[reDraft] Regulation of Cryptocurrencies

[Araraukar]

OOC: Blockchain is a technological concept like "combustion engine". Where is the problem?

OOC: The problem is that it's not a common word like combustion engine. I had to look it up, because something like this was more closer to my mental image of the word and I was wondering what children's toys had to do with cryptocurrency...

[Masurbia]

To avoid any RL references I'll give a simple definition of the blockchain, a decentralized ledger that records all transactions that take place over a peer to peer network. It can confirm transactions without the need of human interaction or a third party.

OOC:
What? Why would there only be one? What hinders anyone from implementing their own blockchain? They aren't even resctricted to cryptocurrencies.

Technically the blockchain was written for cryptocurrencies, bitcoin to be specific.

[Masurbia]

OOC: Blockchain is a technological concept like "combustion engine". Where is the problem?

OOC: The problem is that it's not a common word like combustion engine. I had to look it up, because something like this was more closer to my mental image of the word and I was wondering what children's toys had to do with cryptocurrency...

Should I include a definition of the blockchain?

[Frisbeeteria]

Should I include a definition of the blockchain?

Yes.

[Arotania]

OOC: Blockchain is a technological concept like "combustion engine". Where is the problem?

OOC: The problem is that it's not a common word like combustion engine. I had to look it up, because something like this was more closer to my mental image of the word and I was wondering what children's toys had to do with cryptocurrency...

OOC:
"Net neutrality" was coined in 2003 and we had proposals on that. Blockchain is slightly younger (2008). Both are pretty universe-agnostic and should in any case work with a good definition.

OOC:
What? Why would there only be one? What hinders anyone from implementing their own blockchain? They aren't even resctricted to cryptocurrencies.

Technically the blockchain was written for cryptocurrencies, bitcoin to be specific.

Still does neither confine it to cryptocurrencies nor a single instance. You will have to get rid of the definite article. It just makes no sense.

[Masurbia]

This is going to be difficult. The question of whether or not "blockchain" is a real world reference is extremely complex and would probably be simplified to yes anyway. Describing it might be equally problematic (as you can't just quote an official definition). Might I suggest using "on a widely distributed and individually encrypted system?" It sort of works.

I'll think about this.

Number two: Intergalactic? (And I thought having Tzorsland in The Pleiades was far away.) How about the World Assemvbly Cryptocurrency Coordination Committee (WACCC) or WA300

Thanks for the suggestion but I'll probably keep the ICC. It flows better in my mind.

Number three. RED ALERT - MAJOR RULE VIOLATION "Noting that forcing cryptocurrencies to be approved by the ICC will immensely slow down the cryptomarket" ... actually it will shut it down completely as it will prohibit all current cryptocurrencies in WA states until the committee, through some unknown but probably exceptionally lengthy process (since you have provided ZERO guidance as to what a proper cryptocurrency should be) which might never permit a single cryptocurrency in the first place.

I added something to address this but I'll probably rework it when I have more time.

[Slavonia and Srijem]

Passing the law to outlaw cryptocurrencies.

[House Mar]

Category: Free trade

Giviong a definition of Cryptocurrency: A digital token that can be used to make real world purchases.

Acknowledging that the rise of cryptocurrencies has happened within the last decade and is still growing.

Knowing that virtual money is extremely popular and has created numerous amounts of jobs.

Recognizing that the trading of cryptocurrencies is very lucrative but still risky.

Knowing that cryptocurrencies can grow a nation's economy.

The WA declares:

i. All member-nations recognize that cryptocurrencies are real assets that can be traded.

ii. Allow the trading of cryptocurrencies between member-nations.

iii. Allow the creation of different cryptocurrencies.

iiii. Allow member-nations to regulate any cryptocurrencies in their jurisdiction.

Category: Free Trade

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution: A digital token that can be bought, sold or traded on the blockchain using cryptography.

Defines blockchain, for the purposes of this resolution: A decentralized ledger that allows transactions across a peer to peer network without the need for a third party.

Acknowledging the increasing advancement of technology and the blockchain are leading to an increase of of different cryptocurrencies.

