Editing Talk:Legal regulatory issues for DAOs

== NOTE ==
Click 'Add topic' to separate subjects.<br>
Please sign all comments by typing 4 tildes (~).<br>
:To answer, use colons (:) to indent
::Use two colons (::) to indent twice
:::Etc.<br>
[[User:Craig Calcaterra|Craig Calcaterra]] ([[User talk:Craig Calcaterra|talk]]) 04:26, 27 March 2023 (CDT)
<br>

== The Dangers of even discussing this ==
The legal arguments involving these things has chased Vitalik around the world and Satoshi is only safe because no one knows who he is. Any success must necessarily lead to legal scrutiny. <br>

Regulation is important to the healthy functioning of any market/network/organization. So it's important that these DAOs and this DGF platform are legally scrutinized and regulated, to make sure they are helping the various societies they impact.<br>

The whole point of DGF is to make a system that can effectively regulate DAOs for the common good. We hope DGF can be an instrument for improving the effectiveness of the SEC, the ESMA, etc. We hope to find approaches that are better than the SEC and ESMA for guiding DAOs toward healthy interactions with society, at both the local and global level.<br>

Anything we do while struggling to create these systems will be scrutinized. That exposes us to attack from many sources.
<br>

Nevertheless we need to talk about these dangerous ideas. We should argue and seek the right path for how to think about regulation and how to do the right thing to follow the SEC and ESMA's mandate to protect the little guy investor and not hurt the larger economy. But any misstep we make in discussing this can be taken as bad intent by overzealous regulators. And malpractice from ignorance is also inexcusable. 

We *need* to explore the wrong ideas in order to find out how they are wrong. But then, that can be used unfairly against us. So broadcasting our unguarded thoughts is dangerous. Nevertheless, the goal of improving these systems is worth the danger.