I would like to propose alternate components to this.
Wyoming has a “DAO LLC” specifically for Distributed Autonomous Organizations, and they also have a Chancery Court for complex new business disputes. This is far beyond any state and country.
South Dakota has favorable trust laws to hold assets.
There are many many ways to deal with the tax issues compliantly, and this is largely a factor of what entities/humans control those entities.
And I also think people misunderstand the roles of the seemingly adversarial US federal government here. There is a symbiosis with the states that is not extended to foreign entities and the controllers of foreign entities. But it really depends on who/nationality is behind the entities themselves, as that changes everything.
Just consider the tools available this decade instead of offshore concoctions from 20 years ago.
What are the goals, how do these particular entity types help the goals. What specifically is Fenwick saying? Bring me under the privilege if needed, there is a lot of room to innovate.
It is far beyond - so far in fact that it seems to be beyond the comprehension of Wyoming’s own lawmakers.
The Wyoming DAO legislation is widely accepted by those in the industry, including myself, as being flawed. It’s also untested in the courts. We’re meant to be offering protection to devs and ops folks, not exposing them to experimental, untested, poorly drafted legislation. So that’s got to be an easy “hell no”.
No there isn’t and anyone suggesting the Sushi team should even consider the US hasn’t been watching the news since, oh, 2017 when the SEC published the DAO Report. Why put the team in harm’s way?
Sushiswap needs a sound foundation for expansion and development. That’s the reason I opposed the use of Panama as a jurisdictional base over other, stronger candidates (all of which are outside the US).
anyone suggesting the Sushi team should even consider the US hasn’t been watching the news since, oh, 2017 when the SEC published the DAO Report. Why put the team in harm’s way?
That plays into exactly what I was saying earlier, nothing about a Panama Foundation or a Caymans entity or any entity type anywhere prevents or mitigates entity level + direct personal liability from US securities laws.
Its not a factor!
and regarding the Wyoming DAO legislation, there are parts I find laughable but I don’t see them of consequence. Definitely open to talking about that in isolation. But simply having a US entity involved doesn’t make it better or worse for securities liability (pointing that out because you mentioned that one specific US regulator, the SEC)
I appreciate your input on the matter. We’ve spoken with two leading firms, including Fenwick, over the past couple of weeks. Fenwick provided further discovery on their proposal, making it the most attractive for liability protection, scalability, and execution speed. Currently, nothing exists for the team, and it is not optimal. Therefore, I’d suggest we move forward with the discussion and vote on the proposal for Fenwick’s implementation. I feel comfortable after directly speaking with them. Happy to answer any questions this comment brings.
No problems - I’ve been advising devs who support DEXs get established for the better part of 2 years and only wanted to share some knowledge and highlight the pot-holes. Ultimately, this is a commercial call that needs to be made by you and the Sushiswap team - you’re all smart enough to work through the challenges.
Even if I’m right and Panama turns out to be a head-ache, there’s no reason a sister company can’t be established somewhere more conducive.