Retroactive funding request
Summary Proposal request for 29,000 ATOM from the community spending pool for contributions to the Cosmos community for ISO-20022 related work. Details This is a funding request for 29,000 ATOM from the community spending pool for retroactive funding related to ISO-20022 solutions to make blockchain technology compatible with Fed-wire, SWIFT and other banks/custodians who conform to the ISO-20022 standardization. Doing research for corporate/enterprise scale chains, I came across an article that outlined some blockchains that claimed they were ISO-20022 compliant and started my effort to determine how to make Cosmos chains ISO-20022 compliant. Since ISO-20022 was an emerging standard that Swift, FED-Wire and other financial institutions were implementing, other Fin-Tech (Financial Technologies) products, like blockchains, would need to comply to stay relevant. InvestorPlace – 22 Dec 21 ISO 20022 Cryptos: 5 Compliant Cryptos to Keep an Eye on in 2022 ISO 20022 cryptos are of peak interest right now as investors seek out the digital currencies compliant with the standard. Est. reading time: 3 minutes I initially did some…
Excerpt (1193 of 5148 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Strongly agree with this proposal.
Will vote yes.
jasonsprouse:29,000 ATOM
No.
This proposal is meandering and unconvincing.
Also difficult to follow.
As presented, this is a poorly defined/documented, backdated claim for exploratory efforts that have yet to be meaningfully validated or peer-reviewed.
There is no precedence on the hub to retroactively fund mere “concepts of plans”.
Why do you strongly agree with this proposal?
Cosmos_Nanny: Separately, I think it’s time for a parameter change —specifically, reduce community pool tax from 10% to 2% (pre proposal #87 rate). The 8.9 m ATOM in the pool should either: a) be burned, b) be transferred to the ICL for direct stewardship, or a combination of both. Although I don’t frequently disagree with you, I’ve got to say that I disagree with you here. I think that the community pool is a good thing that can do good things for Cosmos, and that it should stay in place. I also think that we should generally favor smaller funding, rather than larger funding. Like yourself, I don’t really know what this proposal is about and so I’m inclined not to support it. If it makes any difference to anybody I also like hemp, in cannabis form. Edit: Grace clarified and let me know that what she’s actually saying is that we should empty the community pool and then have a 2% rate thereafter. In fact I think her solution is ideal, and we should Chase it. @bpiv400 @Mag which of these solutions do you think is better? If icl received 8.9 million atom, what would it do with them? If the plan is decent I’d support this. It’s also okay with me to burn…
Excerpt (1196 of 1318 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I’m not saying cp should be nuked.
Am saying the tax rate is too high.
Cosmos_Nanny: This proposal is meandering and unconvincing. Also difficult to follow. For developers, and executives interfacing with institutions like Circle - where there will be a requirement to be ISO-20022 compliant, it is clear what is required to be in compliance. I covered 3 different protocols - Ethereum, CosmWasm and CosmosSDK, there are other VMs like Solana that I did not cover, but the explanations should suffice to be successful. I would pay close attention and “follow” the communication with @ankurb for the end-to-end discussion with Cheq’d, as there is a 3rd party involved that performs KYC/AML checks and who would post back an attestation with a zero-knowledge proof, or without. Based on that institutions api, it is required for them to extended their api surface to support a crypto wallet address in their suite of KYC/AML validation tools. The process would be the same for any institution perfroming that sort of validation, but I even explained what logic they need to implement. I provided that in typescript, but I don’t know what logic thier system uses in the backend - it could be C#. Cosmos_Nanny: There is no precedence on the hub…
Excerpt (1197 of 2113 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
jacobgadikian:Like yourself, I don’t really know what this proposal is about and so I’m inclined not to support it.
When I first identified this ISO-20022 transition and asked the community try to make Cosmos chains ISO-20022 complaint, as described in that article linked on github - which was reposted to Disocrd - you also posted a comment on Line Financial Blockchain - who was develpoing lfb speficially for CBDCs. That comment is no longer there…but it is a minute issue easily explained with a delete post - beacuse the solution was shared 9 months later.
