“Why is T10 even included?
Why?
Previous attempts to address edge cases where government regulations could render stake pool operations illegal in certain jurisdictions were met with disdain, particularly among ADA holders. I didn’t feel that most Stake Pool Operators (SPOs) felt the same, but of course some SPOs did as well.
Instead of recognizing this as a proactive measure—ensuring that Cardano can operate globally regardless of individual government regulations—it was viewed as a problem. This perception is unfortunate because it misinterprets the initiative to provide tools for SPOs to maintain infrastructure regardless of their location, and instead sees it as a potential barrier to delegators. If a delegator always has options in their own country, it should not have mattered if an SPO to continue operations had limits imposed that they needed to comply with, or just shutdown entirely, but that isn’t how many took it.
If the choice is between allowing pools to operate in a region with imposed limits or completely shutting down and having no stake pools in that area, I advocate for providing SPOs with the necessary tools to continue their operations while achieving compliance, safeguarding themselves from being labeled a criminal.
In my view, this is a forward-thinking approach to ensure that ADA holders have access to stake pools in their regions and to prevent Cardano from becoming obsolete due to overwhelming government regulations that could render it nearly illegal on a global scale if enough countries decided to make overly restrictive regulations.
Any government can make anything illegal.
Indeed, some countries impose strict controls on legality. What crosses their borders (firewalls etc.) is at their discretion. While it’s possible to navigate around these restrictions, doing so can make one a criminal in that jurisdiction.
Should Cardano:
- Expect all SPOs to close down in every country where the government erects some form of a roadblock?
- Plan for the future by incorporating necessary tools to maintain a global infrastructure?
I argue that option #1 is not viable. If enough countries create hurdles, the result could be a fragmented infrastructure operating legally, while those who defy the law risk jail time, leading to unmaintained pools that eventually cease to produce blocks and eventually no rewards for their delegators.
Option #2, incorporating forward planning into the constitution, would mean requesting funding for the necessary tools to ensure the longevity of Cardano should be a priority for DReps, because it is ingrained into the constitution.
I also believe this approach does not contradict the principles of the “cypherpunk and crypto revolution.” The goal of blockchain and cryptocurrency is to create alternatives to the existing fiat system. If we perceive this as being against everything any government creates, I’d argue this is shortsighted and creates a high risk of failure. Sufficiently powerful governments could enact regulations that make cryptocurrencies illegal in too many places, exposing users to the risk of imprisonment for utilizing non-fiat solutions which don’t comply with their requirements. While this may not be the case globally, it is a somewhat probable scenario in certain authoritarian regimes.
To survive and achieve our goal of a global financial system that offers solutions as a store of value, allows governance, manages identity, and provides decentralized applications, we must look beyond ourselves, our borders, and our biases about what cryptocurrency “should be” and plan for what “we must do” to achieve the stated goals. Otherwise, I believe we risk being shortsighted in our planning, jeopardizing our existence not just in the next decade, but in the next five to ten decades.