Recognizing that the expanding market of different cryptocurrencies can lead to scams and ponzi schemes.

Further recognizing that cryptocurrencies are very new and largely unregulated.

The World Assembly hereby declares...

The creation of the Intergalactic Cryptocurrency Committee (ICC) to regulate and act as a watchdog over rising cryptocurrencies.

Reserves a nations right to ban cryptocurrencies within their borders.

All new cryptocurrencies must be approved by the ICC before released to the public.

A cryptocurrency should live up to the standards of the defintion provided, as well as have an open code base, allowing transparency and the ability to improve through eachother and the founders of the cryptocurrency, in addition to their background, should be clearly known to the public.

Noting that forcing cryptocurrencies to be approved by the ICC will immensely slow down the cryptomarket but that it is necessary to ensure consumer protection.

OOC: My biggest problem with this bill, that I can't find a way to put into IC, is that the idea of Crypto Currencies is inherently misunderstood and misrepresented here. In Nation States there is an issue that every nation has access to and that is the digitization of their money. The "crypto" in crypto currency is simply a method of securing the currency from theft and counter-fitting. All currencies require these types of protections, but physical currencies engage in material and manufacturing process to secure the currency.

The natural digitization of currencies that is available as an option (via a Issue) moves physical currency to the digital space, and as such the protections one would naturally expect currency to poses, then would also naturally be digitized. So, ultimately, no matter how well crafted the bill is (which there is loads of room for improvement) is ultimately meaningless because of its redundancy with an Issue, as well as its misunderstanding of the central topic of the bill.

So, for national currencies that are already digitized, the suggested bill renders these nation's entire economies beholden to yet another regulatory body, but moreover defaults the entire nation into the direct subjugation of one world authority without regard to individual sovereignty; by virtue of turning the nation's entire economy into an asset of the suggested ICC.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We will not support legislation of this sort. I see this as a gambling matter or, if not rooted entirely in speculation, a matter of domestic monetary policy. If it is gambling, current legislation already reserves that to the members. Certainly, certain realms in our United Commonwealth have long desired a ban on gambling. But that this their prerogative. And if it is a matter of monetary policy, we see no real capacity for an international organisation to better deal with how we transact goods and services than ourselves.

But it seems that your proposal has shifted from allowing permission to allowing a ban. In which case, I see no reason to have differential standards on currency issuance from normal currencies.

[Dirty Americans]

Blockchain is a technological concept like "combustion engine". Where is the problem?

The question is whether blockchain is more like a "combustion engine" or a "Wankel rotary engine" ... generic or specific.

[Masurbia]

Passing the law to outlaw cryptocurrencies.

My proposal does not outlaw cryptocurrencies.

[Rovikstead]

Passing the law to outlaw cryptocurrencies.

My proposal does not outlaw cryptocurrencies.

OOC: It does allow nations to ban cryptocurrencies.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

No, git the gubmint out of muh bitcoin.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: I have two questions: Because the Intergalactic Cryptocurrency Committee will be the sole body in the WA to regulate, approve, and watch over cryptocurrencies, would WA nations that locally recognize a cryptocurrency that has not been approved, or has been rejected by the ICC be punished? Would WA nations whose citizens or governments make transactions with other WA nations with an unapproved cryptocurrency be punished?

[Masurbia]

OOC: My biggest problem with this bill, that I can't find a way to put into IC, is that the idea of Crypto Currencies is inherently misunderstood and misrepresented here. In Nation States there is an issue that every nation has access to and that is the digitization of their money. The "crypto" in crypto currency is simply a method of securing the currency from theft and counter-fitting. All currencies require these types of protections, but physical currencies engage in material and manufacturing process to secure the currency.
The natural digitization of currencies that is available as an option (via a Issue) moves physical currency to the digital space, and as such the protections one would naturally expect currency to poses, then would also naturally be digitized. So, ultimately, no matter how well crafted the bill is (which there is loads of room for improvement) is ultimately meaningless because of its redundancy with an Issue, as well as its misunderstanding of the central topic of the bill. So, for national currencies that are already digitized, the suggested bill renders these nation's entire economies beholden to yet another regulatory body, but moreover defaults the entire nation into the direct subjugation of one world authority without regard to individual sovereignty; by virtue of turning the nation's entire economy into an asset of the suggested ICC.