Okay hi Jason
It’s a very compelling concept. However, why is this considered to be retroactive funding?
Did I miss something?
Where is the work product?
For this amount what I’d like to see is at least some kind of minimum viable product and code. Additionally, I don’t really think that Cosmos should pay for a patent that you own.
Now…
An nft patent that the Hub owns?
Priceless
jacobgadikian: Okay hi Jason It’s a very compelling concept. However, why is this considered to be retroactive funding? Where is the work product? Part of the work product is all the research hours to understand the ISO-20022 problem set - opportunity gap. I focused on this for some time. Can build an “OpenZepplin” like product, but need to buy all the ISO definitions from the International Standardizations Organization. I’ve outlined how this tool can be built, and provided some logic for it. I would alter this logic slightly but for the most part it’s the process and method I would go through to build the contract for ALL smart contracting languages. I’ve only shared an ethereum example here, but this process would be used of all languages for this tool. There is nuacnces in which definitions should be used for different transactions. For example - a swap from a stable coin to a L1 coin is a different ISO definition than a swap from a L1 coin to a L1 coin. In any case it would be required to buy the definitions 1st. ``` import * as fs from 'fs'; function generateSolidityContract(definition: string): void { // Define the Solidity contract content…
Excerpt (1190 of 8318 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
To be fair I’ve been intentionally vague is some ways - like not posting the exact logic I would use, or explaining everything pertaining to a web based product and/or cli tool. It’s a code example. jasonsprouse: Alternative to an ISO “contract generation tool” such as this ``` import * as fs from 'fs'; function generateSolidityContract(definition: string): void { // Define the Solidity contract content const contractContent = ` pragma solidity ^0.8.0; contract ISOEventContract${capitalizeFirstLetter(definition)} { event ISOStandardEvent(uint256 isoStandardId, string description); function emitISOEvent() external { emit ISOStandardEvent(${definition}, "${definition}"); } } `; // Write the content to a Solidity contract file const filename = `ISOEventContract_${definition}.sol`; fs.writeFileSync(filename, contractContent); console.log(`Solidity contract '${filename}' generated successfully.`); } function capitalizeFirstLetter(str: string): string { return str.charAt(0).toUpperCase() + str.slice(1); } // Read ISO standardization definitions from the 'definitions' file const definitions =…
Excerpt (1176 of 3993 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Sounds like it might be time to put up the prop - these kinds of things keep happening
Hey Magmar, what’s your thoughts on the ISO thing ? Independently from the funding request from community pool. Is it useless? Useful?
That was an April fools joke btw.
Please fuck off with this proposal lol
Cause it was the first of April.
no burn please, preferable to acquire some new studf and teams instead
It’s a fair request.
I worked to solve the ISO concept for some time. There was another concept I suggested when I was working on this problem set - using Dapr, to build chains side by side. I said specifically - I’m not sure what it could be used for, but it seems like it’s something to experiment with and try.
It ended up becoming a product in the Cosmos ecosystem built.
EDIT: This product here. https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxVKIVucjbE8NwWZsKjfrZexVTtXX1lorW?si=5m-f1LTc5sYnbpWb
After watching some of this - I did specifically suggest a Secret Network sidechain. Something else that I recall saying, was that it’s mainly a configuration file with the docker containers with the right ports for sidechain communication…what I didn’t quite grasp was how IBC would work into the equation, and I was foccused on the ISO stuff anyhow.
On anthor note - the use cases presented, are exellent - never even considered loading up the memory on the side chain and running an Ai model in it, but I get it.
There’s more ideas than just the ISO-request.
Thanks. @StunZeed.
There’s a community here. I have some NDA’s signed with some organizations for some of the concepts I’ve put proposal up for. Nothing that I’ve proposed do I think is unprofessional or unrealistic, or unfair ---- quite to the contrary in fact. These are reasonalbe requests.
Cosmos_Nanny:There is no precedence on the hub to retroactively fund mere “concepts of plans”.
When @Cosmos_Nanny states there is no presedence for “retroactivlely funding” someone - I generally agree with this more broadly - meaning that…there is “no presedence in what a community of people aligned to a financial technology product” can do.
The proposals that I’ve shared are seeking to explore organizing an international community beyond just software applications, in a mainly software oriented community. There is no presedence for how the community organizes - or what it can become.
What is the crypto community? What does the community represent? What is the values, and aspirations of the community? To be taken seriously? To be viable? To be intregal to the global GDP?
At current rates, im sure a lot of the dev / validator teams that are workign with / around the hub, have spent more than 150k USD in the past 5 years. Sorry, but unsure how it all ties in
serejandmyself: At current rates, im sure a lot of the dev / validator teams that are workign with / around the hub, have spent more than 150k USD in the past 5 years. Sorry, but unsure how it all ties in I’m not sure what y’all’s revenue is like - you spend $30,000/yr to make how much??? I haven’t got paid a penny from my contributions from any crypto team/project/community — the entire time, yet I’ve made worthwhile suggestions, shared diagrams to explain myself and the code - and I have a fairly strong grasp of the value of my contributions. When things 1st started to get going with Cosmos - the discord and other outlets rant and raved about conpensating valueable contributions. The ISO opperuntiy gap was one that aligned with my interests - so I foccused on that. The ISO definitions cost money. $30,000 a year is a joke salary to anyone worth their 2 cents. Diversification of DAO Treasury through Real-World Assets (RWAs) and Real-World Projects (RWPs) • Real-Estate Amenity Innovation Platform • Develop an international DAO platform that serves as a point-of-sale and gating solution for customers. • Leverage blockchain technology to enhance…
Excerpt (1191 of 5391 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Put simply, we believe your work is essential—but requesting community funding to support it does not seem like the appropriate path forward. We recall having discussed this very topic with you privately, which is why we were quite surprised to see a formal proposal submitted to the forum requesting 29,000 ATOM . Our position on this matter remains unchanged from what we shared with you at the time: your work primarily serves private or hybrid chain implementations of the Cosmos SDK. For further context, we refer readers to the previously shared post: “Cosmos: A World of Private Chains” If these private or hybrid chains seek ISO-20022 compatibility , as they rightfully should, then they should also be prepared to compensate you appropriately through licensed usage of your contributions . We strongly encourage you to explore these more direct and fitting channels of compensation. To Be Clear We want to underscore how much we admire your longstanding commitment to the Cosmos ecosystem. Your technical contributions and intellectual clarity have consistently stood out, and nothing in this message should be interpreted as a dismissal of your value. Rather, we…
Excerpt (1193 of 1475 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Govmos: Put simply, we believe your work is essential—but requesting community funding to support it does not seem like the appropriate path forward. Appreciate the acknowledgement, but community funding is how a lot of Cosmos projects and tools get brought to market. That’s always been a reasonable request. Govmos: We recall having discussed this very topic with you privately, which is why we were quite surprised to see a formal proposal submitted to the forum requesting 29,000 ATOM . Our position on this matter remains unchanged from what we shared with you at the time: your work primarily serves private or hybrid chain implementations of the Cosmos SDK. Our discussion was primarily about different design implementations, including how to privately assosiate the required informaiton to satisfy the basic descriptions of an ISO-definition, ie. not have presonal identifiable information stored on-chain. On the github issue I suggested that Line Financial Blockchain might want to look into building a moduel for their CBDC product that the Cosmos chains could use. The imlementaiton is Module vs Direct Inclusion in the logic as an event. A module can be…
Excerpt (1196 of 3557 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
jasonsprouse: but community funding is how a lot of Cosmos projects and tools get brought to market. That’s always been a reasonable request. Let us rephrase our position with the clarity it deserves. We believe that the funding for this initiative would be more appropriately handled by the Foundation and/or direct clients of the work involved. Given the Cosmos Hub’s evolving role as a service-provider chain , as outlined in its updated roadmap, it is important that community funding in ATOM remains closely tied to the delivery of concrete interchain services . These services include, but are not limited to: • Liquidity deployment and coordination • Shared Security mechanisms (e.g. ICS and PSS) • Interchain Virtual Machine (VM) offerings • Oracle infrastructure and related data services From our perspective, ATOM’s community pool should prioritize funding that enhances and supports these core services, especially when they drive utility and adoption directly aligned with the Hub’s mandate . That said, we respect the importance of your work and invite continued dialogue on how it can be integrated within the broader interchain ecosystem—potentially under…
Excerpt (1197 of 1400 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Summary:
- ISO - No price tag - can be spearheaded by community
- RWP - $1,000,000 just for master license contingent on their interest in my counter proposal.
