 The title of the workshop is Legal Travel Shooting for these projects. And before I say a few words about myself, I'd like to learn a bit more about you and also test out a polling system that will be necessary for this workshop. So, can everyone see the screen? Yeah. Please visit this website. At this point you'll be able to vote, like answer the questions that will appear on the screen. In case you don't have internet connection, you'll find details of one network over there, but it's a maximum of 15 connections. So, use your own internet if you have. And don't try this one. And let's see if it works. And by this question, I just mean that you're not necessarily part of the defined project, but if you are interested in this space, you want to work in this space, you are dealing with some problems related to the different space. I don't have it. All right, so it's working, right? Does it work for everyone? Yes. Okay, that's great. So, let's move to another question for you, which is another type of question. Which area of DeFi is of most interest to you? And here you should be able to type a response. Here we have some examples, right? So, that will give me a feeling of what's most interest to you guys. Texas seems like it reflects what are the hottest topics right now. Really cool. Risk is so small. No one cares, right? There but it's a little bit. Right, and the last question to you guys. Where are you based? And here I rather mean where is your DeFi project based, right? Or where is your main interest in terms of DeFi activity? So, even if you live in Japan, but you're working on a US-based DeFi project, I'll vote on the US. I know that for decentralized projects it might not be so easy, but let's give you the best guesses. Okay, here we have counters. So, it's working for most people. So, now a few words about myself. I'm the asset that I'm a blockchain independent lawyer in crypto for more than five years. And here you have like a few assurations that are most important ones, I think. So, I'm a legal counsel at the Maker Foundation. And also I serve on some industry borders and some DeFi-focused groups, such as the multi-chain asset managers associations in Switzerland. I'm a graduate of Oxford and also a gap to Harvard Law School, but my assumption was that I wouldn't go there before the multi-collateral die slashed. And it's going to happen next month, so I will be finally to go to Harvard next year. I'm going to launch a blog focused on the legal aspects of DeFi under this address, as soon as I have some time. And also I'm a huge legal counsel. So, actually the first thing I did yesterday was to go to the local lego store to buy some stuff. And an important disclaimer before we start. I am a lawyer, just not your lawyer. Nothing here is going to be legal advice, at least for me. Are there any other lawyers in the room? All right, quite a few. So, you guys are free to, you know, give out your legal advice, but nothing would I say is legal advice. And the views are my own, right? So, I'm not necessarily representing maker views right now, or any other organization that I am somewhat affiliated with, lego included. So, now I'm troubleshooting of some legal problems. So, at first my idea for this workshop was to present you some very specific problems that I think are relevant for DeFi projects, which also follow through my practice. So, I thought that this workshop format is a better opportunity for this particular format to actually ask you about some thoughts that you have on the go. So, what's going to happen? I'm going to present you a few more general problems that I see legal problems. They see the DeFi space. And I'd like you guys to answer, like, ask you about your opinions about these problems and about possible solutions. And we can also have some discussion around this. So, any questions? The moment. This is, remember, this is a workshop. So, I'd really like to see some discussion here. Let me present the first one. It's going to be like a test one that I call front and label. Which is, it seems pretty obvious to me, but let me explain in case it isn't to some of you. You know, even fully decentralized products in DeFi space, which are, you know, some smart contract-based protocols that are immutable, unstebable, and so on, they use some centralized front-end, so attract users, right? And these centralized front-ends are usually some websites, which have some visual domain decentralized hosting. There are some fees collected at this front-end level. There's data collection going on, just like everything that you'd expect from some usual, you know, traditional financial services. When you visited this website and you're getting some services, you're paying for them, your data is being collected, and so on. And these front-ends and the operators sometimes may run into legal trouble because what they do is they facilitate access to financial services and products. And I have one specific example. I was trying to provide examples to each of the problems that I presented. You probably know this website, Ether Delta, and you probably know that they were hit by some enforcement action in the US. And when you look at the content of their settlement, it's quite striking that the SEC, the American SEC, recognizes the difference between the protocol level and the front-end level. But in the practice, it's really difficult to differently analyze both. And it's clear