[Poll] Age verification for Asset Issuers



  • We are asking @haitch to add an simple under-age mark to his verification process for "Burst Asset Issuers" as per description https://forums.burst-team.us/topic/2362/identity-verification. Because of the different perception of "Age of majority" in all countries around the world, we are asking you to take a vote on what the limit for that "under age" or "minor" mark should be?

    This will not take away your responsibility as an Investor to do your research on new Assets nor will it make haitch responsible for anything!!
    The whole Verification process is meant to give a second person, in this case haitch, the true identity of an asset Issuer and therefor to build trust! Now we want to add the true age of an Asset Issuer for everybody to see as an second step!

    This also will not prevent you as an minor to create an Asset! In fact me personally would encourage you to get involved and come up with an well thought out "business" Plan! But people investing need to know how much money or Burst you'll possibly be able to handle! This is a little protection for both parties.

    This poll has not started yet and the form and ages are still up for discussion! your Input is needed!-)
    If its all together wrong it will get replaced!



  • ALSO!!!

    IMO it should be a requirement of the forum that all new assets must post a pre launch before posting a official asset thread.





  • I like this voting thing its our community making a unified decision



  • From a psychological standpoint the option's don't make sense though.

    The first 3 options fall under the category : age verification is needed, the details are as follows: ....
    and the 4th option falls under the category: Age verification is not needed

    If the 4th option gets 28% of the votes, and all the other options get 24%, then the decision is that verification is not needed. even though the majority would be against that. 72% is saying they do want verification, but haven't reached consensus of what what the right age is.

    the third option is also kind of weird, but it makes more sense to post it as follows if you want to remain those categories
    It's best to split those up in 2 polls, as you are practically asking 2 questions

    1. Is age verification needed to filter out minors?
      A - No
      B - Yes

    2. If voted yes, what would be counted as a minor
      A - 20 or younger
      B - 17 or younger
      C - 17 or younger without parental consent (so with 17 with parental consent would be considered 'fine')

    Not sure if question 2, option C is the way you meant to ask it, but that's how I interpreted it.

    Just my 2 cents



  • @keyd0s I agree with you but you can only post a poll per thread last time i checked, i think that was the reason he made it like this.

    But for consensus purposes i think we all agree that your first poll is got by sum the three first answers...

    Although i agree the way you proposed it's better looking and more clear for sure xP



  • @gpedro Ah I see. I didn't know you were only allowed 1 poll per thread. that makes it a little tricky indeed. I think the solution you suggested works best then. and shows an overwhelming vote in favor of age verification.



  • @keyd0s Yeah i tried once and only was able to do one poll per thread, i agree that it should allow more than one but i guess the plugin only allow that ;D


  • admin

    @nixxda I propose two polls - the first - "Is age verification required?".

    Anyone can create an asset, if you can pay the 1,000 Burst fee for creating an asset, you can create an asset regardless of your age. This means that the verification is required to post about it here, which means mandatory verification to post about it here - and when I proposed that there was significant backlash. Under those rules, Zeus's Casino asset could not be advertised here, Focus's assets, Crowetics assets, LithStyud's assets could not be posted here.

    If the majority vote for Age Verification being mandatory, then the next poll is "What age is labelled as a minor?". Depending on the country the asset issuer is in there are many different restrictions on the age they can launch a business/asset. In New Zealand for example, there is no age restrictions at all on a sole trader. Do we need a per country threshold, or a Blanket forums.burst-team.us threshold ?

    Remember that as a decentralized currency, I/We can't enforce any restriction on the coin, the restrictions you're voting on pertain only to what happens within these forums.



  • @haitch said in [Poll] Age verification for Asset Issuers:

    Under those rules, Zeus's Casino asset could not be advertised here, Focus's assets, Crowetics assets, LithStyud's assets could not be posted here.

    There will always be people that do not like any verification system, be it here or over on BN, and let's face it Focus & Crowetic are not going to be listing here, even if it was the last Forum on the Net. :-)

    Rich


  • admin

    @haitch
    "We are asking @haitch to add an simple under-age mark to his verification process for "Burst Asset Issuers" as per description https://forums.burst-team.us/topic/2362/identity-verification. "

    Only for your ID verification, not in general.



  • i would vote yes to age verification, i would also vote yes to a blanket style threshold and would recommend that threshold follow the local laws of where the forum is hosted / where @haitch the forum owner lives. as that is the only common factor for all assets advertising here.



  • Is it possible to do something like that : age verification is not mandatory, you can still post asset without being verified. However, if the guy that is verified is under 18 (or 21) he is not allowed to post his asset here. This would be some kind of a in-between solution.



  • I am in favour of Age verification and that it should be a simple 18, regardless of where in the World they are. Let's remember the T&C for Poloniex are 18, and for a lot of Assets not being able to use Poly would be a problem.

    Rich



  • Does anyone know what laws govern all this? I mean isnt jurisdiction where the server is? What is legal and what is not?



  • Sorry for being away so "long"! Had to deal with my own youngster first!-) Birthday/party's and stuff.

    @keyd0s @haitch I realized that my poll is somewhat flawed! Still, I'd like to take what we've got from it which is "age 18"!

    Out of respect for haitch hosting this forum and verifying it's users/asset issuers and for getting definitive answers once and for all I propose a 3Step voting process! and I'll do the scary "at Everyone" thing!-)

    First:

      1. everybody should be allowed to advertise his or her Asset in this Forum
      1. only verified forum members should be allowed to advertise his or her Asset in this forum

    Second: (the outcome of the first vote has no real impact on this one! Since 1. would not exclude optional verifing)

      1. allow all Asset Issuer for verification process
      1. Asset issuers under the age of 18 are not allowed for verification process

    Third: (only if "Second: 1." gets the majority!)

      1. mark verification "tokens" for under 18 years old Asset Issuers
      1. dont mark verification "tokens" for under 18 years old Asset Issuers

    I think we'll have to run them all for a week to give everybody a real chance to vote! (including a weekend)
    And I think we're not in a hurry! Are we?! First and second could even be run together!

    Please let me know if you can find other flaws in my thinking!-) Otherwise I'll start the first one today, Monday night!

    @tross I think we're pretty much on "open grounds" here! However, if I remember my "tracerouts" correctly and according to this we should be good!



  • @nixxda I would be happy with the above process, so long as while the process is being debated / voted on that no new Asset Threads are allowed for anyone who is not Verified or who is < 18.

    Rich



  • @RichBC I count on haitch's good judgment there! If this situation even comes up!
    Also, the only way to do this is, if it is made a retroactive decision!



  • @nixxda In practice it's entirely up to haitch. I am just suggesting that while we are debating we don't run the risk of allowing an Asset to be listed that we then immediately wish we had not.

    Quite separately once we have decided, will need to choose what to do about any existing Thread / Asset that does not meet the new guidelines.

    And.... I don't mean exposing them, trashing the share price and grassing them up to Poloniex.

    Rich



  • I think they are forgetting a very important thing, in the forum is not made any economic transaction this is not an exchange, it is only about whether or not to allow its publication that I do not think is the same regulation that applies to poloniex.

    On the other hand anyone can set up a web page and develop their asset there and it depends on the investor if you want to risk or not.



  • @Energy yes, exactly that!-) the only thing we can vote is if we want to allow "Advertisement" from unverified Asset issuers here on this forum and if we want the age of an verified Issuer to be shown publicly on this forum!
    This does not mean that we take any legal responsibility! More of an moral one for this forum I'd say!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Burst - Efficient HDD Mining was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.