setting up and enforcing KYC.

Take away the power to corrupt and you have no need to worry, KYC or not.

38

Regarding this, may be from next time instead of just voting the people we like; as a community we need to vote for the right candidate by having a question and answer session on the forums. So, that there more transparency and information about his skills and competencies. The questions should not personal, it should be about what he/she brings to the table as being a elected DAO member.

2 Likes
39

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

We have an AMA for the VDAO with some set questions and also questions from the community. It runs on Harmony Discord and the Threads are there for all to see.

It is also expected that candidates are kind of known already in the community and that anyone who is not that well known should, in theory receive extra scrutiny about WHAT they are already doing and what they intend to do.

The DAO should facilitate and encourage this within the community.

1 Like
40

It does not relate to the topic of discussion.

The reason for KYC are

  1. Prevention; a person knows that his/her identity will be public in case of non compliance,
  2. To assist with law enforcement incase of fraudulent activity,
  3. The DAO members are not spending from their own pocket, they are spending the money that belongs to the community. Lets me explain this, let us treat DAO as person X and community as you/me/anyone. Would you be willing to give away your money (community money) in control of the person X; whom you met on internet (the person X is anonymous) because he promises that he is a good person and he will use that to develop what you (community) own. If so why ? I know the discussion is more complicated than we think ! we should not proceed unless we have a clear solution to this dilemma. I am suggesting KYC because, if we go by probabilistic approach, the worst possible scenario that can occur is the entire DAO is corrupt and their identity is unknown, here having at least their KYC done assures trust in the system and will aid enforcement agencies incase of bad play.
2 Likes
41

The person can stay anonymous if he/she wants to do whatever he wants to do with his own money. When it comes to operating with peoples’ money, I would certainly like to know who he is ! KYC is to assist with law enforcements in case of a worst case scenario. KYC does not determine the character of a person, it is to get in compliance with law and order.

Edit : DAO means Decentralized autonomous organization, it is not Decentralized Anonymous organization and doing KYC does not discriminate or centralize the system.

3 Likes