CIP-0989? | ISPO KYC_CDD #241
Conversation
|
@johnalanwoods we're wondering about the motivation behind the proposal, in particular from the SPO side? We're thinking this is something worth maybe presenting in the next discord SPO call to get attention from relevant parties? Also, we'd invite you to share it on the Cardano forum: https://forum.cardano.org/c/developers/cips/122 where CIPs gets discussed with a broader community (including some SPOs) |
|
@johnalanwoods @KtorZ also I've asked SPOCRA to chime in about this 😎 https://members.spocra.io/posts/22505688 |
|
Sounds good both. Motivation is to get ahead of things. Being proactive about providing a mechanism rather than reactive to any possible need in the future, brought about by regulation in a given jurisdiction. |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| #### Key Agreement Process | ||
| $$ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This won't render properly on markdown.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried to make this work on GitHub with a simple change to the TeX formatted block & couldn't. @johnalanwoods the math terms just need to be broken out from the text with single $ delimiters. https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/writing-mathematical-expressions
@johnalanwoods at the CIP Editors' meeting yesterday we were talking about this one again & still no feedback from SPOs. I wrote to Rebecca Hopwood @ IOG and she says you're a regular on the SPO calls... did you ever share this there? If not, could you poll the SPOs at the next call to feed back here? I would also like to see this discussed on the Cardano Forum as @KtorZ suggested, though I haven't seen much forum participation from the leads of the big token projects. Yet some potential CIPs there e.g. those having to do with PoS mechanics have had a lot of detailed discussion there so I still think it's worth a try. It may be most helpful to ping the project leads of ISPOs of the last year, and the ones active now, for feedback. Also World Mobile Token didn't do an ISPO but they used KYC for their ICO, storing the validations as metadata somehow. If you need help finding the project leads or tagging them on Github let me know & I'll do what I can. |
|
Hello John, thanks for submitting this CIP, when i was reading this cip, I came to one phrase: This article outlines a technical approach to ensure SPO (stake pool operators) are empowered to receive data regarding the identity of ADA holders delegating their stake to a pool." SPO will receive data regarding the identity of the ADA holder. Most ada holder want to stay anonymous. What will happen if the SPO refuse to collect user information? |
@johnalanwoods there may be others who read this besides @link78 who get the wrong idea from the use of the word "empowered" ... though it was clear enough to me that this framework would be there only if it suits certain SPOs running an ISPO, rather than imposed on all stake pools & delegators. Maybe some different language can be chosen that's less likely to make people think it's obligatory?
or something more explicit:
|
@RaceSpeed was your last comment intended for this PR and not some Catalyst Circle discussion? If so I do think that NFT based means of identity would be relevant to ISPOs and KYC in general, though it would help if you'd explain how that relates to the method of DID storage that's being proposed here. In either case perhaps you could edit down your last comment so we can focus on whatever comment(s) you're making that relates to the text of this proposal. 😎 |
Yep - I think we need to discuss this on the SPO call. |
You're absolutely right. This is completely optional. It's only applicable in certain jurisdictions, where specific laws apply. This does not apply to regular delegation. |
Nothing. This is optional. It's really only to be used when an SPO is issuing a token, and even then, only if the SPO wishes to comply with regulation. |
Yes @johnalanwoods I think that will be needed, since as requested they put something in today's monthly newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/iohk/spo-digest-february-675438?e=d55ecc2aed
|
|
also I had a message from another marketing team member this morning saying there was a Twitter Space today on the subject (I was invited but missed it). @johnalanwoods if there was any feedback from community members joining that session could you relay it here? - https://twitter.com/NodeSanto/status/1529889457473826824 (edited) I see it was in the SPO group on Telegram so I'd guess anyone with an active interest in this issue would have seen it at this point & will be commenting before the next meeting if they have any opinions 😎 |
|
@johnalanwoods FYI a new user on the Cardano Forum tried to open up a thread on this topic, but it was removed; probably because it was a link and nothing else. Since therefore it seems there's some need to discuss this on the forum I've created a topic here: https://forum.cardano.org/t/ispo-kyc-proposal-cip-0989/102084 |
|
call for discussion today in monthly SPO Digest here: https://mailchi.mp/iohk/spo-digest-february-675602 |
|
@johnalanwoods given this announcement (with best of luck to you) will you be advocating this PR further, or are you leaving it up to the editors & community? |
|
Hi happy to contribute on this still. It makes sense that I do not own it, but still happy to work with others. Thanks |
|
thanks @johnalanwoods - based on prior experience & current observations I think we've had all the feedback about this proposal that we're going to get. Large SPOs or project launches haven't specified their own requirements or expectations after several opportunities. So therefore this is probably our best available consensus about such a framework. There are just two unresolved issues with suggested edits already. If you need help making these changes please let me know and I can push them to the branch. But I would prefer you doing these to your own satisfaction & then I would be happy to approve this for merge. 😎
|
rphair
added
the
State: Waiting for Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this represents the best achievement that current stakeholders & the community have been able to produce in the relevant area. Perhaps this is because ISPOs aren't so abundant anymore, this is also a less visible issue than it used to be... but will be nice to have a framework in place that new ISPOs could use to get started quickly if they need to do this for compliance reasons.
After several calls this year to find fault or recommend alternative means of doing KYC for stake pools, we don't have any substantial revisions to this proposal: only some suggestions about the language so nobody thinks KYC will be obligatory for stake pools (something most people will know by common sense).
So I think we are throwing a way a good bit of equity if we don't merge this, considering @johnalanwoods has already produced something workable and shouldn't be called back to advocate for it. Having seen this through a couple of CIP meetings already, as long as the header fields are OK with @KtorZ then I think this can be merged anytime.
|
Closing this for inactivity and for the sake of cleaning up things. The debate / feature can be discussed anew be re-opening the PR or making a new one championed by a new author. |
We introduce a mechanism to enable delegators to securely provide identifying information about themselves, which can be leveraged by SPOs to perform appropriate KYC/CDD. The approach also provides bilateral privacy between participants.
This article outlines a technical approach to ensure SPO (stake pool operators) are empowered to receive data regarding the identity of ADA holders delegating their stake to a pool.
John Woods
Director of Architecture for Cardano
IOG