I state that a cryptocurrency is a token traded over the blockchain. I remember getting this issue and there was no mention of a blockchain. The blockchain means the supply is not determined by a central bank.

[Masurbia]

OOC: I have two questions: Because the Intergalactic Cryptocurrency Committee will be the sole body in the WA to regulate, approve, and watch over cryptocurrencies, would WA nations that locally recognize a cryptocurrency that has not been approved, or has been rejected by the ICC be punished? Would WA nations whose citizens or governments make transactions with other WA nations with an unapproved cryptocurrency be punished?

A non-approved cryptocurrency would not be on the blockchain therefore it wouldn't fall under the ICC's jurisdiction.

[Arotania]

OOC: My biggest problem with this bill, that I can't find a way to put into IC, is that the idea of Crypto Currencies is inherently misunderstood and misrepresented here. In Nation States there is an issue that every nation has access to and that is the digitization of their money. The "crypto" in crypto currency is simply a method of securing the currency from theft and counter-fitting. All currencies require these types of protections, but physical currencies engage in material and manufacturing process to secure the currency.
The natural digitization of currencies that is available as an option (via a Issue) moves physical currency to the digital space, and as such the protections one would naturally expect currency to poses, then would also naturally be digitized. So, ultimately, no matter how well crafted the bill is (which there is loads of room for improvement) is ultimately meaningless because of its redundancy with an Issue, as well as its misunderstanding of the central topic of the bill. So, for national currencies that are already digitized, the suggested bill renders these nation's entire economies beholden to yet another regulatory body, but moreover defaults the entire nation into the direct subjugation of one world authority without regard to individual sovereignty; by virtue of turning the nation's entire economy into an asset of the suggested ICC.

I state that a cryptocurrency is a token traded over the blockchain. I remember getting this issue and there was no mention of a blockchain. The blockchain means the supply is not determined by a central bank.

OCC:
What if it is a blockchain that is run by a central bank? You still keep using the definite article. I really doubt that you understand what a blockchain is.

OOC: I have two questions: Because the Intergalactic Cryptocurrency Committee will be the sole body in the WA to regulate, approve, and watch over cryptocurrencies, would WA nations that locally recognize a cryptocurrency that has not been approved, or has been rejected by the ICC be punished? Would WA nations whose citizens or governments make transactions with other WA nations with an unapproved cryptocurrency be punished?

A non-approved cryptocurrency would not be on the blockchain therefore it wouldn't fall under the ICC's jurisdiction.

You really have to give a definition of a blockchain. Your understanding of it seems to be completely detached from its general meaning.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: I have two questions: Because the Intergalactic Cryptocurrency Committee will be the sole body in the WA to regulate, approve, and watch over cryptocurrencies, would WA nations that locally recognize a cryptocurrency that has not been approved, or has been rejected by the ICC be punished? Would WA nations whose citizens or governments make transactions with other WA nations with an unapproved cryptocurrency be punished?

A non-approved cryptocurrency would not be on the blockchain therefore it wouldn't fall under the ICC's jurisdiction.

OOC: Could you clarify?

[Masurbia]

OCC:
What if it is a blockchain that is run by a central bank? You still keep using the definite article. I really doubt that you understand what a blockchain is.

There a many specific types of blockchains that have been created and I need to use definitive articles to avoid any RL references.

You really have to give a definition of a blockchain. Your understanding of it seems to be completely detached from its general meaning.

There is a definition written in the proposal, maybe you should read it.

[Masurbia]

A non-approved cryptocurrency would not be on the blockchain therefore it wouldn't fall under the ICC's jurisdiction.

OOC: Could you clarify?

There exists on the blockchain smart contracts. These smart contracts can be written directly into the blockchain code to enforce a transaction or contract. It cuts out the middle man like banks and legal services, reducing costs and improving efficiency.

[Araraukar]

There is a definition written in the proposal, maybe you should read it.

OOC: And maybe you should get the point:

You still keep using the definite article.

You define "a blockchain" after you have used "the blockchain". Using "the" implies you have a specific or singular one in mind. Just change the article to "a" and the problem is solved.

Oh and define terms before you use them. So switch your definitions around. And in any case, "Defines" makes them active clauses so their right place is not in the preamble. Use the preamble to describe the issue in more general terms - it's your chance of making people want to hand over some sovereignity to fix the issue. Also, what is the issue? If nations can ban cryptocurrencies then exactly what is accomplished? An extra layer of bureaucracy? How is that Free Trade?

You're also lacking strength, only category is mentioned.

Additionally, open source code encourages fraud, and as "should" doesn't do anything, it looks like the only active clause not directly related to the committee is the bit that allows nations to ban them if they so wish.

[Rovikstead]

Boris Farvald takes the place of Ambassador Amelia. He takes a seat as he downs half a bottle of moonshine. After a gross, loud burp, he speaks in a drunken, daft tone. He switches between English, Ancient Germanic, and drunken babbling. "I don't know what yer talking about with this er- blockchain. 'Sounds like you just discovered the term and put it in the proposal just to speak all smart-ly." He giggles to himself and takes another swig of shine. "I think I can speak for m'lady Amelia, for Rovikstead - hell, for ev'ry nation that rejects these 'ere clipse-oh-currently-s or just wants the damn freedom and independence to decide fer themselves on whether or not they want these er-"
Ambassador Amelia, reddened with embarrassment, interjects inbetween Boris' statement and whispers into his ear, "It's cryptocurrencies."
"Yeah, yeah," Boris continues, "These cryptocurrencies are a national issue- not a WA, GA, or er- SA issue. I," he pauses to take another gulp of shine, "rest my case." Boris grins. In his drunken, deluded reality, his points were amazing and he had won the argument against this proposal. He takes a bow in front of a nonexistent audience. He gives the ambassador of Masurbia a taunting wink and grin, and goes back to drinking his fifth bottle of moonshine.

[Masurbia]

Additionally, open source code encourages fraud, and as "should" doesn't do anything, it looks like the only active clause not directly related to the committee is the bit that allows nations to ban them if they so wish.

How does open source code encourage fraud?

[Arotania]

Additionally, open source code encourages fraud, and as "should" doesn't do anything, it looks like the only active clause not directly related to the committee is the bit that allows nations to ban them if they so wish.

How does open source code encourage fraud?

Counterquestion:
What do you mean with 'open code base'? At the heart of a cryptocurrency there is no code but standards, conventions and data. The programs that interact with the blockchain have a code base. Is this intended to cover all of them? Or just miners or wallets or exchanges?

How would this proposal cover private cryptocurrencies? Say perhaps an international company with many branches that internally uses a cryptocurrency. Logically this would be proof of stake instead of proof of work. What happens if the company runs the cryptocurrency internally but uses it as a kind of shop credit system for its customers?

[Masurbia]

Counterquestion:
What do you mean with 'open code base'? At the heart of a cryptocurrency there is no code but standards, conventions and data. The programs that interact with the blockchain have a code base. Is this intended to cover all of them? Or just miners or wallets or exchanges?

An open source (or you could say open code) base is where everyone can see the code of the created cryptocurrency. It's used so no single entity controls/owns that software, just like how no single company can control bitcoin.

How would this proposal cover private cryptocurrencies? Say perhaps an international company with many branches that internally uses a cryptocurrency. Logically this would be proof of stake instead of proof of work.

I guess a private cryptocurrency wouldn't necessarily be open source. Under my current proposal this means the ICC wouldn't approve of the said cryptocurrency and it would be shut down. I'll look into fixing this.

What happens if the company runs the cryptocurrency internally but uses it as a kind of shop credit system for its customers?

Would an example of this be something like Papa John points, where the more pizzas you buy the more credit points you get?