The USD is the world reserve currency & North America was responsible for ~25% of global cryptocurrency volume in 2021-2022. Furthermore, ~90% of ICP’s Nodes are in North America.
That is no minority.
Complying with regulation is not being “hamstrung” - this is something every single crypto project is going to have to deal with as major players enter the industry.
Just because it is “web3” does not mean there are no borders, jurisdictions, etc
Oh noes, somebody participated in an SNS sale and created markets on ICPSwap and Sonic. This means its centralised and will be delisted from all exchanges!!111
I did the same thing with Uniswap, didn’t see people complaining about that.
Really?! The dashboard gives the impression of a more spread-out distribution. This seems like a sub-optimal situation, given the volatility of American policy, rhetoric etc.
How did you get to this figure? As a follow-up, isn’t it the geo-location of boundary nodes that is more important, when it comes to content oversight? I’d love to have my finger on the pulse for these metrics.
First, let me start by thanking you for “stepping in” (along with any/all others), and helping this conversation remain constructive. Your kindness, support, and passion along with others such as @aiv, @willguest, @Jupes_M, and @jwarner mean’ a lot. I am surprised I did not see this proposal and I apologize for not getting more involved in it when it was present. I actually think this raised several valuable points that I want to continue helping you in any way possible. The initiative in that proposal speaks volumes of the value you bring to the community. Please continue raising and helping assist dialogue with these difficult questions/ conversations.
Also, I want to take a moment and think @aiv for his post here. Now, more than ever, I feel this proposal should be re-evaluated, added enforceable code to appease the foundation’s desire for code instilled.
Apologies, I also just referenced the dashboard & it seems like the initial figure I’ve referenced is a bit inaccurate (source found below).
It’s more like ~200 in Europe, ~100 Asia, 6 in Africa, and ~400 North America.
So in reality only ~60% - sorry for the inaccuracy.
In regards to boundary nodes, there’s seemingly ~7 in North America, ~8 in Europe, and ~2 in Asia. So they’re definitely more distributed, but the majority of the computing power comes from USA.
Thank you (again) for providing this. I too, still have the same concerns and position. However, I am not, nor has this entire initiative been to diminish ICP.
Also, I do think the Ripple ruling is extremely good news and does set a good sentiment for things to come. However, to play devil’s advocate here, there are key distinctions between Coinbase’s lawsuit and Ripples. The programmatic sales seem to be where we all hope Coinbase is safe. However, in Coinbase’s T/C it explicitly states that anyone using their exchange is essentially holding a wallet inside their own larger wallet. Meaning Coinbase might not have the same deniability. Perhaps, the coinbase.pro or the now advanced markets could create that (hopefully).
I also want to point out that even if Coinbase is successful with the Programmatic argument, I still think the community should be paying close attention to the ICP portion of the SEC filing. More specifically pages 65- (top of) 68.
This to me, says even if the SEC has to pivot the still are setting a dangerous precedent of using language that implies it could directly file against those mentioned in the report. In fact, In my opinion, Ripple managed plausible deniability through unproblematic PR, and that is what helped them win. However, according to pages 65-68 in the complaint, the SEC seems to have different material to establish the case against ICP. This again, raises concerns, that they do not plan on stopping at Coinbase. It appears they will be furthering their agenda to any/all listed in the complaint.
I will say, the Programmatic claim did/does really help establish DeFi, and how DEXs could operate successfully. To avoid hurting feelings, I will just say my position remains the same for now. Especially, with how intertwined the SNS AND community fund is as @Accumulating.icp pointed out in their thread. I also feel I did my part to raise ethical concerns, biases, and unfulfilled obligations inside this community. I was reading the DAO investigation report, and felt how the governance and voting system established there, is much like the NNS for the ICP. Pages 13-17 really depict a similar reality for ICP token holders.
To summarize, I am glad we got the good news from the ripple example a great way to start gaining case law that is nonexistent. However, we are still not “out of the woods” yet. If this were the exact ruling on the Coinbase complaint I would have no problem humbly taking the L. You win some you lose some. You will strike out more often than you hit home runs, but you keep swinging. I will never stop, nor apologize for raising ethical concerns and possible securities violations. This is my civic duty, and my responsibility to adhere to R/R in my area. Especially, with the desire to operate my own NPO. I will not be bullied into silence. Having no plan, and letting it play out makes you just as complicit.
Again, thanks to everyone who actively participated in healthy discussion and made this a place where we can have civil discourse because you know, we are on a forum built on discourse.
One final note: If you want community members to put in any real work and man-hours on the IC governance, or in general I would advise you to stop sending individuals to Major social media platforms to be met with “your BAD PR go to the forum” to then be met with major contributors of the ecosystem try to silence your voice through extremely childish tactics while the moderators of this form do nothing. It really has spoken volumes to how staff really see the average users, developers, and investors (in my opinion of course).
