I don’t trust people to be honest with these types of disclosures. Creates a false sense of ease.
There are folks known more prominently throughout the Cardano community. They will be incentivized to be honest to maintain their role. Of course, they could create multiple identities but reestablishing yourself that way is less convenient than simply being truthful. This type of disclosure would be most helpful in those instances, which I think is a good thing, since their voices are more prominent
Yes, this group of prominent voices is what I had in mind when I asked created this temperature check. These voices could be key members of other Cardano projects. While creator, leaders, and team members of these projects are welcomed to join in the discussion, it would be good to know their affiliation especially if their project will be affected by the outcome of the discussions.
For example, imagine if we had a community vote on which native tokens can be used as collateral on Liqwid. One of these prominent voices makes a very compelling argument for XYZ coin. It would be nice to know if that the speaker is actually the owner of XYZ coin. Not that they shouldn’t be able to participate in the discussions but if they stand to gain significantly from a certain outcome, then it should be taken into consideration.
However, as others have pointed out on discord, this kind of disclosure will not be very practical because it is difficult to enforce, even if we wanted to enforce it. So it can only be voluntary anyways.
Impossible to enforce w/o KYC and disclosure of all known holdings and tracing of each name and business globally. Voted no for impossibility of that task.
Strange question but what constitutes MAJOR ?
I think any Cardano project that LQ governance might vote on. For example, large Cardano dexes or native tokens that might be accepted as collateral for the Liqwid protocol.
I am uncertain how this type of disclosure would be used. In other words, how would it change things? Would individuals with known conflicts be prohibited from participating in the DAO? That seems unlikely from my perspective. So, what is the purpose of disclosure? That’s not a rhetorical question. If there is sound reason to disclose, people should be compelled to do so. However, without any purposeful reason, such disclosures are needlessly invasive.
I agree with you, conflict of interests should be explained and mentionned, if they arise. And yes, as no one can really enforce it, it is performed on a voluntary basis.
we are checking anyways, but since there is not a mandatory identity system, this is a best effort thingy that we cannot rely on.
This would be impossible to enforce, even with KYC.
Anon is easy and attempting to enforce this would just be a waste of valuable time.
This is an unattainable ideal atm, unfortunately, and so would be fruitless even if passed.
I fully agree with that
In theory yes, but as stated, hard to achieve…
I’d love to know some info on what to expect, maybe clues would be nice.
Sounds good , but will be hard to police !
Agreed that would be a challenge to say the least