You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are several instances where the proposal seems to assume the project is building a new blockchain. For example, the proposal only refers to "networks". However many, if not most new projects would call themselves "protocols", "decentralized apps", or "dApps" that are built on top of existing blockchains or networks. Both blockchains and dApps often create a native token. I believe the spirit of the proposal would include both of these, so I think the language should make it clear such protocols are also exempted. Clear examples of the types of protocols I'm referring to are things like Compound, or Uniswap.
Specific examples of the language I'm referring to are:
Preliminary Notes - "However, for a network to mature into a functional..." -> I'd recommend widening the scope, so as to include protocols. Perhaps "However, for a network, decentralized app, or "dApp" to mature into a functional..."
Section (b)(ii) - "A narrative description of the steps necessary to independently access, search, and verify the transaction history of the network" -> Here it says "the network" as if the project is a network. Might recommend changing this to "the network being built, or the network on which the protocol will be built"
Section (b)(iii)(B) - "Information detailing the method of generating or mining Tokens, the process for burning Tokens, the process for validating transactions, and the consensus mechanism;" -> I would expand the scope here to say, "and if applicable, a process for validating transactions and the consensus mechanism"
Section (b)(iii)(E) - "A hyperlink to a block explorer." -> I would add something like, "A hyperlink to a block explorer for the proposed network, or for the network on which the protocol may be built"
Of course the exact language can be discussed further, but my high level intention is to create space in this Safe Harbor for the decentralized protocols and apps that are built on top of blockchains, in addition to the blockchains themselves.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
safeharbor-reader
changed the title
Leave space for dApp protocols, not just blockchains
Widen language to include space for protocols and dApps, not just blockchains or networks
Apr 17, 2021
This fixesCommissionerPeirce#24.
The core change is to explicitly state that this proposal includes protocols, and decentralized apps ("dApps") as well as blockchain networks. Such dApps (eg. Compound, or Uniswap) are built on top of blockchain networks, and constitute the majority of new projects in the space. So having clarity on this point is crucial. And since both dApps and blockchains often sell tokens and both aspire to full decentralization, it seems appropriate to include them.
Note: the original issue suggested other changes, but upon reading through it again, I think the one change to clarify the definition of "network" up top may be sufficient.
There are several instances where the proposal seems to assume the project is building a new blockchain. For example, the proposal only refers to "networks". However many, if not most new projects would call themselves "protocols", "decentralized apps", or "dApps" that are built on top of existing blockchains or networks. Both blockchains and dApps often create a native token. I believe the spirit of the proposal would include both of these, so I think the language should make it clear such protocols are also exempted. Clear examples of the types of protocols I'm referring to are things like Compound, or Uniswap.
Specific examples of the language I'm referring to are:
Preliminary Notes - "However, for a network to mature into a functional..." -> I'd recommend widening the scope, so as to include protocols. Perhaps "However, for a network, decentralized app, or "dApp" to mature into a functional..."
Section (b)(ii) - "A narrative description of the steps necessary to independently access, search, and verify the transaction history of the network" -> Here it says "the network" as if the project is a network. Might recommend changing this to "the network being built, or the network on which the protocol will be built"
Section (b)(iii)(B) - "Information detailing the method of generating or mining Tokens, the process for burning Tokens, the process for validating transactions, and the consensus mechanism;" -> I would expand the scope here to say, "and if applicable, a process for validating transactions and the consensus mechanism"
Section (b)(iii)(E) - "A hyperlink to a block explorer." -> I would add something like, "A hyperlink to a block explorer for the proposed network, or for the network on which the protocol may be built"
Of course the exact language can be discussed further, but my high level intention is to create space in this Safe Harbor for the decentralized protocols and apps that are built on top of blockchains, in addition to the blockchains themselves.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: