Topic: DATA - Authority or Association? - page 4. (Read 5548 times)
I just need a word to make it looks important. Foundation and Authority are already taken.
Ehy wait a moment, let me create the Gabi Foundation, let's make membership to it mandatory so i become RICH!!!
GLWT
Lol at giving self-entitled names to their entities
We have the bitcoin FOUNDATION. Ye well, no, it is just your private group and forum, it is not a "foundation"
Now suddenly we even have an AUTHORITY. Ye well, again, just no, it is still your private group and nothing more.
Clearly, the only thing this AUTHORITY can do is regulate themselves and nothing more. They don't make rules, laws or anything else. They can't "regulate" anything.
Mandatory membership and having to pay to join? Ehy wait a moment, let me create the Gabi Foundation, let's make membership to it mandatory so i become RICH!!!
We have the bitcoin FOUNDATION. Ye well, no, it is just your private group and forum, it is not a "foundation"
Now suddenly we even have an AUTHORITY. Ye well, again, just no, it is still your private group and nothing more.
Clearly, the only thing this AUTHORITY can do is regulate themselves and nothing more. They don't make rules, laws or anything else. They can't "regulate" anything.
Mandatory membership and having to pay to join? Ehy wait a moment, let me create the Gabi Foundation, let's make membership to it mandatory so i become RICH!!!
Here is my NPOV (neutral point of view) article on Bitcoin-Square: http://bitcoin-square.com/data-digital-asset-transfer-authority/
PCI membership isn't mandatory as far as I can tell.
PCI compliance is. That just follows from the fact that all credit card companies require you to agree to their common rules before you can use their products (IIRC agreeing to the fines is part of the fine print).
Obviously, DATA can't exclude others from using Bitcoin for not wanting to play by their rules. So it's much harder for them to twist your arm into becoming a member/following their rules.
Tinfoil Hat on: They could in theory exclude others from using Bitcoin legally in the US. Regulatory capture is always possible.
I suspect it's mostly meant as a way to keep most big players in the US space from doing things that lead to regulatory crackdowns. Kind of like video game companies control their own ratings agency, to forestall government censorship. This may mean places like Bitpay may be required to verify all merchants on their platform are 'legit', for some definition of that word.
But yes, I understand your worries. The good news is that regulatory control always has to be tacked on, and so is more easily avoided, regardless of how many others want to comply.
PCI compliance is. That just follows from the fact that all credit card companies require you to agree to their common rules before you can use their products (IIRC agreeing to the fines is part of the fine print).
Obviously, DATA can't exclude others from using Bitcoin for not wanting to play by their rules. So it's much harder for them to twist your arm into becoming a member/following their rules.
Tinfoil Hat on: They could in theory exclude others from using Bitcoin legally in the US. Regulatory capture is always possible.
“We expect that DATA will require its members to obtain all required licenses and registrations, and that its oversight will supplement, not replace, the oversight of statutory regulators."
I suspect it's mostly meant as a way to keep most big players in the US space from doing things that lead to regulatory crackdowns. Kind of like video game companies control their own ratings agency, to forestall government censorship. This may mean places like Bitpay may be required to verify all merchants on their platform are 'legit', for some definition of that word.
But yes, I understand your worries. The good news is that regulatory control always has to be tacked on, and so is more easily avoided, regardless of how many others want to comply.
Things can go 4 ways:
I think most of us know that #1 is the most likely outcome. I welcome DATA. In the long run #4 might be a better outcome, but we certainly won't turn a corner like that overnight.
- 1- Bitcoin becomes very regulated. DATA is great because it helps lawmakers make more beneficial and informed choices than a government agency would if acting alone.
2- Bitcoin becomes illegal. If nothing else, DATA will be a beacon for whatever virtual currencies are still legal/unregulated.
3- Bitcoin fails/becomes very unpopular. Other virtual currencies will still exist, and point #1 remains valid in relation to these.
4- The world becomes a crypto-anarchy. Bitcoin is used by everyone and everything is completely unregulated.
I think most of us know that #1 is the most likely outcome. I welcome DATA. In the long run #4 might be a better outcome, but we certainly won't turn a corner like that overnight.
EDIT: I'm not saying I'm against it, I am simply raising a few concerns.
EDIT: Here is my NPOV (neutral point of view) article on Bitcoin-Square: http://bitcoin-square.com/data-digital-asset-transfer-authority/
According to an article on Coindesk, "luminaries in the bitcoin community have launched a self-regulatory body in an apparent attempt to gain a cohesive voice in the ongoing tussle with financial regulators." The body will be called DATA, or the Digital Asset Transfer Authority.
I take minor issue with the name, however: Any "authority" they might have will be resultant of a consensus in the community. Additionally, I think we have enough "authority" to deal with just accounting for the hundreds of government agencies, banks, and other self-regulatory bodies around the world.
For those reasons, I would suggest that DATA stand for Digital Asset Transfer Association instead of Digital Asset Transfer Authority.
Of course, I am also concerned about the real purpose of DATA. While the organization's stated intentions, and no doubt the intentions of it's founders are positive, history has shown that self-regulatory bodies can become quite powerful. For example PCI has the authority to fine violators thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per month even without any government affiliation. Not only that, but DATA seems to have hinted that it plans a more regulatory role than "gaining a cohesive voice would suggest." The following quotation alone makes me nervous: “We expect that DATA will require its members to obtain all required licenses and registrations, and that its oversight will supplement, not replace, the oversight of statutory regulators."
Sure, membership is voluntary now, but could DATA become Bitcoin's version of PCI?
EDIT: Here is my NPOV (neutral point of view) article on Bitcoin-Square: http://bitcoin-square.com/data-digital-asset-transfer-authority/
According to an article on Coindesk, "luminaries in the bitcoin community have launched a self-regulatory body in an apparent attempt to gain a cohesive voice in the ongoing tussle with financial regulators." The body will be called DATA, or the Digital Asset Transfer Authority.
I take minor issue with the name, however: Any "authority" they might have will be resultant of a consensus in the community. Additionally, I think we have enough "authority" to deal with just accounting for the hundreds of government agencies, banks, and other self-regulatory bodies around the world.
For those reasons, I would suggest that DATA stand for Digital Asset Transfer Association instead of Digital Asset Transfer Authority.
Of course, I am also concerned about the real purpose of DATA. While the organization's stated intentions, and no doubt the intentions of it's founders are positive, history has shown that self-regulatory bodies can become quite powerful. For example PCI has the authority to fine violators thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per month even without any government affiliation. Not only that, but DATA seems to have hinted that it plans a more regulatory role than "gaining a cohesive voice would suggest." The following quotation alone makes me nervous: “We expect that DATA will require its members to obtain all required licenses and registrations, and that its oversight will supplement, not replace, the oversight of statutory regulators."
Sure, membership is voluntary now, but could DATA become Bitcoin's version of PCI?
Jump to: