►
From YouTube: Select Committee on Blockchain, Financial Technology & Digital Innovation Tech., Sept. 22, 2021-AM
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right
welcome
to
the
second
day
of
the
select
committee
on
blockchain
financial
technology,
digital
innovation,
technology.
We
had
a
good
long
day
and
a
lot
of
discussions
yesterday
on
some
incredible
topic.
A
Specifically,
I
think
the
end
of
the
day
with
the
cryptocurrency
mining
is
amazing
and
we've
got
another
robust
agenda
today,
looking
at
some
updates
on
insurance,
dowse,
chance
record
digital
identity
and
nfts,
and
then
we'll
all
be
able
to
get
out
and
start
enjoying
more
of
the
hackathon
and
stampede
activities
before
we
get
started,
let's
start
with
roll,
if
we
can
for
today.
C
A
All
right
before
we
get
started,
are
there
any
updates,
any
updates
on
the
hackathon
stampede,
anything
that
we
need
to
go.
F
A
Of
exciting
things
happening
all
week,
excellent
and
I'm
I'm
gonna
remind
everyone,
so
university
of
wyoming
is
currently
requiring
masks
indoors
and
when
social
distance
is
not
possible.
So
if
you
have
one,
please
wear
it.
I'll
have
some
students
actually
theoretically
this
afternoon
coming
in,
and
I
prefer
at
that
point
in
particular,
if
there's
one
they're
supposed
to
master
classrooms
affect
them.
So
if
we
get
that
done,
that
would
be
cool
committee.
Any
thing
before
we
get
started
on
our
first
topic
today,
getting
department
insurance
updates,
seeing
no
announcements.
A
Let's
beat
that
come
on
up.
Let's
get
the
mr
producer,
deputy
commissioner
and
mr
brooks
give
us
a
little
bit
of
an
update
on
where
we
are
we
for
those
that
weren't
following
previously.
This
is,
I
think,
our
third
update
on
on
discussion
about
insurance
and
reinsurance
that
we've
had
we've
got
some
ongoing
work
to
identify
solutions
for
insurance
sandbox
as
well
as
kind
of
look
at
our
regulatory
and
statutory
structure
related
to
insurance
and
reinsurance
and
find
ways
that
we
can
start
blocking
solutions
to
the
insurance
from
the
insurance
market.
A
So
with
that,
welcome,
please
introduce
yourselves
to
the
committee
and
the
floor
is
yours.
G
G
I
think
the
last
meeting
we've
continued
to
work
and
we
made
progress
with
mr
brooks
I'm
optimistic
about
the
future
of
the
project.
We've
worked
on
some
changes
that
we
think
we've
needed
to
tweak
our
investment
statutes.
We've
actually
sat
down
with
before
and
all
of
our
domestic
carriers
reviewed
those
same
changes
behind.
They
are
all
on
board
and
I'll.
Certainly
let
mr
brooks
go
through
where
we
are
specifically
with
project
ganette.
G
I
did
have
one
question
out
of
the
shoot,
though.
If
the
committee
would
indulge
me
we've
tried
to
connect,
you
know
going
forward,
they're
likely
those
changes
to
the
investment
status,
so
the
question
we
had
is:
will
they
be
brought
to
this
committee
or
will
they
be
brought
to
corporations?
G
Because
it's
in
to
be
honest,
I
don't
think
it's
an
innovation
per
se.
I
think
the
insurance
sandbox
is
unquestionably
one
that
should
come
here.
This,
though
I
just
didn't,
want
to
be
the
children
and
the
divorce
and
to
see
who
we're
going
to
do
so.
I
will
leave
that
with
you
to
ruminate.
Let
us
know.
A
At
some
point
in
the
near
future,
please
and
commissioner
we'll
discuss
that
internally
we
have
members
of
the
corporations
committee
as
our
intermediary
that
they
can
help
to
to
bring
that
family
back
together.
I
do
think
it
all
like
we
could.
If
it's
relatively
simple,
it
would
be
handy
to
bring
it
to
the
next
select
committee
meeting.
Have
us
review
it,
discuss
it
and
then
what
we
would
do,
I
I
think
is
we
could
sponsor
it,
but
we'd
want
to
bring
it
over
to
the
corporations
committee
for
their
consideration,
probably
at
their
final
meeting.
A
E
I
Thank
you,
since
our
may
27
meeting
and
myself
have
been
working
on
looking
at
the
existing
title.
26
investment
guidelines
and
thinking
about.
I
If
and
how
those
get
those
investment
guidelines
need
to
be
modified
to
best
facilitate
long-duration
reinsurance
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
and
what
that
means
is
title.
26
has
a
section
called
section,
7
investments,
and
that
was
probably
last
updated,
20
years,
and
so
a
lot
of
the
types
of
investments
that
insurance
companies
are
using
today
aren't
necessarily
contemplating,
and
so
what
we're
doing
is
we're
working
with
the
peer
group
of
the
other
domestics
and
making
sure
we
collect
every
all.
I
All
domestics
means
into
one
proposal
for
you
that
would
allow
for
a
reinsurance
company
or
insurance
company
to
thomas
allen
and
properly
match
its
assets
and
liabilities
to
achieve
solvency
and
maintain
appropriate
credit
for
the
benefit
of
the
policy.
I
Just
about
exactly
a
year
ago,
I
met
with
dr
edward
seidel,
who
was
collecting
ideas
for
the
wyoming
innovation
network,
and
my
idea
was
very
simple.
I
had
just
come
out
of
the
bermuda
insurance
industry
and
felt
that
possibly
just
possibly
wyoming
might
be
a
good
economic
jurisdiction
for
reinsurance,
and
so
we've
spent,
we
being
the
insurance
commission
and
myself
have
spent.
I
You
know,
probably
started
working
together
in
january
running
a
variety
of
iterations
in
an
economic
model,
trying
to
understand
how
reinsurance
would
fit
into
the
existing
insurance
code
and
what
possible
modifications
to
the
insurance
code
might
be
required
to
optimize
or
enable
the
optimization
of
of
running
reinsurance.
Now,
there's
lots
and
lots
of
different
flavors
of
free
insurance,
we're
not
trying
to
take
out
bermuda
we're
trying
to
pick
one
flavor
of
reinsurance
and
see
if
it
works
here
in
wyoming
and
the
flavor
of
reinsurance.
We're
starting
with
is
something
called
long-duration
insurance.
I
A
Absolutely
thank
you,
and
one
of
the
discussions
we
had
was
really
the
the
anachronistic
tendencies
of
some
of
our
statutes
for
not
recognizing
the
differences
between
the
reinsurance
sector
needs
and
the
consumer
insurance
sector
needs
and
really
trying
to
look
back
at
the
statutes
to
create
a
structure
where
reinsurance
is
treated
and
managed
and
regulated
to
optimize
for
those
needs
that
are
fair
assessment.
That's.
I
The
regulation
is
under
the
naic
appropriately
protects
the
policy
holder.
You
me
right.
The
consumer
in
the
case
of
reinsurance,
we're
more
worried
about
salt
is
the
reinsurer
able
to
maintain
solvency
over
the
life
of
the
policy
to
protect.
In
this
case,
the
new
policyholder
becomes
the
original
insurer.
A
Let
me
before
we
go
on
any
any
questions
feel
free
to
jump
in.
If
you
have
any
questions,
I
think
every
one
of
your
couples
remembers.
This
review.
I
I
Others
throughout
the
country
to
find
model
law
that
that
maybe
there's
precedent
out
there,
maybe
there's
best
practices
we're
working
with
various
investment
managers
who
are
focused
on
the
insurance
space
to
think
about
best
practices
and
I'm
highly
confident
that
we'll
be
able
to
talk
about
that
november
in
the
cheyenne.
Here
I
think
right
now.
We
just
feel
like
we're
very
much
in
that
iterative
process
of
of
figuring
out
what
the
solution
is.
G
Mr
chairman,
representative,
stiff
I've
talked
with
a
couple
of
neighboring
states
montana.
We
could
look
at
that.
It
is
a
large
undertaking
as
a
department.
It
would
be
a
significant
increase
necessary
to
do
it,
but
it's
something
we
could
look
into.
I
did
when,
when
I
first
got
the
figures
for
what
it
brought
into
the
state
of
montana,
I
wasn't
overwhelmed,
I
wouldn't
say
gee.
This
is
a
really
a
money.
Hitter
we
gotta
go
after,
but
you
know
happy
to
look
into
it.
E
Mr
chairman,
what
I
see
for
say,
construction
companies,
for
example,
that
have
government
contracts,
they're
required
to
get
a
performance
bond
surety
bond
for
the
for
the
project,
and
typically
the
cost
of
the
product
without
bond.
Is
that
two
percent,
maybe
a
bit
less
and
so
over
the
course
of
years
a
contractor
ends
up.
You
have
25
projects
at
the
time
you
paid
two
percent.
E
You
now
pay
50
of
an
entire
project
and
what
you
get
for
that
is,
as
the
contractor
frankly
isn't
is
great
right,
because
the
bond
company,
unless
you
disappear
or
go
bankrupt,
the
bank
company
doesn't
do
anything
essential
right.
Even
if
it's
a
troubled
project,
if
the
owner
calls
up
the
bond
company
makes
a
claim
on
the
bond,
the
bond
company's
response
is
to
send
a
letter
to
the
contractor.
A
That
is
this
internal,
where
you
can
create
an
account
with
the
treasury
and
then
have
that
be
your
your
bond
effectively
your
your
surety
and
we're
working
on
trying
to
make
sure
that
that
would
survive
bankruptcy
at
the
isolated
states.
There's
a
lot
of
nuances
to
it,
but
it
gets
the
same
concept
of
instead
of
paying
someone
else
to
provide
your
surety
for
you.
If
you
have
sufficient
capital,
you
can
build
that
capital
up
over
time,
provide
your
own
surety
and
and
provide
protections
for
that.
A
So
we
we're
working
on
a
mechanism
if
you
haven't
called
it
and
I
think
there's
some
synergies
there
where
there
might
be
other
applications
for
someone
representative.
I
think,
mr
chairman.
K
Wasn't
actually
how
I
was
thinking
about
it
as
well.
That's
why
they
took
attacks
on
point.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
potential
there,
especially.
I
Attract
market
participants,
mr
brooks
go
ahead.
Thank
you,
mr
representative,
western.
I
think
the
framework
that
we're
thinking
about
when
we
think
about
wyoming
is
one
has
a
few
economic
benefits
that
include
the
fact
that
we
don't
have
a
corporate
tax
policy,
but
we
do,
but
it
doesn't
tax
which
isn't
analogous.
I
I
There
are
states
out
there
that
have
done
a
great
job
in
these
life
and
annuity
products,
and
we
can
look
at
those
states
and
somewhat
easily
come
to
you
and
propose
that
we
that
we
borrow
best
practices,
common
model
law
and
also
maybe
take
a
step
forward
and
and
find
new
ways
for
better
ways
to
host
these
insurance
companies
that
some
of
these
other
states
just
can't
do
because
there's
so
there's
so
much
legacy
regulation
on
the
books.
K
I
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
mr
brooks
following
on
representative
western's
question.
If
the
legislation
were
enacted
as
you
envision
it,
what
would
bermuda
have
that
we
wouldn't.
I
Risk-Based
capital
framework,
now,
that's
not
to
say
one's
good
or
bad,
because
I
think
what
we're
going
to
find
out
when
we
get
into
say
november
and
december
is
there's
certain
duration
of
liabilities
and
assets
that
are
going
to
perform
exceptionally
well
under
the
naic
respace
capital.
What
we
have
to
do
is
between
now
and
then
do
that
analysis.
Compare
and
contrast
and
focus
on
where
we're
going
to
outperform.
I
Thank
you.
I
think
that
existing
application
is
limited,
but
we
have
a
couple
trends
that
are
taking
place
most
promoter
reinsurers
today
are
now
opting
to
be
onshore
taxpayers,
so
the
historical
benefit
of
not
paying
or
not
being
subjected
to
u.s
federal
taxes,
while
they're
making
profits
offshore,
has
diminished
right,
they're
voluntarily
electing
to
be
a
onshore
taxpayer.
I
L
Oh
go
ahead,
mr!
Is
there
the
potential
for
a
more
robust
de
novo
reinsurance
sort
of
creation
if
this
framework
is
in
place,
onshore.
I
Deputy
trust,
commissioner,
johnson
and
I
are
having
envisions
pretty
high
capitalization
standards,
so
when
we
think
about
startups
we're
thinking
about
a
startup
that
is
really
well
capitalized
with
long-term
capital,
so
it
would
be
in
that
context
that
it
wouldn't
be.
I
A
What
what
are
the
narrative
advantages
to
the
two
forms?
I'll
just
stop
there
and
then
follow
up
with
that.
I
Mr
chairman,
I
think,
historically,
the
advantages
of
being
in
bermuda
were
that
there
was
a
wider
array
of
investments
allowed
and
the
capital
charges,
because
we
were
focused
just
on
reinsurance,
we
weren't
focused
on
primary
insurance.
The
capital
charges
for
both
the
investments
and
holding
the
regulatory
capital
on
the
balance
sheet
were
more
efficient.
What
does
that
mean?
They
were
less
so
for
your
earnings,
you,
you
know
in
a
higher
road
because
we're
just
holding
less
capital.
I
I
think
that,
in
the
circumstances
that
we're
talking
about
today,
I
think
that
we're
going
to
find
that
there's
as
I'm
repeating
myself
now,
there's
certain
segments
that
the
naic
is
going
to
be
just
absolutely
competitive
and
we're
going
to
find
that
being
mature
produces
satisfactory.
A
Return
so
the
next
question
I
have
this,
this
select
committee
and
the
task
force
before
we're
big
on
heresy
and
just
doing
things
their
own
way,
what
what's
required
or
or
what
what
would
happen
if
you
had
a
reinsurance
sector
in
wyoming
that
you
carved
out
that
was
not
make
compliant.
You
basically
said
we're
going
to
do
reinsurance
separately
from
other
insurance
and
we're
not
going
to
adhere
to
nate
and
yeah.
I
love
the
lookout
yeah
johnson
over
there
wants
to
leave
the
room
yeah
perfect.
This
is
exactly
where
we
want.
Mr.
G
Which
would
mean
that
no
other
insurance
company
that
wanted
to
work
in
other
states
would
ever
come
to
wyoming?
No
domestic
here
would
ever
may
not
want
to
stay
here
if
they
were
going
in
if
they
were
also
selling
products
in
another
state,
because
our
work
could
not
be
trusted
by
the
other
states.
So
if
we
have
a
domestic
here
that
say
sells
a
product,
it's
say:
colorado
and
montana
and
idaho.
G
A
More
specifically,
though,
commissioner,
I
don't
mean
abandoned,
make
for
the
entire
state.
I
I
mean
if
you
created
not
not
changing
anything
but
creating
a
new
phenomena
of
a
reinsurance
that
is
not
nate
compliant
but
adheres
to
a
bermuda
standard
and-
and
just
just
basically
say
this
is
not
negan
credit.
All
of
this
is
made
compliant
we're
continuing
as
normal
we're
carving
out
this
alternative
approach.
That
is
not
big
flag
wave
the
flag.
This
is
not
made
compliant.
Everything
else
is
business,
as
usual
is.
Is
that
going
to
threaten
compliance
with
everything
else
would
make?
A
Johnson
deputy,
so
a
little
louder
and
I'll
note-
I
didn't
mention
this
this
morning,
so
we
have
a
microphone
system,
that's
an
overhead
microphone
system
and
it
tracks
the
voices.
A
That's
a
warning
for
those
folks
that
are
in
the
audience
that
you
too
may
end
up
on
the
audio
for
the
streaming
live
to
the
rest
of
the
country
and
the
world.
If
your
conversation
rises
to
that
level,
so
be
thoughtful
about
that
and
keep
those
really
special
conversations,
maybe
out
there,
where
the
microphones
won't
be
tracking
you,
and
with
that
back
to
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
the
way.
B
For
multi-state
companies,
that's
what
accreditation
is
for
for
single
state
companies,
accreditation
wouldn't
care.
So
like
our
blue
cross,
blue
shield
and
delta
dental,
they
only
do
business
in
wyoming
and
they
only
affect
wyoming
people
so
accreditation
when
they
come
out
and
review
us.
They
don't
look
at
our
our
financial
oversight
of
those
two
companies,
but
like
reinsurers
they're,
taking
policyholders
from
all
over
the
country.
So
what
we
do
with
those
reinsurers
will
affect
policyholders
in
other
states.
So
that's
where
accreditation
would
be
concerned
what
we're
doing
with
our
our
mature
person.
A
We
had
the
same
immediate
reaction
with
our
speedy
banks,
which
was
one
of
the
most
successful
things
this
select
committee
task
force
did
and
that
was
fdic
insurance
where
no
bank
would
ever
consider
having
a
bank
without
fdic
insurance.
That
would
be
ridiculous
and
then
it
turns
out
that
was
not
true
and
and
it
was
heavily
embraced
and
we
found
some
ways
to
work
within
the
system
right.
A
We
didn't
wreck
anything
for
any
of
our
existing
bank
charters,
they're
all
fine,
but
we
created
a
new
form
of
charter
and
we
made
it
very
clear,
again
waving
a
giant
flag.
This
is
not
fdic
insured.
It
is
a
special
purpose,
depository
institution
with
these
conditions
and
these
allowances
and
these
different
regulatory
structures
that
they
adhere
to
and
so
by
creating
that
bright
line
and
that
effectively
statutory
firewall.
A
A
As
we
move
forward,
maybe
have
a
conversation
I'll
ask
the
question
again
in
november
and
if
it
really
does
obviously
threaten
our
entire
accreditation
for
insurance,
then
that's
not
something
that
we're
going
to
want
to
do,
but
if
we
have
more
options
than
we're
aware
of,
I
think
that
would
be
beneficial.
I
kind
of
appreciate
that
information
and
I'm
going
to
go
to
mr
brooks
and
see
if
you
have
any
thoughts
or
comments
on
it
and
I'm
going
to
go
to
representatives.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
my
visceral
reaction
is.
I
Identical
to
that
you're
also
worried
about
that.
I
I
can't
imagine
being
an
operator.
K
K
So
isn't
that
kind
of
what
we're
trying
to
recreate
in
a
sense-
and
my
question
would
be
what
yeah
the
channel
my
ollie,
who
was
the
chair
of
this
texas
and
he
was
good
at
wild
ideas.
What
if
we
created
another
department
of
insurance
that
only
does
real
insurance,
so
your
accreditationism
keep
yours.
They
have
their
own
skill,
110.
A
Did
you
want
the
number
sounds
like
a
10.
okay,
perhaps
even
12.,
it
could
be
a
12.
all
right.
Thank
you,
and-
and
please
continue
appreciate
that
I
think
we
had
another
question
representative
western.
Did
you
have
a
different
question
because
I
well,
I
guess
I
followed
the
video
right.
Mr
chairman,.
I
Mr
chairman,
representative,
western,
I
don't,
I
think,
our
vision
to
answer
your
question.
I
think
our
vision
is
to
modify
the
investment
guidelines
to
allow
for
to
enable.
I
Insurance
to
optimize
the
balance
sheet
up
to
my
solvency,
okay
match
assets
and
liabilities
so
that
assets
and
liabilities
are
cash
flow,
managed
and
do
that
inside
the
naic
framework.
Okay,
so
we're
not
trying
to
pick
up
permit
and
bring
it
here,
trying
to
say:
okay,
what
do
they
do?
A
really
good
job
of?
What
can
we
do
a
really
good
job
of?
What
do
we
need
to
do
to
modify
title
26
to
do
that
good
job
and
let's
focus
on
what
we
can
do
in
the
naic
framework.
A
J
I
I
Credit
ratings,
jurisdictional
standards
I.e
the
jurisdiction
of
the
issuer
of
the
credit.
The
niic
has
various
schedules
that
investments
are
listed
in.
I
We
would
codify
as
to
how
much
each
insurer
can
hold
in
the
various
schedules
you
talked
about
mortgages
mortgages
are
on
a
specific
schedule,
title
26
already
contemplates
that,
so
we
would
stay,
probably
within
those
confines
and
then
finally,
in
our
conversation,
the
thing
we're
asking
is
each
reinsurer
would
present
to
the
insurance
commission
its
investment
guidelines
that
will
be
approved
by
the
insurance
commission
and
then
the
insurer
would
have
to
stay
within
those
investment
guidelines
and
and
show
compliance
on
an
annual
on
an
annual
reform
follow-up
center.
A
I
think
we'll
have
staff
walk
through
the
legislation,
even
though
we
went
through
it.
So
a
high
level
walk
through
and
miss
nord
has
a
memo
also,
and
maybe
we
could
have
started,
come
up
and
very
briefly
go
over
the
memo.
It's
very
straightforward,
though
so
then
we'll
come
back
up
and
have
a
comment
on
the
draft.
Okay.
Thank
you
appreciate.
It.
K
A
A
brief
little
research
memo
just
kind
of
some
highlights
of
the
insurance
industry.
It's
numbers
for
us
and
we've
got
that
our
committee
material,
that's
posted
online
and
mr,
if
you
want
to
just
briefly
walk
through
it's
pretty
straightforward,
but
hitting
a
couple
of
highlights
before
we
go
to
the
legislation.
Absolutely.
Mr.
B
Absolutely
so
this
memo,
as
mr
chairman
mentioned,
was
prepared
in
response
to
the
committee's
request
at
your
main
meeting.
It's
very
brief.
I
apologize,
but
it
wasn't
one
page
that's
well
requested.
N
B
It
just
really
provides
some
introductory
information
about
the
reinsurance
industry.
It
briefly
reviews
the
size
of
the
us
reinsurance
market
and
then
it
just
briefly
summarizes
some
of
the
recent
trends
within
the
industry
as
well.
So
the
first
portion
of
the
memo
here
just
goes
into
a
definition
of
reinsurance,
and
then
it
goes
through
a
couple
of
different
forms
of
re-insurance
so
happy
to
answer
any
questions
there.
On
the
first
part,
I
will
go
into
the
different
forms
of
reinsurance.
So,
generally
speaking,
there
are
two
forms
of
reinsurance,
so
both
treaty
and
speculative.
B
So
for
treaty
agreements.
These
typically
involve
a
long-term
arrangement
of
coverage
and
they
cover
a
broad
range
of
policies,
both
life
and
non-life
policies
where
speculative
agreements
are
a
bit
more
rare.
