Open source and control are related, but they are not the same thing. Publishing source code allows the public to inspect how a system is intended to operate, identify privileged functions, and independently evaluate security claims. However, open-sourcing code does not by itself prove that the published version is the code actually running, nor does closed-source software automatically mean that its developer controls users’ assets. Control depends on the system’s real technical and operational structure: who holds keys, who can authorize transactions, whether administrators can freeze or transfer assets, how validators are selected, and whether any party can unilaterally change the rules.
There is generally no legal requirement for a developer or blockchain project to publish proprietary source code to the public merely because a community member demands it. A person may reasonably prefer open-source software and make transparency a condition of their trust or participation, but that preference is not the same as a legal obligation. In a regulatory investigation, licensing process, lawsuit, or court proceeding, authorities may require a company to provide source code, technical documentation, or other evidence - often confidentially - to verify claims about custody, control, security, or compliance. That possibility does not create a general requirement to open-source the code for everyone.
Sorry for swooping in late, hope you didn’t share everything. There isn’t even a legal requirement asking you to open-source your proprietary code and many aren’t doing that. I think it took Dfinity 5 years to open-source theirs and something like Hyperliquid is still not fully open-source. You are obligated to do it only once authorities ask for it and then I suppose you need to prove its non-custodial and it`s the code that actually ran live. The only reason you would want to show your code is to increase public trust. You could do that by just getting few auditors to check it out in private as well. In a way you need to weight the benefits of showing it vs keeping it private. SNSes should definately not require something that even the law doesn’t require. In fact it’s a bit shady for someone to demand you to give them your proprietary code in order to launch something, given that AI can now reverse engineer it in minutes and copy it.
A community member’s demand does not, by itself, create a general legal obligation for a private software developer to publish its proprietary source code. A disclosure obligation must come from some applicable law, licence, contract, regulatory power, or court order.
It’s absolutely up to you what you want to open-source. Community members decide if they want to trust you, or your auditors or not. If you keep code closed and people don’t trust you, they just dont participate. It’s not like there is a swarm of mindless DAO lovers around here just waiting for a new SNS launch to ape into.
If I were you, given the low community participation, I would find out who is interested in joining first, verifying they are really capable of doing that and then perhaps opening the source-code to them in private if I trust they are really interested.
