Governments will impose regulation regardless of a specific protocol's ability to do X or Y. Adding CS as an option for SPOs adds flexibility and that's it. This is not a discussion on KYC, but a discussion on adding options for SPOs. More options equates to a protocol that can adapt to changing landscapes. Neutrality should be the goal. Having options like CS provides a neutral position at the protocol level for an SPO to adhere to rules in their jurisdiction or not.

Question

Answer

Con: How is it neutral if it doesn’t protect the interests of the individuals? KYC data are not functionalities individuals desire. At the same time it gives power to groups over individuals. The purpose of crypto was to disrupt the current financial system. How is this “disrupting”? Following your reasoning about Government having always their way, we wouldn’t have had an American Revolution.

Answer

Con: This puts the “delegator” or “individual” in a disadvantaged position against the pool operator or owner since the interest of both parties are different, like the relationship between realtor and buyer. The higher the house sales for, the more profit for the realtor and the more expenses for the buyer. The highest incentive for the pool operator to do CS, the less capacity to accommodate or incentivize individuals’ staking.

Answer

Con: That's all great. Until those who choose NOT to delegate with CS pools suddenly have their wallets blacklisted by those very governments for "non-compliance". Hindering or preventing their ability to navigate on and off ramps. Look to Tornado Cash. Any wallet that was associated with it was effectively blocked.

Answer

Pro: Regulation is always a “local” and therefore diversified implementation. The L1, if it intends to succeed in strict markets (for example China), should offer solutions to define the terms of business to enable business models and not prevent them by ignorance.

Answer

Pro: Regulations promote the adoption of and trust in a system.

Answer

Con: Contingent Staking will expand the government's reach excessively.

Cardano Contingent Staking

Pros

Cons

Regulations promote the adoption of and trust in a system.

Regulation is always a “local” and therefore diversified implementation. The L1, if it intends to succeed in strict markets (for example China), should offer solutions to define the terms of business to enable business models and not prevent them by ignorance.

Contingent Staking will expand the government's reach excessively.

Selected claim, supporting its parent

Pro claim 1

Regulations promote the adoption of and trust in a system.

Pro claim 2

Regulation is always a “local” and therefore diversified implementation. The L1, if it intends to succeed in strict markets (for example China), should offer solutions to define the terms of business to enable business models and not prevent them by ignorance.

Con claim 1, children below

Contingent Staking will expand the government's reach excessively.

Con claim 2

Con claim 3

Con claim 4