New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove ICO assets #58

Closed
ManfredKarrer opened this Issue Nov 26, 2018 · 23 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
9 participants
@ManfredKarrer
Member

ManfredKarrer commented Nov 26, 2018

This is a Bisq Network proposal. Please familiarize yourself with the submission and review process.

We should consider if we as Bisq contributors are willing to be exposed to some level of legal risk by having ICO tokens listed.

I for my part and with certainly the highest risk exposure do not want to add even the slightest level of risk for tokens using a model with is to 99% irresponsible and scammy. There might be exceptions but those are rare and we will not have the time and expertise to make a rating which ICO tokens are securities and which are not, nor do we have the time to judge which tokens are "good ones" worht to take some level of risk and which one not.

See also #57

@kopite77

This comment has been minimized.

kopite77 commented Nov 26, 2018

I agree that tokens launched from ICOs should not be included in Bisq. In my opinion, the risk that comes from listing those tokens aren't worth the added volume. I'm not sure how much volume ICO tokens would add anyways since they will likely be mostly acquired on exchanges built on the token's blockchain (i.e. EtherDelta or Idex for Ethereum based ICO tokens).

If this proposal gains enough consensus and ICO tokens are removed, some things to consider:

  1. Update the following URL to add a bullet point saying ICO tokens aren't accepted: https://bisq.community/t/how-to-add-your-favorite-altcoin/46
  2. What will be the process to review new altcoins added to Bisq were not part of an ICO?
  3. Or if an ICO token did slip through the cracks and get listed, will there be some kind of review to remove those tokens later on?
@blabno

This comment has been minimized.

blabno commented Nov 26, 2018

It is disappointing to me. I thought Bisq would be censorship resistant.
Is this a temporary measure until the project gets more developers and becomes less vulnerable to government attacks on individuals?

@ripcurlx

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ripcurlx commented Nov 26, 2018

I'm in favor of this proposal as we need to mitigate risk at the current state of the project as good as possible. Any distraction that might be caused through unclear rulings/definitions what is a security token or not has to be prevented. I think after the launch of the DAO and more rulings on that topic by the SEC all stakeholders can/should re-evaluate this decision.

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ManfredKarrer commented Nov 26, 2018

@blabno There is no black and white here. Bisq will become more censorship resistant over time but currently we are still too small. But beside that I would make a removal proposal with the DAO anyway to remove most of the crap coins. Don't say that all ICO coins are crap but 90% are. Do we want to add work and risk for supporting coins which are just out to make the coin issuer rich and create a lot of damage to the whole ecosystem? I certainly did not build Bisq for those.

And btw. there is usually zero trades anyway with ICO coins. At least I am not aware of any of the traded coins which is an ICO coin (if you dont interpert ETH as ICO coin...)

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ManfredKarrer commented Nov 26, 2018

@ripcurlx
Yes when the DAO is out we have anyway the "remove asset" voting feature. That gives a much better solution. But until that we can use the current proposal process to emulate that model.

@blabno

This comment has been minimized.

blabno commented Nov 26, 2018

I think that trade volume criteria is neutral and good enough parameter to tell us if people want to trade a coin or not.
We shouldn't protect people from hurting themselves willingly

volenti non fit iniuria

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ManfredKarrer commented Nov 26, 2018

Yes but there is the 3 months trial period. So new ICO tokens are not covered by that rule. There is a real risk (the SEC just acted against 2 ETH dex) and we have to consider if ICO tokens are worth to take that risk. For my part and I am sure most at risk, I dont want to take even the slightest risk for tokens which are to 99% representing very unethical behaviour anyway. Just read those ICO token annountcements and you get sick in the stomage. Most of those are just pure investment scams.

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ManfredKarrer commented Nov 26, 2018

Btw. I would also expand to use our current proposal model to remove other coins as well like "Bitcoin 2". We see that main stream media confuse BCH with BTC as they did recently when reporting about a fork in Bitcoin (was maybe intentional, but newbies really confuse it). So a project adding more confustion by abusing an established brand is highly un-ethical IMO.

@blabno

This comment has been minimized.

blabno commented Nov 26, 2018

Maybe DAO should have separate voting for listing each individual coin?

@blabno

This comment has been minimized.

blabno commented Nov 26, 2018

I am in favor of this proposal as a temporary measure. Long term I would like Bisq to list all the tokens.

