Proposal one is uniquely dangerous because it creates an obligation for infrastructure providers to follow the law without specifying which laws and where.
Has a long-term validator in Cosmos, to my knowledge,. The trouble is that archway proposal one is not extremely careful. Archway proposal one subordinates the chain .
I propose that we get this proposal on chain as rapidly as possible to reduce the risks to this chain and to other chains in the cosmos.
Yes rescind prop 1 No no action Abstain incapable of formj v opinion. NoWithVeto this proposal will count toward a 1/3 veto threshold.
Just to illustrate this point, I have made a couple of tweets that I believe the code of conduct requires validators ensure censorship of due to their illegality in some jurisdictions
In the world’s most populous country, the above tweet is considered to be illegal.
Furthermore, a theoretical item for the community to consider.
A year from now, a new country is created because of the war let’s call it east Somalia. And in East Somalia, they pass AML regulations that entirely ban all blockchain transactions that aren’t attached to an identity.
Let’s say that one or more validators are located in east Somalia.
Due to the lack of clarity in proposal one, validators who have agreed to proposal one would likely need to discontinue work on archway and all of the other chains that they validate. So that’s a problem.
I just saw this now and wanted to offer some thoughts while getting caught up on all these various governance fora
In my mind, the proposal is quite clear and it puts the onus on the validator operator, no? Point 6 reads as follows:
Compliance with Laws and Regulations: All participants are expected to comply with applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions. This includes but is not limited to laws related to securities, data protection, anti-money laundering (AML), and combating the financing of terrorism (CFT).
Assuming that each validator operator is aware of the “applicable laws and regulations” within their respective jurisdictions, is it not the validator’s responsibility rather than Archway’s to determine whether or not they are adhering to said laws and regulations? Perhaps I am confused and don’t understand what you mean exactly, but one would hope that good validators self-regulate…
