Topic: not regulation, but do we need a "moral/ethics contract"? (Read 1190 times)

When moneys involved there are no morals or ethics

this is not about bitcoin (the protocol). this is about the businesses.
secondly by it being an open contract. there is no 'oversight committee' or organization involved. instead a business just signs the contract, and ANYONE can enforce it,

its called decentralized empowerment. the contract is about giving consumer confidence and empowerment to enforce their consumer rights without needing a 'consumer body' made by a government.

its a contract between business and consumers.. not a 'oversight committee' and business

Hey! I have an idea! Let's make sure an organized body with enforcement powers issues the currency and that way if anyone does anything bad, they will be beholden to the courts of that organized body. We can call the currency they issue "fiat" and the court will be the legal system. The organized body can be called a government.


The whole point of a distributed system is that no one body can control the system and the whole point of proof of work and a public ledger (blockchain) is to prevent double spending. If someone gets ripped off, then I guess you have to negotiate better, or develop your street smarts or get a better sense of how to read people, or be less naive.

+3
to add, government regulation is done incorrectly anyways. it has failed people many times, it is also under the consumer view as being a proactive safeguard that regularly checks on businesses and keeps them inline. the reality is that government regulation is retroactive, and only work in response to a report.

businesses using purely bitcoin* should not be regulated by governments. but should atleast be accountable to some kind of standards. i am not aiming for strict rules such as 'trading only on monday-friday, and only if the sun is shining'.. all i and the community want and need is just some honour, ethics and morals that businesses should follow

*if they use fiat then fiat(government) regulations do apply

Part of the reason regulations exist** is to enforce things like this. Do you really want people to get away with dumping toxic waste into your water with no repercussions? People think the banking industry is evil now, can you imagine how much worse it would be if it didn't have any regulations at all?

Light regulation isn't a bad thing if done correctly, but you can't regulate Bitcoin itself, you can try to regulate businesses who operate in/accept it.



**Disclaimer: Not all regulations, some are just for the purpose of collection $$$ under the guise of "protection", that much is true.

you are kind of on my wavelength.. yes indeed a guideline. where the business shows its following such guidelines by signing it. there is no point having a exchange just post a forum message saying. 'we are following said guidelines' as that is then not really admissible in court. but formalizing their agreement to the guidelines by getting them to sign it as a contract. can then be used by anyone later that finds out the company is in breach of the guidelines.

i dont want the guidelines to be draconian in a way that hinders business, but to atleast bind a business to some form of ethics which they should abide by.

at this point its just a gathering idea's stage for what ethics customers want and what businesses should follow. the next stage is getting smart contract lawyers to knit pick the rules and improve on them. the aim is not not impose on business in any way financial or operationally.. until the point that they become unethical, in which case then penalty's or demands to change to become ethical are enforced in a court. meaning as long as they are ethical/honourable/moral.. then nothing is stopping them from doing what they are doing.

i am not saying its what the community want/don't want, thats a decision for the near future if businesses want to show off that they are ethical by signing it. or just continue as they have been the last 5 years. there will be no enforcement to get businesses to sign it. no fee's to pay for the companies which do sign it. it will simply be an open contract that is voluntarily signed. where by users can read it, and if good, they can request their service providers to sign if they wish. and the customers can then base their faith in the business based on the businesses response.

You could take your ideas and use them as a guideline for exchanges. 
Example, when an exchange opens they present all this info or it goes on this forum, coindesk ,or something as a business not to use because of their terms and lack of transparency.
This will maintain the "anti regulation" because it simply provides a warning that the business doesn't comply with suggested terms, but the business can still be sued by people, should they choose to do so. 

i am not against regulation in regards to FIAT as that is their product so they should protect their product. but bitcoin does not belong to government so they should not control or set the rules. we should.

we should control and set the rules of business. and that includes making it easy for us to deal with immoral and unethical businesses.

bitcoin does not need government's forcing fee's on businesses, where the governments then sit back and wait to receive SARS reports from the businesses that are suppose to be regulated. basically making businesses do the hard work.

in the fiat world a customer cannot simply make a business pay out simply by quoting that the business breached a regulation. it all ends up as being a big government agency paper passing hand to hand game for months and costing the little guys alot of wasted time/money and not even a court case unless its in the government interest.

where as contracts are easier to manage, cheaper to setup and are easy for everyone involved to use. giving the power back to the people

i am not trying to make businesses change what they do, only to be more honest about their actions, and be accountable if they do mess with customers funds.

Now that you said it out , it really sounds funny tho..

Maybe he wants something that only benefits himself.

So you're anti-regulation but you want a contract that can be enforceable in court...

Troll? Or are you really that stupid?

countries do have laws covering fiat. but this is about crypto. so rule 5 / 6 in your eyes should read as

5. customer deposits are assets of customers and not the business. only fee's and profits should be classed as business assets.
6. businesses shall not use customer assets for other purposes.

feel free to word it or any other rule better

when it comes to bankruptcy, even if you could show that the funds belonged to you. it will still end up as being debt the business has, due to funds no longer existing. but atleast making the business indebted to customers by default helps the customers abit. compared to the argument "they gave me all the coins, they all belong to me" as pirate@40 said at one point. making the customers have to prove it was not a donation.
so i see what you mean

That's not what I meant. Obviously there must be a mixed pot. I was talking about ALL customers'  (not every single customer's) deposits being held separately from operating funds. In other words, the exchange can restrict itself from being able to 'borrow' from deposited funds to cover any ongoing expenses (employee costs, electricity bills, office rental etc).