from the language that they're using. They mentioned it a few times that the website, the Ether Delta website, had features similar to all my security training platforms. And they actually listed these features. They are displayed. The orders are sorted by price and color. There is user account information, provided fields to input deposit, redraw, and so on. They provide all of this information and said, this looks like exchange, right? This looks like a securities trading venue. There is no difference from the user perspective. And of course we all know that there is a certain smart contract going on in the background. Perhaps Ether Delta is not the best example of a total decentralized product yet. You can see that especially if there is just a single front-end to the protocol, which is very often the case in the device space, there is a certain problem that from the regulator's perspective, they will not see differently than any other centralized products. Any questions to these problems? To this problem before we get to my questions to you guys? Good. So since the frontal liability is a little wide, like just a centralized point of entry, isn't the fact that anyone could make a front-end for it remove that liability? Or is that not effective because they are one of the official front-ends? So wonder as a revision from my side, that's a good question. I'm not talking about any specific regulator or specific regulator regime, right? I'm trying to like abstract away certain problems and all of them I think would be relevant in many jurisdictions. So of course answer to this type of question might be different in some places. I'm just talking about a certain practice that very often these protocols have single front-ends. And of course this is a very good advice that I'm also giving out sometimes that you need to make this difference between protocol layer and front-end layer, so that you focus your efforts on the protocol layer only. But from a certain business perspective it's just difficult, right? It's just difficult to encourage people to build something on their protocol and it's just difficult to build a business model on your protocol soul, right? So that's why people want to bootstrap this activity. They want to earn money on this. They are building these front-ends, right? Which might get them some regulatory troubles. And actually I have a second example which is not something that, like, good. So question on that. How do you think about actual traffic? So there might be different front-ends. But would the regulators look at that and say 90% of the traffic is going through a specific one? They want to make the distinction. Again it's difficult to answer this question without any compasses, right? But I think it's going to be relevant. No matter what's the precise legal rule or its interpretation, if that's clear that you're providing a certain financial service via this certain front-end and you are using these claims about decentralization, smart contract-based protocol, some other front-ends, this is not going to work if functionally and practically this service is mostly available via this single front-end which does not make it different from any centralized services, right? And the second example is about, you've already heard about, like, the recent five AMO recommendations. This is a kind of like a global AMO regulatory, intergovernmental body. They are setting certain standards and recently they came up with a new recommendation that is very relevant for crypto. And so far the interpretations, like, all of this is going to be implemented in all the countries, right? So this is like an international level, let's say. And so far the interpretations are quite positive, right? So they recognize that, they seem to recognize that if there is a certain service that is decentralized and especially in non-custodial, the AMO requirements should not apply, right? But we'll see how this work works out in many countries and I can see, I can clearly see that in some places the interpretation might be different, right? So actually something that is providing, you know, even if it's not custodial but it's providing, like, virtually the same service as some centralized products it's going to be subject to AMO requirements, which is of course, like, difficult, right? Because, you know, there's nothing like AMO, I'm aware of like AMO at the protocol level. You need to apply AMO at the front-end level and then, you know, you end up in a situation in which this protocol is not so relevant anymore because you need a certain front-end operator to use these services. So now some questions to you guys that I'm really curious about. This is the first one. Front-end level is the problem that I just presented. Have you considered this problem before, right? So, I know that the majority of you are working on DeFi projects and now the question is, did you consider this when working on your problems? It seems that people are quite aware of it. Does it work for everyone? This polling solution? Yeah. Okay, that's interesting. So there is very simple acknowledgement of this problem. It would be great to have some discussion but let's just call it until the last question. The second question is how relevant is this issue for your project? The one you are working on? Is this something you think that it's, you know, you have considered this but is it relevant for your project? That's like this result is a certain confirmation of the fact that it's, like, the large majority is saying, probably saying that it's relevant. It's a certain confirmation that it's a certain problem in the DeFi structure that you actually, people are actually building this front-end on top of their protocols. And there is, like, there is a certain level. Of course, I know, you know, this is not to scare you of, right, these problems that are presenting. These are just issues that I think we should, like, spread knowledge about them. Also, in order to educate regulators and lawmakers about these problems, right, because sometimes these people are just not aware that there is this split between, sometimes, like, quite obvious to us, but not to them, this split between protocol and front-end. And now, more general question, how relevant is this for the entire DeFi space in your opinion? The last key question, if everyone's finished with this one, what's the best solution? So, initially, I was planning this as, like, myself proposing some solutions to you guys, but I'm very, very curious about your solution. So, here we can propose, I think, two solutions and then upvote or downvote solutions provided by some other people. Remember about upvoting and downvoting. This will give us a feeling of what people actually support. Start a new country. I like the start. We push the option. That's a cool one, yes. But it's losing. So, it seems to me, it seems my multiple front-ends is the winning option, yet look at, like, IPFS appears in at least three others, right? So, that's certainly a solution that also came to my mind, and it's like, people are thinking about this for a long time. Does anyone, any, like, proponent of this idea know, like, what's the state of, like, actually being able to decentralise both lost things and domains? Does anyone aware of, because, like, everyone knows that it's possible, right? But I haven't seen anything like that in practice. I would say the state is that, like, the problem is the DNS end, right? You can use DNS or something, and I think now, like, Metamask will handle getting you to that domain, or maybe wrong, but the problem is that's not widely supported. So, in the end, if you want anybody to just be able to access your website, you need something somewhere for, basically, anyone except the most already-technological committee to be able to do that. Because, like, definitely, like, this technological solution is no problem, right? So, just, like, front-ends are a problem because they are centralised. So, let's decentralise front-ends. It would be probably a very good solution, right? But, like, the fact that it's not, does not exist in practice, like, at least my conclusion is that it's not ready for, like, it does not exist, right? It's a good solution that is not available right now. Multi-bit front-ends, that's a really cool idea that it's, like, at least two options as well. It's just, like, does anyone want to share experience on that one? Well, I just have a question regarding that one. And it maybe goes back to, like, using the Ether Delta, as an example. Because I don't exactly see how the tool front-end solves the problem. Like, with Ether Delta case, if I have been the one to implement that front-end on their protocol, like, would I have been the one receiving the, you know, SCC prosecution, or is it Ether Delta? If you have multiple front-ends, are you just, like, diversifying the number of people that can end up getting a lawsuit? Yeah, I think that, of course, it wouldn't be, like, a super suit. I mean, by doing this, you are just underlining the fact that the front-end layer is, like, separate from the protocol layer, right? So you can, like, the part of the legal strategy here that I'm seeing from time to time is to say, okay, there might be some regulated activities going on there, but they are not happening on the front-end layer. We are just, like, providing this information that are happening on the protocol layer, try-regulate protocols, not the front-end operators. This is a decor of this strategy. Does anyone want to, like, have an experience with this, like, building a decentralized product and trying to actually bootstrap multi-front-end support? Because for some reason it's not happening very often as well, right? I already said at the beginning that my feeling is that it's just difficult from the business perspective, right, to encourage people to do this, but perhaps there are some things. Good. My experience just talking over here, they focus on the spirit of the law, and so if you're enabling people, like, that's an issue, so I can't really say. Just enabling an activity which they need to be illegal, and so they're going to go after whoever is enabling that. Some of them go to the front-end, some of them go to the front-end. Just to add to that, I think that, yeah, my experience with regulators is similar, but I think that the multiple front-ends thing is not really... You can't go to a regulator and say, listen, look, there's another front-end, let me off. That's the kind of argument you make to a judge in an extremely legal argument, saying, because of this, and it's a little more complicated than that, but because of this technicality, let me off. It won't get the regulator off your back, it won't come to you, it will come to you. Yeah, that's true. I think that we need to think about this together with this solution, fully coupled protocol in front of it, right? This is like the first step that needs to be done in order to this one to make any sense. And it's like, in terms of bootstrapping those multiple front-ends, how do you incentivize someone to create a front-end, right? Because it feels like it's not clear that just creating a front-end on top of this protocol, I'm not actually just shoulder in a bunch to the regulatory base. So like, my incentivization is going to have to be pretty strong to create into those waters of potentially creating a liability to myself for a protocol and then I didn't need to be there. Also, if you don't have some sort of really consistent and sustainable business model, then these projects become harder and harder to be able to probably, you know, sustain and expand themselves, especially with the legal risk associated with most of my projects. Like, it's very expensive, very quickly. Yeah. Yesterday, if you attended the room's makers CEO speech, you could see, like, his hint at part of our strategy. I mean, like, approach, or ideal approach, which is regulate on edges, right? And like, in the same way as Bitcoin or Ethereum, no one is trying to regulate what's happening in this network. Yet, there is certain regulation on edges, such as exchanges, right? This is, like, a certain strategy that many people are trying to convince regulators to, so that, you know, they, like, live this decentralized part, like, alone and try to regulate what looks around. But of course, you know, like, it's, for them, it's difficult to accept something like this, right? To allow that certain, you know, regular activity is just being, you know, transferred to sub-protocol layer. And that's why I think that it's not, it's not here on the list, but I could see it on the phone that there was another option, change the law, right? Like, no one knows, like, how exactly, but that's a certain option as well, right? Perhaps this law doesn't work anymore in this context, right? Now, we see, like, this is, like, for us, it's obvious how can you regulate this thing, right? You can regulate this content, you can, you know, put these guys to jail, but these protocols still exist, right? This is, like, applicable as the blockchain itself, if the contract or smart contract is built in this way. Right, any other comments on some other solutions here? Ah, right, we have this one. Try to influence and change your question. What do you think about the video? Yeah, it's an interesting one. In practice, is there anyone from Gnosis here? Because in practice, this is being followed by that, right? They established this, the Excel, which is, which is governing that just, that just, that just, um, uh, decks, uh, right there. They're trying this out in practice so that, so that these guys are actually controlling, controlling the decks. Um, I mean, interesting, but, like, outside of this example, I haven't seen this in practice, right? The question is if that's, uh, if you, if you have, uh, like the question is if you really can have, like, centralized hosting on by down, right? This is, this is, this is still open, right? Uh, there is a certain reason that at least some of the jurisdiction this down would be, would be just classified as a certain partnership or association or something, right? Which would not protect its, its, its members or whatever form, from liability. Right, but let's, let's move to other problems because there are six of them and we are just, uh, at number one. So the second one I call decentralization, uh, and the problem is, is, uh, again, simple, I think, which is that decentralized financial products are often partially centralized. And this, I think, is, is quite obvious to, to many people in this space. They're just examples of, of decentralization spots. There is also sometimes lack of transparency, right? So that people are actually not aware or they don't know what's centralized and what's decentralized, right? There is like certain marketing about, about decentralized financial services yet when people look closer, uh, sometimes it's just clear that just some parts are decentralized or there are some centralized elements and I think Texas is, is the best example of this, right? So that people for, for business reasons are very, like, you know, incorporating some centralization in their services so that it's more, like, you know, it's faster, it's more, um, uh, it's best, better for re-users, um, because, I don't know, um, uh, it provides better service. And this, why is it important? This undermines the core legal claim of many different projects, right? Because many projects, like, like, talking about, like, totally high level legal strategy, they're saying this is completely decentralized, right? I'm not controlling it. So how, how would they be, like, why would they be, uh, responsible for this if I'm not running this? Yet it seems that there are, sometimes there are some operators or people with keys that can do something. And again, example, um, like, Compound was, last known Compound was, like, there was such a spotlight on this project, there's some centralized features, which is not necessarily, like, like, an accusation or anything against Compound because there are, uh, at least to my knowledge, they're writing this quite openly in their white paper that it has, like, these centralized functionalities with, like, this ultimate goal towards, towards, towards