There is no claim being made that it’s OK or NOT OK.
If you read it in a context of the post the term “So no issue there.” refers to the fact that the same effect is achievable on L2 not on L1, since it already exists as L2. So you can read that as: So no issues with this options being available even if CS is not introduced on L1
This is a point that deals a lot more with laws, regulations and KYC. This topic isn’t really diving deep into those parts of the argument. This topic was meant to snap people out of the metal block of seeing CS-on-L1 vs. No-CS-at-all as the only options.
If I have some time tonight I’ll try to lay out some legal and other concerns I have with CS on L1.
No, this would be conflating the right to vote on Cardano as equivalent to the right to vote in the US government arena, which are entirely separate. For the latter, it would be protected because it would be entirely under US purview.
I was referring to the margin fee. How that mechanism already exists.
It was a rhetorical question. Even if the regulations do not exist yet, a Thucydides trap can emerge at some point which they will -want- to control it. Via regulation. Just observe the lawmakers, their words, and actions. Plenty of hints that many are not enthusiastic about the USD losing it’s place as hegemon.
It’s too reductive to say it goes all the way back to freedom of choice. Freedom of choice isn’t a blanket phrase that allows people to do what they wish, e.g. illegal activity, privileged activities (driving) etc. Our “freedoms” are really those that fall under an umbrella of generally agreed and subsequently permissible activities.
Ah, I did in fact read it that way. By “okay” I meant that it sounded like because it already exists on L2 we shouldnt worry if CS is implemented or not. Which my response was that we should, and not just CS, but the fact that it already exists.
I get now what you were referring to, a comment more on implementation.
In a general sense, voting is an expression of choice or opinion. It is not just about voting in governmental elections.
If your government seeks to outlaw your freedom to choose who you can point your keys at, then you have much bigger problems.
In cases where one person’s rights can impact on another’s, society needs to find the right balance. For example, a person’s right to freedom of expression may be limited where their views incite hatred towards a group.
I would like to hear the arguments for how voting my staking key could impact another persons natural rights, or enjoyment of life. How would a government justify limiting such freedom of expression?
If regulators wish to ban Cardano use based on AML arguments then they will not even care if Cardano is proof-of-stake or proof-of-work or any other proof-of-anything. The AML arguments go to the very core and whether or not Cardano implements a contingent staking feature will make precisely ZERO difference.
Not necessarily. Now that we’re talking about control, the follow up is -willingness- vs -ability-. Key to think about here are the categories of stakeholders and the relative power they have. They can attempt to wrest control by influencing the weakest / most centralized link, whether that be the dev team, coin holders, SPOs, etc. and holding the other stakeholders hostage.
I would wager it is probably easier to conduct enforcement with an SPO class of 20-30 than it would be to regulate every single coin holder. Thus, giving SPOs more power via contingent staking (or the original thing I pointed out ie. 100%fee via smart contract) makes them all the more attractive an attack vector.
OTOH I’d like to add and say that is why Ouroboros is great, because unlike say in ETH where stake is tied to one asset holder (generally, not accounting for Lido and the like), if an SPO is compromised the delegators can just switch. SPO flight is a real concern for governments, but again as it stands their relative power isn’t as high to put it in the “worthwhile to attempt to control” bucket.