In my understanding, this would be a simple case of constructing contract/T&C appropriately, so that customers remain the legal owners of the deposited funds (so should be safe if company goes bankrupt, as such deposits would not be a part of company's assets - but I may be wrong here).
Pretty sure there already are similar regulations regarding money deposits in the FCA regulated businesses (UK), but these probably wouldn't apply to cryptocurrency deposits.

regulation is rules set by government bodies that are not 'policed'/enforced or punished properly. but require alot of work for businesses to do and alot of money.

regulations are a laughing joke in the financial word, HSBC were laughing the day they were not even slapped on the wrist by regulators. and HSBC customers could not do anything about it to forc regulators to do anything. but a contract can be enforced by the small people.

however a contract/or business by-laws which are set out for companies to follow some kind of ethical standard, which is admissible in court and that any customer can take a business to court using this contract. which does not cost a business lots of money or time upfront, is a better way to deal with the situation of trust.

i agree if someone trades with a guy/business that is using poboxes and not registered with their state/government as being a business, then yes the customers are at own risk. and the bit about private business not having to disclose is true. but this is the whole point of these ethics contracts. so that if businesses want to show their honour, trust and ethics. then they follow simple and agreed rules.

EG
business A hides behind WHOIS protection, seems shady what questioned about finances
business B discloses true office address, openly shows a total balance of customers wealth it holds.

which business would you trade with?

i edited rule 2 to not include the 'bankrupcy' so that closes the file bankrupcy loophole to declin repay.

so lets think up a rule 5 that can legally prevent someone filing bankrupcy until they have gone to court.... such as what is happening with Empty.Gox.. people starting courtcases to prevent karpeles from having the bankrupcy protection approved.

edit:
i have edited rule 3
'3. before filing bankruptcy the business will provide evidence to a court as to how the funds depleted under oath'
so that if business does not give evidence of a plausible reason and just files bankruptcy. then that is a contract breach which could lead to further financial penalty. even the board that approves bankruptcy would make the claimant give evidence, purely to lessen the debt of the claim before approving bankruptcy.

any other bright idea's?

what is a regulation ?
the ability to let "somes people" (gov) to decide what it's good or bad.

sorry, for this, we have the justice.
regulator is not the justice ... it's like the QoS or DNS filter on ISP.

it's not the justice, it's the censure.

libertarians want regulation too but not for victimless crimes, or crimeless crimes 

Funny how libertarians & anarchists want no regulation.   Until they observe what happens when there is no regulations.

Moral/ ethical contract is naive.   Theres already tons of business laws on the books that address this stuff

1.  If do business w a PO box,  you're to blame if something goes wrong
2.  Law is already like this.   
3.  There's already bankruptcy laws.   Customer deposit is unsecured nonpriority.     Little chance to recover.   Usually in liquidation only secured creditors get anything.   
4.  Public corps have to disclose 10Ks and other financials.   Private ones don't have to disclose

when it comes to exchanges. it has to go into a mixed pot otherwise when you sell coins on an exchange the funds have to move to the buyer, meaning your both waiting 10 minutes for a confirm. slowing an exchange down

so i would not call this an ethics rule as it is requiring businesses to become slow and cumbersome. i wouldn't even say that displaying their cold wallet be a rule. i would however say 'being transparent, about their funds'. thus if they are found deceitful a court case would ensue. allowing the business to decide how it wants to be transparent EG displaying public keys of hot/cold wallets. or paying for expensive auditors. or simply having a 'total balance in service' showing deposit/withdrawal AMOUNTS without names or other details(for anonimity reasons). so that people can see a sort of transaction list. there are many ways to be transparent. so lets just keep the rules simple

added rule 4. be transparent about customers holdings

these ethics contracts, need to help businesses remain honourable but without red tape or forcing huge costs. i beleive that is the only effective way businesses will accept them, obide by them and help bitcoin grow confidence.

In a perfect world, rule no 1 should be sufficient on its own. If you're planning a large scale business - do it as a registered entity (or in your own name).
If you're running a business in a 'civilised' country, you're subject to a strict regulations. And even if your T&Cs say that "you're not responsible for anything, and customers are using your service on their own risk" that doesn't mean a shit, as T&Cs don't supersede the law/regulations. Therefore you cannot just transfer customers' funds into your own pocket and declare bankruptcy, as you could face a prosecution for fraud/improper management etc.

What I would like to see, in relation to the exchange sites, is a maximum transparency in management of customers' funds. Also, these should be restricted and held separately from the operational funds. So if I deposit 1 BTC or $100 I remain the owner of these funds and they cannot be spent on ie emloyees' salary or electricity bills. So even when the business goes under, users will get 100% of their funds back.

In short, no.

We must understand from the wealth of nations that a change in the efficiency of exchange is not a separate change from the rest of the world.  I have used nash's concept of bitcoin/ideal money, to re write the way poker contracts are laid between a player and their investor.  In this way, contracts would have become less regulated as the natural state of affairs actually holds morality intact.  I do not expect many to understand what I have said there but some will.

We have also re written the wealth of chips, that is the poker economy with respect to exchange of currency for chips (playing on a website). And shown that unbeknownst to today's society, bitcoin has effectively eliminated raked poker (x% of monies paid to the house).  In this we will soon be able to understand that John Nash's concept of hypercurrency (bitcoin/ideal money), can be used to change any industry in the world, and will indeed to so.

regulation kill people ... but don't kill rich and boss.