DEX's on the IC

[jsull9]

First, let me start by thanking you for the respect given in your response. Thank you for not trying to diminish my objective or, belittle me as a person. I will admit and note, that I can see why other community members may think I am aiming to be malicious. Let me be perfectly clear I am not, and this IS NOT my objective. I have an 8-year neuron, and I am and have always been an extremely big fan of the IC blockchain.

However, my objective here is to represent what I personally feel is best for the blockchain and ecosystem. I am not, nor do I plan on going on any of the social media platforms to start some sort of malicious campaign. I don’t have the bandwidth, nor the truly vindictive spirit which some might portray I do. My tone may seem more aggressive because as you can see the community hasn’t exactly allowed room for healthy discussion.

@dominicwilliams

firstly you make a case with an implied assumption, which is that all protocol tokens are American securities. That is a debate that is currently raging between the crypto industry and regulators, and many people expect this will take significant time to resolve – even though the SEC has taken a position, it remains highly controversial, even among their own commissioners and ex-staff.

I do, and have acknowledged this in previous posts openly agreed that this is still ongoing. My major concern as discussed in this post, was that soon we may not have any ability to buy, sell, or deposit ICP in certain jurisdictions IF the exchange Coinbase (which has a CEX monopoly over the ICP token in my area). This led to a nerve-wracking reality that for the sake of time I will not repeat, but encourage you to perhaps take the time and consideration to read.

@dominicwilliams

Secondly, you present the Roche Freedman lawsuit, as though that securities action is indicative that your case is correct. However, this was based on the Arkham ICP Report, which has been shown to be professional defamation, and the lawsuit itself was apparently created in furtherance of the aims of Ava Labs (Avalanche), who financed them, to harm a disruptive competitive threat. The lawyers involved have been kicked off the very class action they created (their class action currently doesn’t have a lawyer prosecuting it) and they are now being kicked off nearly all their other cases because of what their founder Kyle Roche revealed. I wonder why you support them in this way? The background is on the investigative journalism website, CryptoLeaks.info.

You further list whistleblower lines for the SEC and CFTC, which gives the impression of making a threat or encouraging others to join you in asking those guys to come after the ecosystem. Can you give some more color on your purpose there, because it feels like FUD?

Secondly, the lawsuits are in the open domain and were not meant as a means to prove my claim in that manner. I provided them to shed light on these extremely expensive lawsuits that have already occurred. I uploaded perhaps a lot of irrelevant material. However, there was no intention to “threaten”, or support the lawsuit claims. This was simply to show the ramifications. Then, show the only ways (as a regular investor, developer or end-user) can actually hold any developer team accountable. These are the steps in certain jurisdictions. Which again, is not my objective, however, there does not seem to be (as of yet) appropriate ways to handle these situations besides reporting them.

@dominicwilliams

Basic questions:

1. Are you advocating that the DeFi on other blockchains like Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche et al also geo-block US citizens somehow?

If they have similar DEXs such as those built on the IC then yes. I would advocate that as of right now they should (for their own safety and investors) geo-block USA. Is this essentially a crypto ban and completely against the industry? Of course, it is. However, again I provided all (maybe too much irrelevant) information of individual cases where the SEC tries to prove points. Do I personally believe that this is right? NOT AT ALL. However, as of right now, this is what should happen to protect not just users and investors, but really the developing teams. I am not a bloodhound for the SEC of CFTC. I can clearly see they are bloodhounds though.

I am not saying any of this to “taint” the IC ecosystem. I only have ICP tokens period. I am not invested in any other blockchain. I am no longer investing in any crypto until the terrible legislation is resolved.

This is (again), why I am trying to advocate on the IC. I do not want several other projects to end up in the same way. As of right now, several DEXs could be at risk, and in the example provided, it appears they settled just to avoid a long and painful court suit.

I am advocating for the betterment of the ecosystem, and that unfortunately, these DEXs should not be offering their services to USA users right now. I cannot speak and will not try to speak for any other crypto because I do not own them. If these DEXs get charged and end up stuck in legal battles it just does not seem plausible.

@dominicwilliams

Currently the Internet Computer network does not provide canister smart contracts with a way to geo-block different jurisdictions:

1. Are you suggesting that the web UX of DeFi projects detect the location of the user, by asking for their location from the web browser, and act accordingly? This would degrade the user experience worse than the Accept Cookies dialog, since the user will be asked for the permission, and sometimes to update their system settings, and a lot of people will be alarmed Or;
2. are you suggesting that the Internet Computer network should provide the country of a web user (derived from the IP address they use to interact with the boundary node) to canister smart contracts so they can make regulatory decisions (this feature is already being discussed)? A downside of this is that smart contracts could discriminate against users based on their location.

This is where, as a student, with a limited technical skill set, I will humbly admit I cannot nor will not give a definitive answer. I am humble enough to admit there are several more prominent developers (like yourself) who can try. However, I would urge and recommend you start to seriously experiment with possibly either. I just to see what works for now. This is 100% a bandaid. Although, if the industry sentiment is right and proper legislation is enacted then a bandaid is all we need to stop engaging in anything that could continue to jeopardize the IC blockchain and limit the use of its utility token or services.

To summarize, I want to continue learning, developing, and utilizing the ICP utility token. However, that reality seems to be in jeopardy. I am not causing any commotion to disrupt the blockchain. I am pressing the IC to uphold the best practices in the ENTIRE industry to set the example of what REAL TECH can accomplish. I do not care if ETH, Solana, OR Avalanche succeed. Personally, I hope they do not (except ETH) In good spirits, I do not vindictively wish this upon them. However, IF tomorrow they all are charged with these exact things and are dismantled I would not cry over it. Especially if the IC does the necessary work to not just “show”, but set the new industry standards.

I want ICP tokens to stay on any and all markets so I can continue to invest, learn, and develop on, only the IC. I feel this is how that happens. Do I like it? Absolutely not. How else can we make it happen.