They
occur
when
a
re-insurer
accepts
a
specific,
individual
or
high
value
risk
in
a
one-time
transaction.
So,
generally
speaking,
treaty
agreements
occur
more
often
than
speculative,
just
because
they
have
fewer
formalities
and
they're
easier
to
administer.
B
B
However,
annually
the
reinsurance
association
of
america
reports,
the
underwriting
results
of
the
country's
major
property
casualty
reinsures,
so
in
2019,
the
property
casualty
reinsurance
market
in
the
u.s
consisted
of
25
u.s
based
reinsurers
with
net
premiums,
written
of
61.8
billion
dollars,
and
one
thing
I
found
interesting
was
that
the
top
five
u.s
reinsurers
accounted
for
more
than
70
percent
of
those
mapped
premiums,
so
roughly
43.6
billion
dollars
and
then
something
else
that
might
be
of
interest
to
the
committee.
B
Some
of
the
largest
u.s
reinsurance
companies
are
affiliated
with
foreign
reinsurance
groups,
so
I
have
a
couple
examples
for
you
there
on
the
top
of
page
three
and
then
just
very
briefly
here,
getting
into
some
of
the
recent
trends
and
innovations
within
the
industry.
So
for
some
trends,
of
course,
in
2020,
like
most
major
industries,
the
reinsurance
industry
did
experience
some
disruptions
and
profitability
due
to
coped,
and
then
they
also
experienced
increased
natural
catastrophe
claims
as
well.
So
I
have
some
figures
there
for
you
in
terms
of
those
losses
and
then
moving
forward.
B
Experts
do
predict
for
2021
that
the
industry
will
rebound,
provided
that
they
anticipate
some
more
covert
related
losses
and
then
also
increased
natural
catastrophe
claims
as
well
so
and
then
in
terms
of
some
recent
innovations
and
kind
of
how
it
coordinates
with
blockchain.
Some
re-insurers
and
insurers
are
working
to
integrate
blockchain
technologies
with
their
processes,
so
I've
provided
a
fairly
recent
example
for
you,
there
kind
of
in
the
middle
of
page
three.
So
I'd
encourage
you
to
look
at
that.
B
E
B
Mr
chairman
representatives,
you
know
in
my
research
I
didn't
find
anything
where
any
statutory
changes
would
be
made.
I
think
it's
just
an
innovation
within
the
industry
and
just
one
way
to
increase
their
efficiencies
and
effectiveness.
B
This
particular
example
just
allows
re-insurers
and
introverts
to
work
together
on
one
platform,
which
is
great,
so
the
contract
process
is
far
more
streamlined.
A
And
we
can
certainly
ask
our
our
experts
that
same
question
to
see
if
there
are
any
concerns.
But
it
was
something
that
came
up
early
on
with
the
idea
of
using
blockchain
to
expedite
facilitate
transactions.
E
David
hopkins
legislative
service
office
reviewing
22,
lso
64
working
draft
versus
free.
This
version
is
substantially
the
same
as
what
the
committee
did
see
back
in
may.
There
have
been
a
few
clarifying
changes,
but
nothing
frankly
worth
mentioning
or
spelling
out
on
a
high
level.
What
this
bill
does
is
would
allow
the
insurance
commissioner
and
an
individual
or
company
wanting
to
participate
in
an
insurance
sandbox
to
do
so.
It
would
allow
the
commissioner
to
waive
a
significant
number
of
requirements
in
title
26,
essentially
currently
just
about
all
of
them.
E
It
does
limit
that
the
commissioner
is
not
able
to
waive
any
requirement
that
would
jeopardize
naic
accreditation
and,
frankly,
that's
about
the
only
limit
within
the
bill
draft.
As
far
as
what
rule
the
regulation
could
be
potentially
made
by
the
commission,
I
say
about
the
only
regulation:
there
is
a
requirement
that
the
product
be
an
innovative
product,
in
other
words,
something
that's
new
and
it's
something
that
is
restricted
by
a
current
statute
or
regulation,
and
the
person
applying
has
to
spell
out
exactly
what
that
is.
E
The
sandbox
period
would
run
initially
for
24
months
with
the
possibility
of
an
extension
for
another
year.
There
are
requirements
that
they
are
still
subject
to
potentially
to
liability
and
things
of
that
nature.
They
have
to
post
a
bond,
the
amount
of
which
is
determined
by
the
risk
assessment
or
risk
level
to
the
consumer
and
can
be
modified
or
changed
as
needed
by
the
commissioner.
E
And
there
are
limitations
on
criminal
history
and
things
of
that
nature
that
just
potentially
disqualify
them
one
thing
the
committee
may
wish
to
consider
as
well,
I
think,
was
brought
up
a
little
bit
at
the
last
meeting
or
the
timelines
we're
looking
at
here.
It
does
have
some
limitations,
90-day
limitations,
45-day
limitations
on
time
frames
for
applications
to
be
responded
to
and
approved,
and
that's
may
not
be
within
contact
something
that's
hard
to
accomplish,
but
I
would
certainly
defer
to
them
in
that
question
and
then
this
act
would
be
effective
january.
E
A
I
believe
that's
that's
good,
mr
probably
again
any
any
questions.
Hopefully
we
all
remember
most
of
this
go
ahead.
Mr
chairman
can't
help
myself.
Mr.
E
Hopkins
can
to
make
this
concrete.
Can
you
give
us
maybe
an
example
of
what
one
of
these
innovating
innovative
products
might
be?
That's
not
currently
available.
I'm
when
I
try
to
think
about
this,
I
think
of
maybe
an
auto
insurance
policy
that
protects
you
against
the
risk
say
of
being
struck
by
an
unfunded
self-driving
vehicle
online
right.
That's
all
the
policy
coverage.