- Manufacture - est. $5,000,000 for comparable manufacturing facility.
#1 was based on my erroneous perspective the community would be ecstatic about this work item and contributions towards it thus far. It was contingent that #2, #3 would be funded so I could work on positive cash flow initiatives that used Cosmos hub tech.
This is just to state what my expectations on this were. Working to produce a solution for any length of time on #1 for no compensation was never in my expectation matrix.
How about you pitch this to a VC or some other investor and get him to purchase 29,000 ATOMs instead.
I appreciate the comment.I 'm just not sure how many people that are commenting understand what ISO-20022 is and why it’s important. Institutional portfolio investments are in the process of being explored by several countries. This equates to billions of dollars of potential investment in this technology, in a five to twenty year range, maybe trillions. Here is some research on governments enacting or exploring legislation to allow greater exposure to cryptocurrency markets • Department of Labor (DOL) Guidance: In March 2022, the DOL issued guidance urging retirement plan fiduciaries (those managing the plans) to exercise “extreme care” before adding cryptocurrency options. The guidance highlighted significant risks like volatility, valuation challenges, and potential for fraud, suggesting that offering crypto could violate a fiduciary’s duty to act prudently and in the best interest of plan participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). • Proposed Legislation: There have been legislative efforts to counter the DOL’s cautious stance. For instance, Senator Tommy Tuberville reintroduced the “Financial Freedom Act” in April 2025. This bill aims to…
Excerpt (1196 of 7876 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Working in an environment that does use ISO certification, I understand its importance. But I’m not sure that the responsibility for funding it should fall to Atom’s community pool. I think it’s more an area for the foundation that could be interested in including this model for the entire stack.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but won’t this certification generate no direct revenue to the CP?
The CP should only be used for the ATOM community itself and should bring something back in return. Otherwise, we’re going to zero.
It’s something that will directly benefit the Atom brand. It could increase the interest for institutional investment…there is no direct revenue, per say. There would be “first mover” marketing rights…leadership like this has value, and that value can often be measured. Tagu: The CP should only be used for the ATOM community itself and should bring something back in return. Otherwise, we’re going to zero. I don’t agree with what you’re asserting, here. This is a public good. The community should leave the door open to funding administrative work, legal work, valuable research, etc…this is infrastructure that is required for the most basic ISO-20022 minimal compliance. For example: using community funding, there could be more work to do to create better ISO-20022 definitions that better match the functionality of blockchain technologies, funding a legal representative to help inform the direction of policy - these are all reasonable non-revenue generating activities - that may get exposure and represent active participation in activities that leads to larger investments. Crypto.com didn’t spend 700 million dollars over 20 years for stadium naming rights for…
Excerpt (1197 of 1206 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
While this is an interesting concept I think this will need a lot more of planning and proper execution hence why I think it would be a no from me at this time. So the first big reason is I think something like this would need to be executed across multiple chains and this would need to be a collective effort. Here is the main reason. Your “script” as you called it I think it wouldn’t work on all chains. Not every cosmos SDK chain uses Wasm or Solidity for adding functionality to the chains. In cosmos SDK you can develop your own modules that could differ from other chains and in theory you wouldn’t need smart contract on every chain. And I haven’t mentioned even the IBC in all of these. I haven’t found any data related to the ISO 20022 but how much of the data would need to confirm if someone really did send assets to the bank for an example. Would bank need data from the IBC headers that are usually protobuf encoded for example? And if so is this in compliance with the ISO? And if the user executed some kind of smart contract how would that work with the bank? Also there are at least over 40 types of messages in Cosmos that are regular but I think they span over 60, and…
