Starting point:
The DAO does currently nothing in regards to sanctions policies. There is probably also not too much regulation where the physical DAO is located.
Nonetheless, I would like to explore some what ifs with you and would like to get some opinions in regards to this topic.
Example scenario 1:
Individual on a sanctions list buys noun(s). The ETH goes into the treasury. DAO gets sanctioned.
Reason why the individual is on sanctions list is negligible.
We have already seen that the Tornado Cash “dust attack” lead to blocking some 600 wallets from interacting with other apps (although temporary - but it happened nonetheless). Meaning that nouners and their wallets could be potentially blocked from other services. That is of course the issue because companies are policing the internet in anticipatory obedience (something we are exploring here as well).
Example scenario 2:
The US and the EU do not allow NFT projects to issue NFTs if they don’t KYC their users. How would this affect “one noun forever”? And therefore new noun owners?
Discussion:
The question is what goal are we having in mind? What do we want to achieve? How should we in the future, as a DAO, deal with sanctions policies?
What are we going to do if the DAO lands itself therefore on a sanctions list? And potentially every address interacting with / linked to the DAO?
Some known solutions:
-
We do nothing unless there are clear regulations affecting the physical DAO
-
We do crypto sanctions screening of wallets who want to interact with nouns or who are already interacting with nouns. Those wallets could be blocked by the DAO to prevent being sanctioned itself.
-
KYC - on-chain and off-chain solutions are available.
Questions:
- What are pro’s and cons of the ones above?
- What are other solutions, other than the 3 above?
- Do we need to act?