@lex_node I think it’s a great proposal, and I fully agree that law enforcement in the US is one of the biggest ‘threats’ to DeFi.
At the same time, authorities in the US and politicians dominate the discussions about DeFi and set the tone globally. The focus of raids should therefore be the US and only shift to other countries or the international level if necessary.
Concerning campaigns, my understanding is a bit different. While it makes sense to prepare position papers for the analysis of Yearn-relevant primitives in the US, the community should actively try to lobby for better legislation. Since capital and financial markets regulation is heavily influenced by the recommendations of global standard-setters (FATF, FSB, CPMI, IOSCO etc.) - even in the US - it would make more sense to lobby at these levels and to educate the standard-setters accordingly.
The moment initiatives, such as the travel rule, are picked up on the national level, it is too late to change the overall direction.
I also suggest proposing new regulatory approaches to DeFi rather than simply modifying legacy rules. The approach discussed here, might serve as a basis but further discussions are necessary.
I fully agree. A more proactive approach is needed. In addition, the approach should be more comprehensive. Current initiatives mainly focus on risks related to money laundering, terrorist financing, and tax evasion. Investor protection has a high priority as well.
Other topics such as market integrity, market efficiency, and financial stability do not play a major role so far. If DeFi becomes mainstream - and at some point it will - these issues have to be addressed as well. It is better to deal with them all at once rather than piece by piece.
Self-regulation might be one possible solution. As it will be difficult to hold DeFi protocols accountable, it will face similar problems as the current regulations, however. I’m not saying that it is impossible, but certain changes would have to be made to the protocols.
An ‘opt-in’ approach might be an alternative. But also in this case, changes on a regulatory level would be necessary.
This is a great proposal personally I think this a crucial initiative for the space, and a perfect counter to the non-transparent proposal that has recently passed in a popular DeFi protocol’s “Governance”.
I’m also speaking on behalf of DXdao, and we would also like to join and contribute to this initiative. DXdao prioritizes decentralization and trailblazing fully on-chain decisions and such wide ecosystem collaboration is right down our alley.
This issue has been discussed before in DXdao, and a decision has already been made to allocate funds for any legal issues around the DXdao. That being said it’s a more reactive approach than a proactive one here.
At any rate, we have reached out to members of LeXpunK and we would like to get involved, both professionally and financial.
this could be one use of the funds that should be explored, but to even get to the stage of ‘hiring a lobbyist’ on behalf of DAOs a lot of groundwork would need to be done as to what that looks like, who is best for it, what the lobbying would focus on, how to do it in a way that doesn’t betray the values of these communities, how to help them understand who they represent (there is no entity), etc.
I’m curious on everyone’s thought concerning the recent US legislation spear headed by the evil senator warren. Here is the twitter excitement from last night concerning this. 2k plus people joined in the twitter spaces on the spot call with many big names. It was a great discussion. Really it comes down to people needing to contact their local senator and ask them to support the new amendment. Hope this is helpful and it ties right into this concept. This is real as I do not do spam or tauting for monetary gain. This is just pure knowledge sharing. TY https://twitter.com/CynthiaMLummis/status/1423477647288328193