Excerpt (1199 of 3280 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Kamikaza731: While this is an interesting concept I think this will need a lot more of planning and proper execution hence why I think it would be a no from me at this time. It’s actually well planned out. There is a Zero-Knowledge Proof that is sent to verifier server - from the KYC-AML regulatory authority. Once that hits the Interchain Name Service (ICNS) there is an attestation that validates they are KYC/AML verified. That is replicated to ever ICNS chain. It’s done this way because the verifier logic CAN NOT be stored on-chain. ZK-Stark.drawio 1399×1078 124 KB Kamikaza731: So the first big reason is I think something like this would need to be executed across multiple chains and this would need to be a collective effort. Here is the main reason. Your “script” as you called it I think it wouldn’t work on all chains. Not every cosmos SDK chain uses Wasm or Solidity for adding functionality to the chains. In cosmos SDK you can develop your own modules that could differ from other chains and in theory you wouldn’t need smart contract on every chain. This is for a separate piece of the tooling. The “script” is just a code sample to represent…
Excerpt (1198 of 7133 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Yes, as you can see, anyone can ask the ATOM community for money. It’s time to destroy all the ATOM in the community fund pool.
It’s the merrit of the proposals that should be assessed. I’m actually not too against buring tokens, but there should be clear resasons for doing so on that position that is intelligently articulated.
I also should add - that I’ve also suggested these businesses should be registered business where funding is assessed based on the merrit of the proposal. I’m a registered 501(c)3 that is current with all my filing. I’m also a registered government contractor - CAGE #8S7A3.
jasonsprouse:I’m not sure what y’all’s revenue is like - you spend $30,000/yr to make how much??? I haven’t got paid a penny from my contributions from any crypto team/project/community — the entire time, y
We have been operating at - (MINUS) 100% to - (MINUS) 200% for the past several years. The only funding we have is securing networks, which dont cover half of what we spend.
I honestly dont feel like our work is a joke. So… Unsure what to say mate.
jasonsprouse:Since ISO-20022 was an emerging standard that Swift, FED-Wire and other financial institutions were implementing, other Fin-Tech (Financial Technologies) products, like blockchains, would need to comply to stay relevant.
Hey a little confused by this comment, ISO 20022 has been around and adopted by TradFi for a long time. Also, I see no compelling reason at all for a blockchain to become compliant with this, as it is a messaging standard unnecessary for a decentralized database. I also work in compliance as my main job, ISO isn’t even what the US gov would contract with. Anyways, I also got my coding project shot down and sold it to Solana instead. I would probably vote yes on this just to support actual contributions to the Hub, but you seem like a smart and capable guy and I think some work on something functionally relevant would be more useful.
reasonant: Hey a little confused by this comment, ISO 20022 has been around and adopted by TradFi for a long time. Some systems adopted it and some are in the process. When repurposing methods and processes for systems that function differently it creates new fields of oppertunity for Intelletcual Property. reasonant: lso, I see no compelling reason at all for a blockchain to become compliant with this, as it is a messaging standard unnecessary for a decentralized database. Everything explained in this post is the compelling reason for blockchain systems to become compliant. It’s better to be proactive and work towards the ISO-20022 standard that will provide assurance to retirement funds managers, investment fund mangers and others — so that if these systems become more palpable to those kinds of fund managers — we’re operating at the professional standards of tri-fi systems. Retroactive funding request Community Spend I appreciate the comment.I 'm just not sure how many people that are commenting understand what ISO-20022 is and why it’s important. Institutional portfolio investments are in the process of being explored by several…
Excerpt (1198 of 3001 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
serejandmyself:We have been operating at - (MINUS) 100% to - (MINUS) 200% for the past several years. The only funding we have is securing networks, which dont cover half of what we spend.