I
mean
there's
something
whacked
out
like
that,
or
was
there
some
more
concrete
build
world
example
that
this
might
be
like
go
ahead.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Frankly,
representative
stiff,
I
I'm
not
sure
on
that,
because
I'm
not
familiar
with
the
naic
accreditation
requirements
and
what
code
or
couldn't
be
waived
under
that
limitation.
So
I
really
can't
provide
a
specific
example
of
perhaps
the.
A
Department
insurance
campaign.
Thank
you,
mr
president.
We
can
ask
that
of
the
department
of
insurance
and
honestly
we
were
anticipating
the
proposed
reinsurance
concept
needing
a
sandbox.
It
just
doesn't
look
like
it's
necessarily
going
to
need
sandbox
at
this
point
in
time.
I
don't
know
that
we're
certain
of
that.
So
I
think
that's
part
of
of
the
impetus
is
trying
to
get
to
the
point
where
we're
not
prohibiting
innovation
because
of
the
effectively
antiquated
statutory
construct
that
aren't
necessarily
the
spirit
of
what
we
need
to
do,
but
just
provide
for
that
negative
consequence.
Any
further.
O
Questions
go
ahead
and
spawn
mr
sherman
just
a
comment.
It
seems
like
we
keep
running
into
this
right,
we're
doing
all
this
innovation
to
try
to
reflect
the
fact
that
this
technology
doesn't
fit
in
any
natural
boxes,
but
we
keep
running
into
these
national
standards.
We've
seen
it.
You
know.
The
question
came
up
yesterday
with
aba
routing
numbers:
can
we
create
our
own,
and
the
answer
is
no?
If
you
want
to
plug
into
the
legacy
system,
but
not
all
the
speedy
banks
will
want
to
do
that.
So
godspeed
go!
O
Do
your
own
thing,
but
the
nice
thing
about
the
law
is
that
it
created
the
flexibility
to
do
that.
We
ran
into
it
with
the
uniform
law
commission
right
we're
running
into
it
with
naic
standards.
We
keep
running
into
the
fact
that
this
stuff
is
just
not
it
just
doesn't
fit
it's
not
backwards
compatible.
O
So
I
think,
just
as
a
general
comment,
what
we
achieved
with
the
speedy
charter.
It
was
flexibility
it
gave
it
gives
the
users
the
choice,
whether
to
plug
into
the
traditional
system
or
not,
and
I
like,
where
you're
going
with
the
whole
question
of
okay,
we
can't
put
our
naic
accreditation
at
risk,
but
what
can
we
do
outside
of
that?
That
preserves
the
flexibility.
O
J
E
E
It
does
have
some
specific
liability
waivers.
The
state
is
not
obligated
or
does
isn't
providing
any
affirmative
representation
that
that
this
is
something
that
that
a
person
is
safe,
investing
in
or
anything
like
that,
and
so
there
are
some.
I
believe,
some
language
in
this
bill-
draft
kind
of
cover
that
and
inform
the
consumer.
The
state
of
wyoming
is
not
backing
up
this
product.
A
I
was
just
looking
for
the
language
we
mirrored
this
off
of
the
sandbox
built
for
financial
technologies
and
we
had
pretty
extensive
requirements
for
communications
warnings
and
and
then
on
the
insurance
consumer
protection
place,
and
I
know
some
of
that
is
on
page
three.
A
A
E
A
And
representative,
that
was
exactly
where
it
came
from-
was
that
that
discussion
of
ensuring
that
there
weren't
fraudulent
actors,
there
was
a
specific
interest
in
that
by
the
division
of
banking.
I
I
think
I'll
provide
that
assurance
and
ask
please
comment.
A
G
The
last
question
concerning
the
background
checks:
that's
something
we
do
regardless
of
what
was
done
in
the
financial
sector.
We
do
that
anyway,
if,
if
an
agent
for
example,
or
a
board
member
or
something
has
a
conviction,
we
have
to
look
at
them,
it
gives
effect,
and
then
we
can
ask
for
we
can
waive
that.
But
we
do
that
traditionally,
with
all
of
the
with
all.
G
Committee,
if
you
recall
my
original
concern
when
we
met
last
time,
was
with
accreditation
standards,
you
know
and
we
didn't
want
necessary
to
list
them
in
the
bill
just
because
then
everybody
would
think
that
they're
available
for
waiver,
because
they
will
not
be.
I
will
not
grant
any
of
them
a
waiver
on
your
accreditation
standards.
G
G
Represented
western,
if
we're
talking
about
the
group
we're
talking
about
with
agents
and
people
within
agencies
quite
few,
but
some
of
those
are
a
felony
dui,
that's
30
years
old
you
get
notified.
G
I
also
did
I
think
you
did
an
excellent
job.
They
also
listed
those
standards
on
that
we
don't
the
accreditation
standards
that
we
don't
rather
have
not
listed
on
page
12
lines
35
through
42.
and
miss
johnson.
G
Can
you
go
over
those
if,
if
you
all
would
like
and
the
other
concern
I
had
in
our
previous
meeting-
dealt
with
our
lack
of
expertise
in
the
office
and
within
the
department
and
how
to
fund
what
we're
going
to
do
since
we
last
met,
I've
talked
with
the
departments
of
insurance
in
the
states,
but
I'll
have
insurance
sandboxes.
I've
talked
with
vermont
utah
washington
kentucky.
I've
talked
to
some
others
that
have
more
along
the
financial
lines,
because
some
insurance
departments
actually
oversee
the
financial
sectors.
G
G
There
have
been
some
inquiries
asking
for
waivers
of
standards
they
could
comply
with,
which
would
be
convenient
or
more
profitable
to
the
entity,
but
would
not
be
prohibited
because
of
the
innovative
nature
of
the
product
they're
coming
up,
and
so
much
of
my
fears
have
been
laid
in
the
sense
that
I
mean
I
was
concerned
with
what,
if
we
got
hit
with
six
applications
right
away,
I
could
not
process
them
in
90
days.