full decentralization, right? But that's the reality of many different projects, right? That they, due to, like, many reasons also, like, lack of, you know, like, undevelop, undevelop, like, lack of sufficient development of technology, they are, they are demanding these decentralized features and, but still, this may undermine this, uh, this legal strategy. So now, questions. Uh, and this will be the same one. Did you consider this problem in the legal terms? Well, it doesn't affect you on the legal terms. Uh, I just, I just explained, uh, decentralization by itself is very often, like, a legal problem, right? Don't regulate this product. This is essential. This is decentralized, right? So there's no one to regulate. Yet, in many cases, you actually see that there is someone behind, right? Even, for example, even if, like, this is non-custodial, uh, there is someone who is controlling price fits, which effectively gives a lot of control over, over the product, right? So they can come for you, for using, uh, uh, control? It just undermines this very claim that there is no one behind it, right? So that it's running on its own. It's, like, completely decentralized, like, a little bit, right? So, quite a big awareness of this one. Let's move to the second question. Which is, how relevant is this issue for your project? Does anyone, uh, want to, um, openly say which project they are representing and why they, do you choose one of these options? Go ahead. Yeah, so I'm going to talk about finance. So, I think, you know, from our perspective, one project we're literally launching today, so we're super new, and, like, obviously, um, we've seen, generally, it's really hard to, like, launch straightforward decentralized, right? It's one of the processes that you work on over time. Um, I think one of the ways that we're thinking about it is, like, trying to make sure we're decentralized, like, in the correct areas, in which case, in which we're, like, making sure that, like, maybe running a little bit into a gray area in terms of regulation, right? So, I'm interested in your, kind of, your perspective on that, of, like, you know, you know, custodianship, for example, I mean, not totally unrelated to Topo. Custodianship is, um, you know, an element of centralization, but it's also, like, you can be compliant with regulation, in that capacity. But then, like, these other elements where you're maybe a little, you know, less compliant with standard regulation, those are the areas that you are focused on. Yeah, that's a good point, and that's absolutely true, that, like, again, I'm trying to present, like, extremely general problems so that they, like, people might think about that, like, no matter from what country they're coming and what they're actually doing. But, of course, this is, like, this highly, highly depends on context, right? So, your, you know, your certain decentralization, centralization balance might, you know, the result might be that you are subject to AMO departments in certain jurisdictions, but not to security training departments, right? Um, that really depends, of course, you need to, like, very carefully look into, like, specifics and also specific regulation in a given country in order to come up with, like, precise answers. Like, here, like, out of necessity, we need to, to, to stay on this, on this level, um, uh, later. Okay, next question. Is this issue for the entire DeFi space? Seems like a pretty straightforward answer. And the last one, solutions. Any ideas of how to, I know that it's extremely general, uh, but at the same time, I see this problem being repeated in many contexts. Any solutions to this one? Does anyone want to say what they understand by gradual decentralization? I didn't put it, but what I assume I mean is that you, you, uh, sort of, uh, either do small projects of creativity or some projects of whatever kind of projects you can do. To start off, I have a point where you are fairly centralized. So, you know, maybe some morricles or like, maybe some databases, maybe some IPvA classes. And then as you, and then through multiple states and multiple strengths, you sort of design the architecture, the applications for contracts, so you need more or more decentralized, so less reliance on, um, centralized points of data, black boxes or other oracles. I assume I want to correct me. I just want to add one more thing to that. It's also important to be careful about token allocations and governance and make sure that over time at least token allocations become more distributed. Certainly. If a token is a part of a certain project, certainly that's the case. And I think transparency is a really good point. It's getting a lot of votes as well, right? This is not like a solution per se. Um, but at least, you know, it really delivers a lot of value, you know, towards your users and your potential interests as regulators as well, so that you're transparent in what you're doing. Um, right. Awareness is possibly about the same thing. Right. Let's move on. So the third problem is about integrative income and finance. Uh, which is not only a legal problem, I think. Um, uh, but also, uh, so one example is that, um, these are, like, uh, from a legal institutional perspective, these are two completely different words, right? And one specific example that is that in DeFi or, like, launch in general, we are mostly talking about bigger assets, right? Like