Labs Proposal

I wish it wasn’t the case, but monopolosing control of the platform and evading regulations are diametrically opposed goals.

i believe it is two separate issues here as well, licensing to deter usage not authorized by GMX DAO and ensuring that the platform is censorship resistant

for censorship resistance, once the code is deployed it cannot be removed from the blockchain

given this, it is also possible for other anon projects to fork / deploy the code, and we similarly would not be able to censor it or remove it from the blockchain even with a license

the license if voted in would just be a deterrence on usage not authorized by GMX DAO, it does not change the censorship resistant aspect of things

3 Likes

I appreciate the detailed response here on the legal impact, and the benefits of clearing up GMX’s legal framework moving forward to keep the protocol growing overall. One question I have on censorship resistance:

Most Contributors to the GMX Protocol shall conduct their involvement through Labs. They will be vesting any existing intellectual property they control as part of this process.

Does this not present an attack vector for state actors like the SEC to subpoena GMX to reveal the identities of contributors on the payroll, say hypothetically involved in the synthetics contracts? My worry here is less about the implications of shutting down the legal entity, than with the chilling effect on GMX’s freedom to innovate. It essentially presents a larger attack surface. If I’ve got this chain of reasoning completely wrong (and I’m not a lawyer so that’s likely), please feel free to correct me.

That’s a very thoughtful question!

I will allow the core GMX contributors to comment here, but AFAIK that “attack vector,” so to speak, exists before & after implementing this type of structure.

It’s not hard for any especially motivated state actor to do this.

It is possible to see the same facts and come to different conclusions. Our view is that this reduces the attach surface instead of increasing it.

Shutting down Labs does not shut down GMX, Labs does not control GMX and contributors through Labs don’t control GMX and formalizing these relationships makes what is already true clear: the protocol is controlled by the community and under its direction. Ensuring that this roles are clear helps ensure GMX’s censorship resistance.

With regards to it being necessary for contributors to be doxxed to the Labs entity, in most cases that will not be required and it continues to be the desire of the developers engaged in the development of for synths to remain anonymous. Arrangements for such contributors would be structured accordingly.

What being a contractor of the Labs entity does do is ensure that their contributions are covered and protected by Labs and allow Labs to defend and protect them related to the role they play through Labs in supporting the development of code they are hired to prepare for the protocol.

1 Like

Thanks for the thorough response. I particularly liked this point you made:

What being a contractor of the Labs entity does do is ensure that their contributions are covered and protected by Labs and allow Labs to defend and protect them related to the role they play through Labs in supporting the development of code they are hired to prepare for the protocol.

If the Alphabet Boys come after the GMX team anyway, might as well have the ability to lawyer the fuck up.

In light of the recent CFTC lawsuit against Ooki DAO, I think it’s necessary to create a legal wrapper for GMX in order to limit potential liabilities for token holders (esp those in the U.S.).