I
think
my
those
fears
gone
away
a
little
bit.
I
still
think,
though
I
need.
G
I
still
need
money
in
the
bank
with
the
ability
to
have
experts
on
retainer
if
that
ever
should
happen,
and
that's
something
that
I
would
ask
this
community
if
we
go
forward
with
the
bill
that
I
would
ask
for
200
250
000
of
assessment
authority
put
in
my
budget
now,
the
money
actually
comes
from
just
increase
assessments
across
all
lines
of
insurance
and
that's
how
we're
funded
and-
and
I
could
put
out
requests
for
proposals
get
the
bids
have
some
companies
on
innovative
products
standing
by
their
expertise
needed
if
it
wasn't,
the
money
would
sit
there
for
a
number
of
years.
B
Mr
chairman,
I
know
when
we
talked
about
blockchain
and
if
the
industry
can
use
blockchain
without
changing
our
statutes
and
and
that's
possible
right
now.
I
know
two
large
insurance
companies.
They
were
trading
75,
000,
subrogation
checks,
a
year
paper
checks
going
back
and
forth
between
the
two
companies
and
they
implemented
a
blockchain
project
where
now
those
those
payments
go
electronically
between
those
two
companies
without
the
paper
checks
and
that
saves
them,
75
000
paper
checks
per
year,
and
that
can
be
done
right
now
without
any
changes.
A
To
our
insurance
code
so
on
on
that
point,
that's
good
to
hear
when,
when
they're
doing
that,
what
are
these
things
so
are
they
using
a
a
stable
coin,
cryptocurrency
transacting
back
and
forth?
And
you
allow
that
and
consider
that
to
be
a
legitimate
asset,
because
I
guess
that's
that's
kind
of
the
concern
is
once
it
leaves
dollar.
A
B
I'm
not
knowledgeable
about
the
specifics
of
it.
They're
two
national
companies,
so
they're
not
domesticated
in
wyoming,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
it
all
works.
I
I
didn't
in
the
article
that
I
read
in
the
presentation.
I
didn't
hear
anything
about
bitcoin
or
cryptocurrency,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
they're
still,
I
think
doing
it
in
dollars
is
what
I
assumed
that
the
transactions
were
going
between
the
companies
and
dollars,
but
I'm
not
sure.
Okay.
Thank.
G
G
I
think
we'd
want
to
increase
that
5
000.
If
they
can't
afford
5
000,
they
don't
need
to
be
in
this
space
asking
for
innovation.
Personally,
that's
that's
that's
my
point
on
that
and
on
page
16
we
have
90
days
to
complete
upon
receiving
the
application.
I
would
ask
that
that
be
modified
to
receiving
a
completed
application,
because
ms
johnson
will
attest
to
even
with
the
best
of
the
best
companies
it's
a
back
and
forth
when
you
do
an
application
as
to
what
they
did
and
did
not
put
in
that
application.
G
Thank
you,
mr
kaufman.
You.
F
Had
a
question,
mr
chairman:
let's
have
a
couple
sort
of
zoom
out
questions.
I
remember
your
testimony
from
last
time
and
if
I
mischaracterize
it
correct
me,
but
it
was
sort
of
along
the
lines
of
I'm
not
really
sure
how
somebody
could
use
this
legislation.
As
you
sit
here
today.
Has
you
thought
about
that
changed
or
do
you
still
feel
the
same
way.
G
Mr
kaufman,
I
I
don't,
I
don't
know
of
any
innovations,
and
we
talk
about
this
all
the
time
I
meet
with
the
national
with
the
commissioners
of
all
the
other
states
five
times
a
year.
I
would
this
is
what
we
talked.
We
talked
about
this
quite
frequently.
So
as
soon
as
one
of
these
comes
up
and
they're
like
hey,
we
think
this
might
work
I'll.
Finally,
let
everyone
know
I
just
haven't
seen
it
yet.
I
think
it
can
be.
G
F
Go
ahead
along
those
lines,
I'm
just
curious
when
you've
spoken
to
the
other
states.
If
there's
been
any
conversation,
so
one
of
the
projects
that
I'm
aware
of
I
know
went
off
the
deep
end
here,
I'm
not
suggesting
that
we
should
dive
into
this,
but
is
d5
decentralized
finance
protocols.
People
can
group
pool
essentially
insurance
right.
It's
essentially
private
insurance
tools
that
people
can
use
smart
contract
protocols
where
you
might
pay
in
with
a
particular
digital
asset,
submit
your
claim
through
the
smart
contract
protocol.
F
This
is
becoming
really
really
interesting
in
the
device
space
and
I'm
just
curious
in
your
investigations
with
which
states
is
anyone.
Looking
at
this,
who
had
to
respond
to
a
potential
use
case
for
something
like
this
scope,
I've
not
come
across
that
topic.
You've
discussed
okay,
and
so,
mr
my
follow-up
was
going
to
be
whether
or
not
you
could
envision
something
like
that
fitting
within
this
bill,
because
I
only
asked
that
question,
because
I
think
that
is
a
potential
use
case
for
something
like
this.
G
Mr
that's
where
I
think
I
need
those
experts
on
speed
dial
and
have
the
funds
available
to
bring
them
in
with
with
with
that
program,
but
I
would
like
to
find
people
who
were
not
who
are
independent
and
who
I
could
call
up
and
say
please
review
this
proposal.
Let
us
know
what
you
think.
Instead.
O
Well,
we'll
all
do
our
homework
as
long
as
it's
already
done.