@flix1

This comment has been minimized.

Member

flix1 commented Nov 26, 2018

I would rather have inactive tokens be de-listed as part of an objective rule (ie: lack of volume) than because of an arbitrary decision.

The effect is the same, but the precedent and principle is not.

@flix1

This comment has been minimized.

Member

flix1 commented Nov 26, 2018

As to whether ICO tokens are deemed "securities" by the US SEC... the whole point of Bisq is to not be vulnerable to the whims and pronouncements of such regulators. Clearly we are not there yet and it is reasonable to be careful.... but if US, EU regulators can force changes on Bisq... it's a slippery slope that eventually lead to what centralized exchanges have been forced to accept in terms of privacy reduction, censorship, etc.

@ripcurlx

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ripcurlx commented Nov 26, 2018

@flix1 I also see it more as an intermediate solution to protect Bisq before it is completely decentralized.

@flix1

This comment has been minimized.

Member

flix1 commented Nov 26, 2018

My hope is that by the end of 2019, with the DAO fully operational and tested, Bisq will be in a spot where it can no more stop an asset from being traded (for whatever reason) than Bittorrent could selectively block files because of some country's copyright law.

"Don't do Evil" is not good enough. We have to build a "Can't Do Evil" model.

@aejontargaryen

This comment has been minimized.

aejontargaryen commented Nov 26, 2018

I thought I was the founder of Bisq...?

@sqrrm

This comment has been minimized.

Member

sqrrm commented Nov 26, 2018

I agree with @ripcurlx on this. Currently the project is not decentralized enough to be considered censorship resistant. The aim is to build that but any project starts off with just one person. At this point I think it's better to not list the ICO tokens and continue work to not make us unable to censor them. It's obviously still possible to fork the project and list them for those that really want to, but at this point it's unlikely that anyone would since it requires a lot of work and that's not what ICOs are about.

Once we get rid of the arbitrators and get the 2of2 trade protocol I think it will be easier to fork the project if someone really wants to, there will also be less attack surface and risk for contributors so that would be one good step on the way. With the future possibility of using bonded reputation for trading anything it should be possible to list anything and only loosely tie in to the bisq protocol for completing trades if the bisq DAO decides it doesn't want to list the asset through the client. As @flix1 says about not being able to do evil, I see a path forward to where it might be impossible to stop anyone using the protocol and I think that should be the goal.

I also don't feel like supporting scams that mainly add risk and badwill to bisq.

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ManfredKarrer commented Nov 26, 2018

it requires a lot of work and that's not what ICOs are about.

Haha, well said ;-)

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ManfredKarrer commented Nov 26, 2018

I think we see that most are supporting that. As we get close to code freeze I will make a PR with removing those.

@devinbileck

This comment has been minimized.

Member

devinbileck commented Nov 27, 2018

Since you are removing assets that were previously accepted and merged, as a courtesy you might want to inform the original PR authors so they aren't surprised when they see it is not included in the upcoming release.

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ManfredKarrer commented Dec 1, 2018

@devinbileck Added a message to the PR to those assets which we removed.

@scottdonaldau

This comment has been minimized.

scottdonaldau commented Dec 4, 2018

Hey guys, what information do you need to re-add QRL? We are no longer a token, we launched our mainnet back in June. We're a coin just like BTC/ETH/LTC/XMR etc. We've spent significant time and effort building MIT licensed code that provides post quantum secure signatures on our network, and for anyone who wishes to utilise our free libraries. @ManfredKarrer @devinbileck

@scottdonaldau

This comment has been minimized.

scottdonaldau commented Dec 4, 2018

It's also worth noting that the release notes for 0.9.0 indicate the three removed coins are included. These should be removed for clarity.

https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/releases/tag/v0.9.0

@devinbileck

This comment has been minimized.

Member

devinbileck commented Dec 5, 2018

@scottdonaldau QRL is unique in that it originally started as an ERC20 token from an ICO (or at least from a private presale), which has since implemented its own independent blockchain but included those token amounts in the genesis block. Based on that, is it still considered to have taken part in an ICO?

@ManfredKarrer do you have any comments?

@ripcurlx ripcurlx referenced this issue Dec 6, 2018

Closed

Add EOS coin #2069

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment