Our major problem isn’t securities regulators. We have cash for fines and even a draconian enforcement action then tells us what we need to remedy.
Our problem is mainly that of liability and taxation. Maker in the US will almost assuredly be seen as a general partnership. I have yet to hear a lawyer say It would not be.
That leaves all members on the hook for any perceived damages, taxation, and possibly criminal activity. I’m not sure about you, but I don’t think anyone here has the money to pay the IRS if they decide that Maker is a US entity and decide to treat as income the $400+ million batch of tokens provided by the Foundation. My understanding is the only way around this is simply that Maker itself meet any claimed obligations. If we wanted to dispute them, that would also be best handled at the level of any supposed general partnership — otherwise you have partners cutting deals to avoid being left holding the bag .
So we need a shield around all our members — not only those who live in or have seizable assets in the US. We also need to definitively establish jurisdiction for Maker to live in so we don’t suddenly find not just the US, but multiple countries claiming Maker owes taxes on the same income.
Nothing about this says the protocol itself has to change. Or our internal governance processes. Or even whether DAI is decentralized, as the GC at dydx kindly reminded us that simple filings of required paperwork don’t count as managerial efforts.
But the first level of compliance is paying taxes — preferably in a single jurisdiction we choose now and not half a dozen that decide they can pick on a stateless DAO.
And the first level of protecting our members and workforce is to have an entity that can stand between them and authorities/civil courts.
We can figure out whether and how to do less basic stuff once we know what laws do/do not apply to Maker — much of which will be affected by jurisdiction and domicile.