Ideas on de-centralized regulation.

[mindkontrolultra]

   Can you have regulatory bodies function without centralized authority?   sort of like a union.  Can this be monetized in a way that's fair and consensual?   I think most of us in this space have some beef with regulators, but it's becoming apparent that some self-regulating needs to happen.   I think it's an important discussion, would love to hear any ideas on the topic.

[zomgmike]

I think the Internet makes a good model for what you're describing.

The Internet itself is a good example of a decentralized and (mostly) self-regulated organization.  At the highest levels on the behind-the-scenes of the internet are generally boards of trustees/directors (ICANN, ARIN, etc). After that very high level, once you're on the internet-as-you-know-it, much of what you experience falls back on non-authoritarian rules enforcement. For example, it's illegal to send spam email. But most of spam prevention and eradication is actually done by private parties.

Ultimately, even when you do regulate the internet with traditional laws, the real enforcement and implementation of such is done by loosely-connected individuals seeking to achieve a common objective.  The internet is beautifully self-healing and self-regulating.

[avikz]

When we talk about regulation, it can't be be done in a decentralized way. Regulatory body needs to be the supreme power holder. Even if we implement the idea of union, that will also need some leaders to make decisions. So decentralized regulation can't exist in reality.

But I agree to the point that we will need some sort of self regulatory body in near future, especially in ICO market which will be responsible for due diligence of any new ICOs. Otherwise the entire market will loose credibility slowly.

To achieve this goal, the community leaders should act. We as a common people scattered worldwide, can't achieve any significance.

[Oceat]

When we talk about regulation, it can't be be done in a decentralized way. Regulatory body needs to be the supreme power holder. Even if we implement the idea of union, that will also need some leaders to make decisions. So decentralized regulation can't exist in reality.

But I agree to the point that we will need some sort of self regulatory body in near future, especially in ICO market which will be responsible for due diligence of any new ICOs. Otherwise the entire market will loose credibility slowly.

To achieve this goal, the community leaders should act. We as a common people scattered worldwide, can't achieve any significance.

Agree with you since regulatory body needs someone to control everything specially in ICO but it can't be done without centralizing it. So, the best action for this, is that the leader should be a trust-worthy one, meaning that we only centralized the leaders but decentralized the ICO for it's anonymity and other purposes. If they do find a better than this, then it must be done in a right way like ICO.

[mindkontrolultra]

   you don't need anyone to control everything you can weed out scammy projects just fine with a trusted standard of peer review.

there has been 2 examples of somewhat self-regulated spaces brought up already, in science and the internet...   the whole idea of open source is self-regulation, isn't it?

   you need some honest media and content creators working with devs and exchanges in the space to just basically review stuff.  Projects can pay a fee for a review perhaps, or maybe there's a way to get money out of exchanges for this service..  this I don't know.

[CryptoBry]

I think the Internet makes a good model for what you're describing. The Internet itself is a good example of a decentralized and (mostly) self-regulated organization.  At the highest levels on the behind-the-scenes of the internet are generally boards of trustees/directors (ICANN, ARIN, etc). After that very high level, once you're on the internet-as-you-know-it, much of what you experience falls back on non-authoritarian rules enforcement. For example, it's illegal to send spam email. But most of spam prevention and eradication is actually done by private parties. Ultimately, even when you do regulate the internet with traditional laws, the real enforcement and implementation of such is done by loosely-connected individuals seeking to achieve a common objective.  The internet is beautifully self-healing and self-regulating.

I love how you are describing the internet here as far as regulation is concerned. The best way to deal with regulation is self-regulation though there will still be existing laws that can be used in the governance so that erring members of the community can be controlled using those laws. Hopefully, cryptocurrency is going to the route threaded by the internet and that the government will only intervene in extreme cases as can be defined by both sectors.

[Spaffin]

This issue must be approached from the position of what we are going to regulate. If it concerns the crypto currency, then the rules of its circulation here will be established by state bodies. The issues of the technical and technological plan can not be regulated at all. Otherwise, it will be another crypto currency and we do not need such a crypto currency. The issues of holding an ICO can really be regulated either by state bodies or by public organizations. That is, the question of which body can carry out regulation depends on what is subject to regulation. Everything else depends on the balance of forces that will be interested in solving these issues.

[botany]

   Can you have regulatory bodies function without centralized authority?   sort of like a union.  Can this be monetized in a way that's fair and consensual?   I think most of us in this space have some beef with regulators, but it's becoming apparent that some self-regulating needs to happen.   I think it's an important discussion, would love to hear any ideas on the topic.

The miners form a loose group and their opinions do matter. We have seen that during the signalling for different BPIP during the debate about scaling solutions. Apart from that, I don't think we need any specific regulatory authority as such.

[sindikat]

   Can you have regulatory bodies function without centralized authority?   sort of like a union.  Can this be monetized in a way that's fair and consensual?   I think most of us in this space have some beef with regulators, but it's becoming apparent that some self-regulating needs to happen.   I think it's an important discussion, would love to hear any ideas on the topic.

The miners form a loose group and their opinions do matter. We have seen that during the signalling for different BPIP during the debate about scaling solutions. Apart from that, I don't think we need any specific regulatory authority as such.

What's great is that the miners do not allow the solution to scalability problems? They make it bad for everyone. If there was a platform for finding joint solutions it would be better. But I agree that there should not be a regulatory body that can solve problems with a strong-willed decision. To manage the processes should only economic principles.

[Ridwan Fauzi]

In real life where we coexist with the government, I would find it difficult to create a decentralized community. There will always be regulators who will decide and keep an eye on everything that happens in the community.

But for the technology world we are most likely able to create a decentralized system, we can manage by ourselves without any party set up. Because the world of technology will be hard to intervene by some authoritative rights, even though those who have authority like the government will do the banning then we will easily find a way to find it again.

Yes, I agree with the internet is a way to create a decentralized system. With the internet we can do anything that can never be regulated by the authorities. As cryptocurrency is always alive though some countries actually severely forbid cryptocurrency, but that is only their intention of the fact that cryptocurrency is still alive today.

[jseverson]

Would governments be satisfied with this though? The crypto community can self-regulate all they want, but there's no way to bind every user to this agreement. The community can only do so much to penalize offenders too, so it may be ineffective on that end. I find it really hard to visualize. Nothing's stopping government regulations from overriding everything, too. In the end, maybe "decentralized" and "regulation" simply don't mix.

[palle11]

To achieve this goal, the community leaders should act. We as a common people scattered worldwide, can't achieve any significance.

I agree with you in your idea and I have been thinking how this last part can be made to work. I'm saying, how will the community leaders be identified or informed on what there responsible will be to the mass of users or investors?

I however agree in the regulation of icos because it has become a corner stone to fraud.

[Basmic]

In the name of the topic is a contradiction. Regulation cannot be decentralized. In order to come up with and implement the General rules need a Central authority and this is a real centralization it contradicts the idea of creating an oval bitcoin can only harm. We need to be able to adapt to the conditions that exist. It is not difficult if you have a desire.

[Snarks]

In the name of the topic is a contradiction. Regulation cannot be decentralized. In order to come up with and implement the General rules need a Central authority and this is a real centralization it contradicts the idea of creating an oval bitcoin can only harm. We need to be able to adapt to the conditions that exist. It is not difficult if you have a desire.

I disagree. In a democracy central authorities follow laws formed by societal consensus. Societal consensus can be achieved in a decentralized way. Now we need to find a way to enforce decentralized law, in such a way that prevents authority overstepping their boundaries.

[Mahanton]

When we talk about regulation, it can't be be done in a decentralized way. Regulatory body needs to be the supreme power holder. Even if we implement the idea of union, that will also need some leaders to make decisions. So decentralized regulation can't exist in reality.

But I agree to the point that we will need some sort of self regulatory body in near future, especially in ICO market which will be responsible for due diligence of any new ICOs. Otherwise the entire market will loose credibility slowly.

To achieve this goal, the community leaders should act. We as a common people scattered worldwide, can't achieve any significance.

It would be pointless if we do think on creating such union but we do know that theres powerful people still on the top who would make the final judgement which means it would be useless on thinking up a decentralized regulation. From the word itself "regulation" it will do really require leaders and we know that most of them will really picture out their own traditional beliefs or ways which wont be suited on the thing we are talking here.

[Snarks]

So many traditionalists in this thread who are using circular reasoning instead of thinking outside the box. I wonder what they're even doing on this forum. Why are they even interesting in Bitcoin?

[marcuslong]

When we talk about regulation, it can't be be done in a decentralized way. Regulatory body needs to be the supreme power holder. Even if we implement the idea of union, that will also need some leaders to make decisions. So decentralized regulation can't exist in reality.

But I agree to the point that we will need some sort of self regulatory body in near future, especially in ICO market which will be responsible for due diligence of any new ICOs. Otherwise the entire market will loose credibility slowly.

To achieve this goal, the community leaders should act. We as a common people scattered worldwide, can't achieve any significance.

It would be pointless if we do think on creating such union but we do know that theres powerful people still on the top who would make the final judgement which means it would be useless on thinking up a decentralized regulation. From the word itself "regulation" it will do really require leaders and we know that most of them will really picture out their own traditional beliefs or ways which wont be suited on the thing we are talking here.

There's nothing impossible for our leaders to accept this way that we wanted to be with decentralized currency, and in fact the central bank of the most countries of asia were accepting digital currency in lined to what regulation of their local trading sites. Bitcoin is limitless and I think the boundaries depends on the positive views of the government leaders, but most importantly as residence of a country we should and don't just wait for what's the outcome is. But we should learn and be able to respect the law no matter what, and I am sure we'll be able to see the future results that we may see in reality soon.

[entrepmind23]

A regulation means to have control and I don't think you can control something that is decentralized because every one has his own way of doing it. It is oxymoron in the sense that decentralized means separate and regulation means to come together so it is hard to imagine having a decentralized regulation.  This is the reason why government do not want a decentralized currency because they know that they cannot totally take control of it. If possible they would come to a system wherein people would use cryptocurrency still but the system is centralized so that they can still take control of it.

[orions.belt19]

I think the Internet makes a good model for what you're describing.

The Internet itself is a good example of a decentralized and (mostly) self-regulated organization.  At the highest levels on the behind-the-scenes of the internet are generally boards of trustees/directors (ICANN, ARIN, etc). After that very high level, once you're on the internet-as-you-know-it, much of what you experience falls back on non-authoritarian rules enforcement. For example, it's illegal to send spam email. But most of spam prevention and eradication is actually done by private parties.

Ultimately, even when you do regulate the internet with traditional laws, the real enforcement and implementation of such is done by loosely-connected individuals seeking to achieve a common objective.  The internet is beautifully self-healing and self-regulating.

Can this be said the same for the crypto-community? While there are private parties that facilitate and probably supervise the internet, are there any present organizations for crypto? Since there has been an influx of ICO scams recently, there's going to be some need to police the crypto-community. Even while countries attempt to regulate crypto, it would be suitable for the cryptocommunity to have a self regulated organization despite it being decentralized.

[krishnapramod]

1. Crypto UK – A self-regulatory trade association for the UK cryptocurrency industry.

2. Virtual Commodity Association (VCA) - An industry sponsored self-regulatory organization for the U.S. virtual currency industry.

3. Sixteen exchanges in Japan forming a self-regulatory organization.

4. The Korean Blockchain Association with 23 exchanges is preparing to form a self-regulatory organization.

5. The South African Reserve Bank (SARB) is setting up a self-regulatory organization to regulate cryptocurrencies.

6. Indian Bitcoin exchanges are self-regulated under Digital Asset and Blockchain Foundation of India (DABFI).

Regulations are inevitable, either governments would impose their own crypto regulations or non-governmental self-regulatory organizations would be able to come with their own regulatory framework that is efficient, effective, enforceable, and acceptable to prevent any over-the-top regulatory intervention from the government.

Regulating cryptocurrencies prematurely could have the negative consequence of throttling the growth and innovation of the industry. In addition, if laws are drafted based on existing technology, which is still in its growth phase, there is a risk that the technology may have moved so much by the time the legislation is enacted, that the legislation is obsolete or requires updating almost immediately to align with the latest technology.

SRO's would be more flexible to adapt and implement regulatory guidelines according to the changing crypto dynamics without impeding innovations. Most of the countries are yet to come up with any regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies and with proposals like VCA and Crypto UK, if the industry is able to self regulate then the possibility of stringent governmental regulations can be avoided.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/south-africas-central-bank-to-establish-self-regulatory-body-to-oversee-crypto-industry