Identity - Spectrum of Trust

[drllau]

Identity - Whether membership in a "registered" DAO can be anonymous, pseudonymous, or requires an identity (could be company name / registration, or identity of a natural person.

Identity should be commensurate with the role .... just walking past a gate-cam it shouldn't be demanding my racial profile, yet if running for president, you should be transparent (coughtax recordscough). Hence AFAIK the WY legislation doesn't demand credentials (unlike the PRC blockchain regulations) but the more rights and responsibilities, the more external trust anchors should be queried (>18 for legal contracts, in US jurisidiction for state use taxes, etc).

What might be useful is assume all you know is an ETH (or altcoin) public address, then adduce an evidence ruleset (more likely than not, on balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt) that a fuzzy fact can be narrowed. However, worth a look at basic contract privity & tortous interference with contract caselaw to see whether existing provisions are sufficient

[drllau]

Entity Status - Whether DAOs become a unique type of entity. This might be a more futuristic question, but we should decide whether we would want for DAOs to be able to register as some sort of unique type of entity

Related to trust is the WY regulators start from basis that existing legislation should be adequate (though their worldview concentrating on LLCs rather than co-operatives or clubs). What should be LexDAO position is that

1. we aim to be legally compliant with state statutes and UCC
2. some mechanism (eg membership registry) are functionally equivalent through blockchain primitives
3. if sufficient evidence (to whom?) then should be granted waiver from the onerous duplications

[drllau]

Liability - Obviously want limited liability for DAO members, so that people could sue the DAO and not reach through to individual members.

This is a "how long piece of string" question. Within a DAO, the cyptoeconomics should constrain behaviour but bad leaver with residual harm passes the liability to the group. This is where balancing the identity & role comes in ... the more privileges then the greater the matching proof of stake

[drllau]

Example of where anonymity is a bad thing during liquidation

The liquidators cannot effect personal service on 90 to 95% of Account Holders, because the only contact information held by Cryptopia for 90 to 95% of Account Holders is an email address.