Bitcoin, so that, you know, you own the keys, you own the assets, right? And that's all. You are the, there's like no custody, no other party here. Uh, in traditional finance, this is about, almost all about registered assets, so that your asset is actually a claim against someone and sometimes it's really complicated who this other person is. Um, that is, like, somehow obligated towards you, right? If you're holding, like, a stock, like most of the countries, uh, in the world, you're actually not, like, you are not having this, like, you're having this claim against company, there is a certain custodian, there's certain broker that is, that is, you know, uh, actually holding this legal right. Uh, and this is just an example, right? Uh, we all know that, you know, DeFi is mostly about building things that are permissionless in traditional finance by their definition. Uh, these are permission options, right, that are based on some or some trusted parties and essential counterparts. Uh, and now an example, we actually had this discussion in the community recently about MCD and non-trust-less or permission, as I call it, assets in MCD, right? How would it play out and how exactly can we combine, like, this permissioned nature of many assets with the permissionless, um, um, uh, nature of the whole product of MCD and the makers. Um, and this is, you know, that sounds, you know, general, but there are very practical questions about it, right? Like, how do you, how do you, you know, answer this question what will happen if certain asset that is held as collateral is frozen, right? Or their force transfer function is used, right? These are also technical problems, not to mention that they are legal ones, right? Because what does it mean to stop something and who's holding this asset once it is in a permissionless network? Um, so that's a very specific problem because that's not necessarily a problem, regulatory problem, right? That, like, as the, the other ones that we're talking about, that there is a certain risk that us as, like, defined project creators might be held to liability. This is a strictly legal problem that we have, um, because we, we, we somehow want these real-world assets to be, to be brought into the different space, yet we are facing, facing these problems. This is also not, not just about assets, but also integrating with the traditional financial infrastructure, right? So, for example, bringing defined assets into traditional finance. This is the same problem, right? How to bring permissionless assets into a permissioned environment. There we go with questions. Did you consider this, this problem? It might not be totally relevant for some projects, for some other, if this is generally relevant, perfectly. So, let's see, if you guys think it's relevant for you. Anyone, anyone wants to comment on this? This is also a legal problem in a way that this is how regulation is built, right? Like, financial laws are responsible for how a financial system works, and it works in a permissioned, permissioned market, right? This is, this is perhaps to develop, like, the source, the source of the, of the, of the problem. Is this for the entire DeFi space? Of course, it depends on the perspective, right? Because if people are thinking about DeFi as like, a completely alternative towards the traditional financial system, perhaps it's not relevant at all. But those that think about, like, integration and converging those theories, it is, it is probably super relevant. Let me speed up a bit. Solutions. It seems that friendly jurisdictions are using a lot of votes. So regulate on the edges, which is any option here. It's, it's a nice one. Yeah, it's, it's, it's, it's not a solution in a way that there's not something that we can apply, right? Because we are not regulating. But of course, I mean, one thing that, that is becoming more and more obvious to me is that we have DeFi movement need to, like, engage in distributed discussions. Right now, it seems that certain momentum is building, especially in the stable-con space with Libre approaching. And we need to build this awareness, right? How DeFi projects are different from all the other that might also function like crypto, crypto space, yet they're, they're completely different. So yeah, so here, I think that majority of us is saying that change the law, regulate on the edges, which is, like, convince regulators or local Americans to, to regulate on the edges. And some books also, these are convince them to build sandboxes, is the winning option. And that's, that's something I agree with in a way that I, I think that's, that's what we need to do, right? Just, just to, just to try to to, to impact how the law is functioning currently. Right, next problem, which is, which is very simple. DeFi is global, right? This is, like, by, again, by very definition something that, like, you know, people can use, like, whenever and wherever they want. Yes, regulation is local, right? Like, you are facing sometimes completely different problems in, in that jurisdiction. Sometimes not completely different, yet these details are, are of utmost importance. And I have, now it's not an example, it's a country example. And because that's, that's what we are pursuing as well. We, you know, we are facing these problems as well, right? That die might be, and right now I'm, like, I'm wearing this also, make a comparison, but die might be treated in