I’ve seen the posts from validators that are operating in the profit, and those that aren’t. I don’t know what the divide is there and what those balances are like. I’m clearly in the dark pertaining y’alls operating costs and profit. Thanks for this bit of info. I think there’s oppertunity here — and it’s not a joke.
jasonsprouse: For you to work in compliance, you’d have to explain in what regard this standard wouldn’t have relevance to the US banking system - becuase that statement is catagoically false. I don’t do anything in TradFi banking, so if it’s required, you’re probably correct. jasonsprouse: What do you mean by “ISO isn’t even what the US gov would contract with?” The OMB issues circulars which function as standards that federal agencies must follow. The 2016 revision of A-130 states that federal agencies shall: • “Consult National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) and NIST Special Publications (SPs) (e.g., 500, 800 , and 1800 series guidelines)” (p. 6). • “Implement security policies issued by OMB, as well as requirements issued by the Department of Commerce, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). This includes applying the standards and guidelines contained in the NIST FIPS, NIST SPs (e.g., 800 series guidelines) , and where appropriate and directed by OMB, NIST Interagency or Internal Reports…
Excerpt (1195 of 3030 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I don’t do anything in TradFi banking, so if it’s required, you’re probably correct. ISO-20022 is just a standardization for the communication between two banking entities. It doesn’t have to be tri-fi related. So, sorry for the book length response Thank you for your lengthy response, but I’m unclear how NIST supersedes ISO-20022 as they have two distinct purposes…I haven’t done a deep dive into NIST - but if I recall correctly this is more for authentification and authorization to acesss different parts of a system — as opposed to the data shared between instituations about a financial transaction and assosiated parties. ISO-20022 is needed for financial insituations to stay relevant - SWIFT, FedWire, EBU and probably the entire financial industry - ie. BRICKs is adopting the ISO-20022 messaging standard. I’ve got some things that I’m working on…this ISO product is one of them, I have winterfell spec’d as the ZKP solution - I’ve completed a projet using ZKPs, but I have another project I’m working towards too. Both have a large portion of the code/project already completed… I think the more labor intensive part is enguaging those in the community so that more…
Excerpt (1197 of 3481 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
jasonsprouse:Thank you for your lengthy response, but I’m unclear how NIST supersedes ISO-20022 as they have two distinct purposes…I haven’t done a deep dive into NIST - but if I recall correctly this is more for authentification and authorization to acesss different parts of a system — as opposed to the data shared between instituations about a financial transaction and assosiated parties.
800-53 is way more than A&A, and I’ve never seen a single ISO control that wasn’t covered by it. I know of no organization in the US that uses ISO if they use the RMF. If you can point me to any control that is not covered by 800-53, I’d be happy to change this stance.
I’ve heard of NIST, but I’m not intimate with what the language or specification is about. When you’re styling ISO as a control — this seems a bit foreign to the ISO format. The ISO-20022 definitions are used to describe the details of a financail transaction and the different parties. I just now took a look at the catalogue for NIST 800-53 and I can confim that based on the language in the document this is for A&A, but it covers alot of the processes of database operations too. Typical database management. https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Publications/sp/800-53/rev-5/final/documents/sp800-53r5-control-catalog.xlsx ISO-20022 is very fine grained defininitons for finacial transactions - specifically. ISO 20022 Message Definitions | ISO20022 For example: logging in to your bank the NIST 800-53 descibes the methods and processes for the system to funciton. They are common explantions for database operations. After you perform a transaction at your bank - ISO-20022 - is the messaging standardization that the financial industry is adopting so that all the necessary fields describing the details of that transaction are consistant in the industry. About ISO 20022 | Swift <—…
Excerpt (1199 of 1744 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Haha it’s literally not all for A&A, extremely confused how you could come to that conclusion reading the controls. Control families:
Access Control; Awareness and Training; Audit and Accountability; Assessment, Authorization and Monitoring; Configuration Management; Contingency Planning; Identification and Authentication; Incident Response; Maintenance; Media Protection; Physical and Environmental Protection; Planning; Program Management; Personnel Security; PII Processing and Transparency; Risk Assessment; System and Services Acquisition; System and Communications Protection; System and Information Integrity; Supply Chain Risk Management
How are the media protection, supply chain risk management, risk assessment, etc. controls A&A??
Beyond 800-53 being WAY MORE than A&A, what is 1 company in the US that uses ISO 20022 AND 800-53. Again, happy to analyze that information, I know of none.
The more I look into this too, the more irrelevant this seems for a blockchain. I don’t see why a blockchain would follow any specific standard like this. Lots of these seem like a waste of time (acmt.034.001.05). Anyways, best of luck if you went for this, I’d rather see effort put into actual apps and use cases, I don’t think this does anything for Cosmos.
You’re right it’s not - like I said, typical database management lingo. reasonant: Beyond 800-53 being WAY MORE than A&A, what is 1 company in the US that uses ISO 20022 AND 800-53. Again, happy to analyze that information, I know of none. Use common sense it’s self-explanatory. reasonant: The more I look into this too, the more irrelevant this seems for a blockchain This is why I say Tri-Fi operates at a higher level of professionalism. Higher standards for interoperability and coordination between siloed systems. I’m sure there will be decentralized ledgers that are not ISO-20022 compliant…please invest all your money in them and ride it out, you could be right. I just saw an article in my TLDR Crypto newsletter that contridicts your opinion, but noone is tring to change your mind. The decentralized ledger AKA blockchain space is competative — if stable coins used in Cosoms are not compliant — it will defintly cripple any competative advantage Cosmos has. Walmart, Amazon consider issuing own stablecoins (5 minute read) Walmart and Amazon are reportedly exploring issuing their own dollar-backed stablecoins to cut transaction costs and…
Excerpt (1198 of 1695 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
jasonsprouse:I just saw an article in my TLDR Crypto newsletter that contridicts your opinion, but noone is tring to change your mind. The decentralized ledger AKA blockchain space is competative — if stable coins used in Cosoms are not compliant — it will defintly cripple any competative advantage Cosmos has.
Walmart, Amazon consider issuing own stablecoins (5 minute read)
- Where does it say these will be ISO compliant?
- Ripple, which is actually used by banks, was used without this. The ripple exec explicitly said so: https://x.com/JoelKatz/status/1644643775527161856?t=6WNaUEf_K2bPOTcBrscnSQ&s=19
You can have your opinion, but it’s a no from me.
Still not understanding what this is retroactive for. Sounds like you haven’t coded anything. You want over 100,000 dollars for no code?? Insanity.
reasonant: Still not understanding what this is retroactive for. Sounds like you haven’t coded anything. You want over 100,000 dollars for no code?? Insanity. Code and design docs are above. All pretty much done. $100,000 for years and years of Trillions of Dollars of processing and providing a solution to elevate the standard of quality for the Cosmos. I feel the love. Thanks for your vote. reasonant: • Where does it say these will be ISO compliant? • Ripple, which is actually used by banks, was used without this. The ripple exec explicitly said so: https://x.com/JoelKatz/status/1644643775527161856?t=6WNaUEf_K2bPOTcBrscnSQ&s=19 You can have your opinion, but it’s a no from me. • It says these will be ISO compliant based on the AML compliance clause stated above – that is what the code and design docs are for, specificly for Cosmos. You have to infer what the text says, next time I charge for providing you even with the most minute information that gives you an edge in evaluatiing your options. It’s business. jasonsprouse: These brand-specific tokens would capitalize on growing regulatory clarity under the GENIUS Act, which aims…
Excerpt (1198 of 2015 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
The other part to this is — there is another party that collects all the KYC/AML information and performs the compliance side of things. That business operates in Tri-Fi industry. My proposal extends their database format to include crypto addresses that business and individuals will use to transact in the blockchain ecosystem.
This can only progress once all parties are ready to proceed. @ankurb I’m at my own personal limits to deliver, and all the code and design docs are for the relevant parties to evaluate for feasibility. If I could do me and everybody else — this would already be done and in production.