Why not? The whole premise of your argument is that KYC will somehow stop criminals. I have already outlined why this is not practical on a global scale. I implore you to read through previous posts.
KYC is already proven not play a part in bad actors. We see this everyday in every country in every level of society.
What law enforcement? in which country?
The Governors of the DAO should not have the power to do anything without a community vote. Worst case scenario is still possible with KYC .
I would not trust someone who has had a KYC
I would not trust someone who has not had KYC
What I do trust is a charter that does not allow the governors power to make those decisions.
The real debate is how to design that and not whether or not you know them - or think you know them.
Again, what laws and in what countries? Harmony is supposed to be a global protocol. It becomes centralised by definition if you have to conform to certain laws of certain countries and not others.
If you are bound by the laws of a country or countries, then it is that centralised entity that ultimately has power over the DAO.
So I would argue that KYC DOES discriminate and DOES centralise the system because it is impossible to have KYC and to police this on a global scale without being under the control of a centralised entity or entities.
How is KYC centralized ? how goes it discriminate ? What is your preparation for the worst case scenario? (the entire DAO with multisig is corrupt). The functions of a DAO are not affected by doing KYC since is does not do the decision making.
First of all nothing has been proposed as to how the KYC will be done.
KYC is not possible on a global scale. You would have to have a connection in each country that would get the KYC information from the Government of that country. So the government could refuse for example.
To be able to have KYC you would have to have a location that is recognised and covered by laws that the community agree on. This would be in a country and governed by those laws.
Apart from the milllions of dollars cost IF you could achieve this, I highly doubt China for example would allow a foreign company to access citizens data. Not all countries are friends with each other and sharing private data is not in many agreements, let alone globally.
It is centralised because you rely on Central governments to provide the information and accommodate the data.
It is discriminating because you cannot cover everyone in the world.
Lots of countries do not oblige thier citizens to have ID that can be KYC’d including people in the UK. I for example had zero photographic ID until I got my driving license at 23.
Lots of countries are corrupt that IDs are easy to fake.
You also have to put trust in these centralised departments that no one can be corrupt and KYC fake ID.
KYC would not prevent this from happening as we see globally on a daily basis. Like in governemnt, people can be bribed, blakcmailed and manipulated into doing things.
You could achieve this easier than attempting to get many anonymous accounts elected…
I do agree that there should be a discussion regarding the releasing of funds but it is moot for KYC.
I think this is an interesting discussion but there is no real proposal here.
If the CDAO / community really wants to pursue this as an option then I suggest that a detailed proposal outlining the specifics of how this would work in reality should be put to a vote.
ATM, even IF this did pass as “KYC everyone” - We still do not know HOW this will be achieved
I never said people younger than 18 are incapable. Please do not fabricate. I said 18 is a standard and established threshold, and that choosing a limit below 18 would be arbitrary. I don’t see anything wrong with the current age limit. There is nothing preventing <18 year olds from still participating in the greater Harmony community
Anonymity inherently makes people less trustful. If we can agree on that, then it’s logical that KYC would provide a certain level of trust in the DAO. Trust is important to growing Harmony’s adoption
Apologies for causing offence. I must have misread and confused with another answer!
I do not see anonymity as making people less trustful.
Same as I do not see KYC as making people more trustful.
I see a charter that removes power from potential malicious actors as trustful.
Regardless, we still do not have any proposal about this and not 1 person has answered any of my questions about how this will be implemented or who will pay for it.
So far has been an interesting discussion though and great to see the community getting involved and I appreciate your input!
hi, very new to the forum here. But i do understand why people vote against KYC and age verification. But as been mentioned even if DAO is not a business or registered organisation as such, I do think the way DAO evolves and grows in monetary terms so will its responsibility. I think KYC and age verification could be useful, what to check is probably just government issued ID or passport. Should those details remain saved somewhere or deleted it could also be a choice by the DAO member who supply them?
Non anonymity can potentially reduce crimes on internet. There is a high correlation between internet anonymity and criminal activity on internet. A person with public identity is less likely to commit the crime than the anonymous person. Anonymity increases a person willingness to commit crime. Anonymity is the major factor that has been aiding in increased cyber crime rates. The Internet provides unbreakable anonymity for users, is a recipe for disaster. There is evidence that a person who’s identity is known is less likely to commit a crime than an anonymous person.
In my mind… the Governors are (should be) just the curators of ideas. They help guide the general community and refine ideas. They are responsible for proposing a refined idea to be voted upon by the general public.
So lets start there. What control does a Governor have? What control SHOULD they have?
My understanding of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) may be different than others…
In my mind, the Governors are the ones who are thought leaders, and help formulate the HIPs. Then the COMMUNITY votes on the HIP. The funds are then dispersed, unless the Governors vote to stop the releasing of the funds. Maybe not even that last part.
Assuming the above scenario, how could the Governors be held responsible for anything? The community is voting. The smart contract is dispersing the funds. The only way i could see the governors being held responsible, is if they have a final “Veto Power” vote to stop the dispersing of funds… so I would discourage that.
On top of the above information… If anyone collects KYC, they are then LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFEGUARDING THAT PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION (PII). To do that requires complex security and a lot of information, as well as checks and balances to ensure that information isnt abused by those who have collected it. Read that previous set of statements as a lot of $$$. Collecting KYC is a ridiculously large deal that we dont want to get into… If im not mistaken… that is what @Maffaz is so passionately trying to convey. Who gets sued if the KYC repository is breached, and peoples’ identities are stolen?
So maybe instead of quibbling over whether or not we should be collecting KYC… we should take a look at the reality of collecting KYC, acknowledge that we DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH THE NUTROLL THAT ENTAILS… and build a system which doesnt require it.
Agreed, 100%. 42 myself and I have almost always known the scammer taking my cash.
This is how Governments should be run… and DAO’s are the solution.
I agree that DAO’s are unlike current corrupt Governments. What is being built today with DAO’s could help to facilitate a much better tomorrow. Not just for our small community, but it could potentially be used as a template or starting point for something much larger.
If we can build something that is run by the community, and facilitated by the governors… that is the way that the US government was INTENDED to run… a democratic republic. I think that with todays connected world, we can take that to the next level. We dont need representatives anymore. We can participate directly. The question then becomes, how do we ensure that those who are “in charge” cant scam us… whether we know who they are, or if they are completely anonymous?
Massive Kudos btw for being so adamant about the complexities and legal ramifications of collecting KYC. It is something that most people dont understand… and even fewer understand the hurdles of doing that on a global scale! (We are talking about a handful of companies/organizations who could reasonably do that… and they will cost a LOT of money. At the end of the day, they STILL wont be 100% reliable if someone gets elected from some 3rd world country that doesnt have digital records)
Am I the only one who sees the irony in a decentralized organization trying to model it’s governance on the centralized model of KYC?
KYC verification and age can be easily manipulated and that is not what prevents fraud.
We need to think differently from the centralized system that has been in-grained in all of us.
I am also amazed but this is the beauty of the DAO and community involvement… Not everyone knows everthing and discussion is important to find the correct solution.
Even th wildest ideas can be discussed and maybe some wild ideas will come to fruitition but if not, education will be the worst case scenario which is a great thing…
You can read through the discussion with many agreements with you but here is one example
It seems that currently the DAOs are directly funded by Harmony, to the extent that timesheets for DAO governors are signed off by a member of Harmony staff.
I would have thought this setup is in danger of falling under employment law in many countries.
Perhaps there is a legal requirement for Harmony to capture IDs in this instance?
Please make sure to vote on