Description
We expect much from our validators. Not only to provide security, but also to make good governance choices as delegates (even if we support more flexible delegation systems where one can delegate to non-validators, we still need to delegate our trust of running validators securely to validators as a matter orthogonal to most others.).
What should the founding documents say about KYC and validators? The genesis validators can be KYCd by anyone, that is easy enough. But in general, what should be the policy for AtomOne?
Theoretically, it seems that stakers should be KYC'ing their own validators. If they don't know who the founders are, or executives are, for example, then how do they know enough to stake to them responsibly? Maybe somehow they do, but maybe you still want to make sure that the validator you delegate to isn't running their validator in a sanctioned country. But other stakers could live under different rules. Ultimately the policy that the hub adopts is by nature a self-sovereign one, but it can choose to align with any axis that it wants, and its voluntary choice of alignment should be considered before everything else, as well as the chances that it may be allowed to change alignment, and that it may not be able to stick to any one thing because of various external circumstances.
We can require that validators self-select and self-declare their jurisdiction policy choice by blockchain-based identifier, and these choices should determine what regulations the chain must abide by but only to be changed once +2/3 of the voting power agree to enact a new one first by chain then by governance. The stakers need to agree to the change to. But to change anything otherwise would be insecure. And until we have a secure system that works across hubs and zones, it is safest first to start with the permissionless base, and to support experiments of control, and also to support experiments of guaranteed freedoms.