many countries differently, right? As, as, like, money is a financial instrument as, as something else, right, depending on the local laws. Yet we are trying to do our best, sometimes in regulatory dialogue as well to, to protect this free status of digital cash, right? Of, like, a spot instrument that is not regulated, it's, it's just not a regulated instrument. So far we are doing a good job here, but, you know, the problem remains, right? That this, this product services might be regulated differently and it's difficult for us to respond to that, right? Because, you know, we are building something that is global. Did you consider this problem? And by the way, this data, I'm going to share it, of course. I hope that this tool is giving the option to save all of this. Of course, all of this is completely anonymous, right? But it's going to be very useful, I think, and interesting to see this separated data and present it to the wider community. Well, I asked you that question. So, you know, global compliance sounds like, yes, like, your problem, but it also sounds like it could be a way to create a solution, right? Like, there could be global standards around, you know, globally, wild financial things, right? Is that, do you know the current state of any, like, global standards around maybe, like, the most prevalent things? We're not, we're, like, a million miles from that. Yeah, I figure, yeah. Just because there is even just between the United States and China and the European Union and then some other, like, Southeast Asia, there's just so many why the different ways that run their economies and their, just the entire structure where we mean YouTube, for example, and Netflix all have to completely map around the way they contribute for more nice media or even something like watching from a DeFi would be absolutely faster to get them into the same table let alone agree on a set of financial assets and regulation. That's true. But actually, I devoted my talk at the DeFi Summit in London last month exactly to the topic in, like, 30 minutes exactly to that. So I encourage everyone to have a look if you're interested. This is also interesting because sometimes it's just, you know, people are just saying, hey, we are not we are not available or operating in any specific country. We are available globally but that means that no specific laws apply to us, right? Because we are not present specifically in any country. So that forms some, some strategy for some people as well. Right. How relevant is that for your part? So related to the question of global compliance standards who would be the kind of a multinational regulatory body to watch? There's nothing like that but there is something that is called standards-setting bodies. Which are not necessarily regulators in terms they are not able to adopt binding rules but they are developing standards encouraging others to adopt them, right? Is that like IMF for example? Is that great about PCI standards or something? FAT is an example, right? FAT in AMO space, there's Ayosco in security space and a few others, right? These are like think tanks that are reducing? Yeah, I mean, you know, actual regulators are, countries are participating in these bodies, right? So they are not like just think tanks. And they are like, as an example of FAT shows, they are extremely relevant. How relevant is it for the entirety of the space? Quite a bit. And as I said, this is you know, the current stage of this it's not necessarily like a but thing, right? Always. So it's like a certain legal issue, but not necessarily a problem. Right, so what's the best solution? Yeah, that's what I'm measuring. It's not necessarily a problem, right? And global standards? Yes, definitely an interesting one. Yet they might be at least in some like AMO for example that's something that might be some close to global coordination. That's happening already. Some other things like secret regulation this is gonna be probably impossible to get coordination. One interesting example is the approach to stable cogs with Libra approaching and all of these, you know, mass people from like central bankers from various countries saying that they're not gonna allow this. This will be a very interesting test for international coordination. Are all the major economists actually able to coordinate on this matter? I'm the one who said it's not a problem it's an opportunity. And it's interesting that the top two options are literally opposite of each other. But I think people underestimate how difficult it is if you have global standards that you don't like. Maybe it is that having to go I won't say underground but it's that having to play in the spaces between the regulation people is a bit different here, it's a kind of bit different here. That sort of thing is great for lawyers but not for people who want to build projects. And you know these standards exist like these laws are more or less similar in many countries because the policy concerns are the same or almost identical, right? So there are certain standards. The question is if these are not details which are problematic here, right? When you come from a country that has bad regulation pretty much you don't care about that. Like for example? You have like a lot of problems in corruption and everything so pretty much you just don't care so it's better just to just drop that's the thing that everybody disrupts. Is there a difference