Quote from: Patatas on March 17, 2018, 04:49:59 AM

Totally against the idea.Cryptos nowadays are heading towards a path that they're not intended to be.Why would you want to centralise so much ? KYC/Standard procedures will heavily centralise the structure and that is not what cryptos are developed for.It's sad to see anonymity being fucked in the arsehole with all these ICO/exchanges.
Your standards established will rule out the fraudulent ICO's along with the one's which have great potential.I will never support such protocol which tries to build a small government around an "suppose to be" anonymous world.

Quote from: Elemco.in on March 17, 2018, 04:39:51 AM

This will likely be manipulated by the governments, any point of centralization will be tested. Ripple will be among the first order of business, most likely.

It's ironic how they will be building another government to escape from an existing government.

Hi Patatas,

I don't support centralization of these innovations in any way, shape, or form. I believe that standards that are fully open in their development and review should be the direction to go in here. I've seen SROs destroy industries exactly as you say, either by infiltration by "bad actors", or by defining the standards so high that only the "elite" can participate. A central place where all standards are published and easily available to anyone is no more centralized than, for example, bitcointalk or the Bitcoin wiki. This could be a GitHub repo, for example, and I don't view that as "supporting centralization".

I was supporting voluntary standards for such things as code quality to prevent hacks (browser-side JavaScript?), soundness of technical protocol (is their hashing algo easily crackable?), and policies to minimize harm (if someone hacks in the middle of the night, will someone be able to pull the plug and prevent further damage?). I believe these are common-sense things, and publishing an open standard for these things will help increase the confidence in crypto assets.

What I'm saying is that now things have gotten more serious, the concept of SROs in the U.S. market has been broached (in the article I linked in the OP), and regulators have responded with supportive statements. So now you have a situation where it is likely that SROs are going to come into play. This changes things a bit. What I conceived of as "voluntary standards", in some form, is likely to become mandated. I don't like that, but it's the direction we're now headed. And given that, there's a need to defend against this by shaping how it happens. Otherwise, things will be shaped by it.

Given the prospect of SROs being formed to regulate the U.S. market, I believe one or more open SROs should exist. More is better. This is a defensive move. If nothing is done, it's likely that one or more SROs will be established that are more closed than I believe this new emerging field should be. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see a monolithic SRO as best serving the wider interests. It's more likely they'll only serve those that fund them. Perfect example, FINRA.

I've really tried to communicate this message but if no one else wants to seriously consider the need for such a thing, there's really nothing more I can do. My organization is trying to do good things for this field, this is because I believe strongly in the potential of these technologies and want to be a part of increasing their utilization. Especially Bitcoin, it's the hugest paradigm shift, the highest "hanging fruit". But other things can also benefit from decentralization. Anywhere there's a gatekeeper, there's a need to overcome that gatekeeper.

Best regards,
Ben