Discussion on Tagion governance 1.1 updating the node governance and general governance principles.
I made a post summing up the learning from the first community discussion we had on the node governance and especially Proof of People. The discussion was in our Telegram channel. The post is here (On Reddit because we did not have the forum back then): https://www.reddit.com/r/Tagion/comments/eruybt/the_new_approach_to_tagion_governance/
The point is that the overall ideas with the boundaries and model maybe are suitable, but the Proof of People protocol will not work for more reasons. 1. People don’t want to validate each other both of privacy, personal, cultural reasons etc. More it can too easily be exploited. Let’s discuss on how we can improve the current system here.
I have been reading over this governance model for quite sometime now and I think we need to come to some terms if we are really considering the future of Cryptocurrencies and the whole motion of mass adoption. There has to be some form of regulation and that only comes with complying to AML/KYC.
As to the system of having one node per person it will be difficult as no matter the mechanism you put in place people will still find a way to have multiple nodes. So I suggest that whiles whitelisting nodes to support the network in the first place we look out for people from different parts of the world. Team can budget for that at least we have some amount of people from different parts of the world to ensure a fully decentralized network.
So many blockchains have launched nodes on their network by undergoing a KYC process in order to get whitelisted. Harmony, Elrond etc. and they are doing incredibly well at the moment with the growth in the network almost every passing day. One reality I have come to face in this industry is that having full privacy will always have to be sacrificed for mass adoption and decentralization.
In conclusion, I would opt for a governance and regulated model to comply with KYC/AML in order to support the network.
Yes, and the governance model is still being developed and implemented. The AlphaOne network is being set up right now and will be running soon, so we can start testing the governance.
We have chosen a dualistic approach to regulation to be true to our values. We need to have a non-political monetary system where none can be discriminated. It means, we cannot implement AML/KYC on the network directly( more there is no single standard for the whole world. ) But we acknowledge it is a requirement to comply with local regulation and has created a system, where it becomes straightforward for service providers to be compliant. Thus we implement a simple identity and data access system, where the network does not hold the data as such, but access to data, which is controlled by the user on the name record.
You have name record with permission records attached to it, which you have signed. A permission record gives a (A) service provider access to your data with another (B) service provider. B can ask A for access, e.g. to your KYC information, then A checks the network for a permission record that you signed, if signed and right permissions are given, B gets access to the data. You can also delete a record if, for example, B should not have the access anymore.
Therefore, it is a dualistic approach, where service providers can easily be in compliance with local regulation, and the monetary system stays non-political.
Does it make sense?
It surely does @TheisSimonsen mate. So basically, you are putting the members in charge of their data, when to give rights in case of regulation, and to restrict access if the need be. This is incredible and I am looking forward to seeing this get in motion.
Thanks once again!