The problem with quoting things (he said, quoting things) is that it can steer the conversation into side alleys. I feel the main sentiment was about the technological affordances, but it got somewhat left behind.
I second this point, plus this seems (to me) to be Dfinity’s general attitude as well: let the technology speak for itself. So much of the discussion around regulation does not get at the heart of the matter, which is the use of ICP within the system.
Most coins are variables in an algorithm that maintains a stable state while providing value in the form of consensus-backed transactions or other services to the owner. Thinking about ETH, it is a fundamentally virtual enterprise, meaning the barrier to entry is ‘a device’ and a few $. The staking model exists entirely as an abstraction for “belief in the network”.
The Internet Computer, I would argue, is another animal altogether. Sure, the result is still consensus-driven decision-making, but there is a dedicated hardware layer and, baked into the tokenomics, there is the deflationary burning of cycles to pay for computation on the node machines. There is a physical process happening, which is automatically crowd-funded by the network’s users.
I am no lawyer, but I can imagine this idea having legal weight.
This is a good point to continue in any of my posts. However, in the case of this post. I think using some quotes is okay. For example, bringing the conversation back to regulatory concerns and legalese. I think quoting direct citations without crafting a university-style APA (or any variety of styles), is okay in some circumstances that require it. However, I do respect this feedback.
Also, I will (again) like @jwarner, repeat, I am not a financial advisor OR a lawyer. Yes, projects, teams, investors etc., etc. should speak to a qualified expert prior to making any final decisions. However, my CPA/ Tax attorney is not going to represent, me nor look over my shoulder for every single endeavor. I believe it is up to us as neurons or stakeholders to have these conversations among ourselves. Make sure they are well documented and at the very least attempted. Then, of course, make final decisions based upon qualified legal advice.
This forum post and conversation is only that.
I still couldn’t figure out how you arrived at this number, so I went and did it myself.
Beginning with data center data from the dashboard, I copied all the entries into excel, sorted them by continent and made a pie:
Europe is less than 1% behind North America. As I mentioned, the location of boundary nodes might be a more important factor though.
For now prehaps. That is not an accurate reflection of global interest in ICP, nor is it sustainable to retain that % going forward. It is a very arrogant and blinkered view to dismiss Europe, Asia and Africa so easily.
Those emerging markets are where the future lies, even if it does not align with your personal belief that the USA is the centre of the universe.
Here here. ICP is leagues apart from Rippl3 but it does set legal precedence.
Thanks for the correction, definitely much more convenient to lay it out on a spreadsheet compared to quick mental math on mobile! It seems the discrepancy comes from the fact that I used the “map” which seemingly doesn’t get translated to mobile very well - was unaware there was an aggregated list, so thanks again for the information & correction!
My case in point. Great to see someone without a US focused agenda use REAL data and not just make up some junky number to back up their already wafer thin claims.
I am not discounting the US market, I think with the right laws and mindset the USA could utilise ICP tech for good. That is something that US lawmakers need to work on though, not the ICP.
Yes, this may drastically change from the current NA / Europe predominance. However that does not change the current state of the network.
Furthermore, nobodies saying the USA is the centre of the universe 
I am saying that they’re the world reserve currency though, and responsible for 25% of volume in the last bull market, so if you want to continue to tap into that liquidity, certain changes will have to be made to avoid breaking laws, copyright infringements, etc.
I was wondering where this abundance of negative sentiment was coming from, then I looked into your forums account, and realized your with @borovan 
I was wondering when you’d stop cleaning up his temper tantrums in the neopets discord and join us to cleanup for him here aswell. Clearly we know whos supposed to be doing PR🤭
I am not “with” Borovan and do not clean up his mess. He is a grown adult and has much right to post as anyone. I find it insulting that you would insinuate anything of the sort. I may be female but I am not anyone’s possession or puppet.
Nice way to try to discount a viewpoint you disagree with though. Shame it only works on misogynists…
I am not anti us. I spent a significant chunk of my life living there and have many good friends who live throughout the states. I just think you have it all backwards when demanding ICP needs to change rather than the US regulatory system which historically has an incredibly biased pro-dollar-is-king viewpoint.
Oh … spies, how exciting. What narrative do you have in mind for me?
You are the only one drawing this connotation, and it’s quite clearly to discredit me.
I say “with”, given you’re both apart of the “Dragginz” team, and have developed games together in the past.
An abundance of this thread has been in regards to copyright infringements - not only taxable jurisdictions.
It’s unrealistic to expect a country to drop laws that are essentially in place for the protection of individual property.
Furthermore, just about every country abides copyright laws.
We can say that the US should be the one to change their tax code for ICP all we want - but there’s functionalities in ICP that we’re made with the intention of “evading tax”. I wish you luck convincing them that this is part of the “new world” and that they should “let it go”.
I can just provide the reddit thread of your temper tantrum instead of using my own words…?
Quite the read! The main topic itself doesn’t do justice to the screenshots the comments provide!
A bold claim. Which ones?