between global standards of regulation and global standards of definition about various things? Like maybe like for example definition of die. Is die a veriracism? Is it not? Is die a surgery? Is it not? I don't know how the world works with definitions versus regulations. That's more or less the same. For AMO for the purpose of AMO work at FAT it was extremely relevant how virtual currency is defined, right? That was one of the core problems. Let's run this really quickly. Develop reliability I'm not sure if that regards any explanation here. Just one example because there was a lot of theoretical thoughts about this but one example Aval laws are being implemented by many countries in Europe right now. And this is something that the UK government proposes. Like they asked the question would it make sense to apply this regulation to people that are dealing with the publication of open source software which includes what is not limited to non-custodian world software and other types of crypto related software. So this would be not just banks or crypto exchanges that are subject to this type of regulation but also open source data. Did you consider this problem? Alright That's actually quite surprising I thought it would be close to 100% yes but let's move on How relevant is this for your project? I mean it's of course difficult to say right if you're not a lawyer but just you're feeling the problems. People are afraid to answer How relevant is this for the entire project? The reasoning again is that if you have decentralized financial services and regulators are looking for something that is called access points. You may want to address users miners but developers like people that are actually doing this shit and not only developing products but also front ends seem like an offer size. But from the regulatory cost point of view do you think regulators will run after us because that includes a huge amount of cost for the companies? I mean again this is like a general problem that might materialize in some specific context. Of course I do not foresee this board in which developers would need to go underground because there would be huge regulatory enforcement action at all of you guys but in some context that might be relevant like a shot with the same numbers. It's enough if there is like this small detail that would really make a difference like, right? Right, solutions actually I think that here the best solution would be to to model it and then it was this, dark this you know it's not that sometimes we may think that it's like without any sense at all, right? But imagine like a death that is just developing a Ponzi scheme like with full knowledge that it's gonna serve this purpose with deploying the code and promoting the code, right? That's non-obvious, right? Whether we might want to go after this there is a certain Russia now for things, right? We're fine. What is the definition of a developer over here? If it's an open source and everybody can contribute Yes, that's true, right? Yes, that's true Right, okay, so we're really running out of time so let's quickly go through the last piece which is just like pure legal markers, right? So some cases in which you might want to do something that is like do this legally, you just can't and two examples, the first one it's just in the EU it's just impossible to be deregulated tax right now due to some legal requirements this is like the precise provision we don't have time to elaborate on this and this, I don't want to say it because I avoided it at all costs to just mention but this is another problem, right? It actually stops a lot of blockchain projects because people don't know how to deal with this right? So last series of questions legal barriers so like laws that are just not responding well to this new problem which does not mean that sometimes the fact that they are not covering something explicitly is not a problem it's just another opportunity but sometimes they're stopping people from doing things legally not sure how many answers that have seems like how relevant for your project overestimate this because they have a certain about the law in general but this is a real problem, very often how is this relevant for the whole DeFi space and solutions? It seems that this one actually had this one actually had like a very simple simple solution just change the law to make these people that are responsible for this aware of these problems which is possibly the best result sometimes the question is if we want to do that especially those people that have this mindset of building something that is completely alternative they just don't want to make people aware that it's regulators because they think that it's going to bring some problems and it's a valid it's a valid problem so there is this one option where radically it's too late I think that time up so thank you very much I'm going to use this data hopefully on DeFi.Law blog and present these ideas and I really hope that this will be just like the initial discussion about general problems and we'll get into specifics as a community because we don't really need to share these problems common problems as we can see as projects and think about solutions that would apply to everyone can you just mention that I left two ones just to research on there were eight problems no six sorry that was my mistake I said these were six problems so that's actually the variant, thanks