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.