That's
not
as
crazy
a
question
as
it
might
sound
because
early
in
my
career,
I
worked
on
the
demutualizations
of
all
the
big
life
insurance
companies
and
the
challenge
with
those
mutual
life
insurance
companies
is
that
they
can
easily
turn
into
taunties
yeah
and,
frankly,
what
is
a
blockchain?
It's
a
way
of
mutualizing
risk.
A
One
other
point
that
was
raised
last
time
and
we
left
the
language
as
it
originally
began,
but
we
have
a
reference
to
it
in
the
staff
note
on
page
12
lines
40-42,
which
is
that
as
written
the
language
that
would
allow
an
unlicensed
or
anti-candidating
licensure
to
participate,
and
I
think
there
was
a
desire
to
not
allow
fly
an
unlicensed
entity
any
further
thoughts
on
that.
If
we
left
that
for
a
later
conversation,
we
went
back
and
forth
trying
to
decide
with
whether
we
needed
that
or
not
so
chairman.
B
Yes,
we
need
these
entities
to
be
licensed
because
again,
that
is
an
accreditation
requirement
that
we
do
require
insurance
companies
to
be
licensed.
So
we
can't
have
any
kind
of
emergency
in
that
type
of
language,
so
yeah
there
are,
as
he
pointed
out,
the
staff
from
several
areas
where
people
want
to
make
sure
that
the
companies
are.
A
Licensed
okay,
the
the
concern
that
we
talked
about
was
the
idea
that
they
might
be
applying
under
a
circumstance
where
they're
not
yet
licensed,
because
they
want
to
do
something
innovative
and
that's
the
reason
why
they're
applying
into
the
sandbox
is
to
figure
out.
Can
we
do
this
ahead
of
their
licensure,
so
it
almost
seems
like
we
might
want
a
different
trigger.
Then
you
can't
apply
until
you
have
licensure.
A
A
G
A
concern
about
that,
mr
chairman,
I
I
think
that's
workable.
Okay,
because
your
accreditation
standards,
it
wouldn't
be
effective
until
they
were
using
devices
right.
So
we
could.
We
could
certainly
do
that,
and
you
know
I
mean
we
when
someone
first
applies
when
a
company
first
comes
in,
we
have
dozens
of
conversations
for
a
long
time.
A
A
L
Else,
I'm
thinking
mr
chairman,
I
actually
was
gonna.
Go
back
to
mr
kaufman's
comment
earlier.
He's
just
stepped
out
of
the
room,
but
I
think
we
could
go
ahead
anyway,
comment
which
is
that
it's
quite
likely
that
might
be
taking
advantage
of
this
sandbox
will
be
doing
so
for
a
decentralized
finance
application,
which
would,
I
think,
mean
that
they're
most
likely
there
is
not
an
intermediary
or
a
company
that
would
be
regulating
or
applying
it
would
be
a
protocol
or
software
source
code.
G
G
Checks
and
if
I'm
just
looking
at
code
check,
I
mean
there's
a
reason
we
have
licensure
because
we
can
hold
the
reason
you
know
the
designated
license
is
when
we
send
a
subpoena
to
them
and
things
of
that
nature.
If,
if
it's
just
code,
we
have
to
work
through
all
of
those
issues
and
many
many
more.
L
That's
a
very
fair
point
in
some
respects.
I
think
it
makes
it
easier
because
you're
not
regulating
an
entity
where
there
could
be
nefarious
characters
involved.
L
A
A
G
And
if
things
took
off,
I
will
ask
personnel
at
some
point,
but
until
they
do,
I
don't
I
mean
I've
talked
to
these
other
states.
They
actually
had
inbuilt
into
the
legislation.
They
had.
Multiple
people
assigned
the
office,
categorized
pay
levels
and
put
in
there
and
I'm
only
not
filling
it
at
this
point.
Okay,
this
type
of
legislation
is
your
coaching.
E
G
E
That
point:
what
did
we
assign
the
application
fee
to
just
do.
A
Your
general
budget
yeah,
where
does
that
application?
The
fifty
dollars
go
to
mr
sherman,
that
will
go.
A
A
A
All
right
seeing
none.
Thank
you
very
much,
oh
no.
I
did
have
one
more
go
ahead,
so
the
other
discussion
point
which
you
raised
we
talked
about
last
time
is
on
page
12.
The
four
point
lines
35
through
40,
which
is
the
idea
of
whether
or
not
we
want
what
is
currently
drafted,
which
is
an
all-inclusive
list
of
basically
anything
within
your
purview
could
be
waived
or
flexed.
A
But
there's
the
paragraph
that
says
you
can't
do
anything
that
would
violate
your
accreditation
and
you're,
confident
that
you
would
never
wave
or
flex
anything
what
we
do.
The
secretary
of
state's
office
in
the
division
of
banking
was
given
more
authority
than
they
wanted
and
they
had
the
same
objection,
but
we
basically
said
it's
really
hard
to
anticipate
what
people
will
actually
come
in
with,
and
it
was
statutorily
prohibited
from
doing
something.
You
don't
have
the
flexibility,
so
that
was
why
we
drafted
it
that
way
for
them.
A
A
I
think
we
strengthen
the
language
a
little
bit
to
make
it
very
clear
in
this
draft
that
you
will
not
do
anything
that
will
threaten
your
accreditation
and
you
won't
take
any
action
to
do
so.
So
do
you
feel
that
it's
drafted
sufficiently
right
now
that
it
wouldn't
threaten
your
accreditation,
or
do
you
feel
that
we
need
to
eliminate
the
paragraphs
that
are
laid
out
in
the
staff
known
by
mr
hawkins,
or
this
jokes
go
ahead,
mr
chairman,
so.
B
There's
like
21
laws
that
are
required
for
accreditation
and,
as
noted
in
the
staff,
a
lot
of
these
are
in
here
there's
like
a
very
few
number
of
people
in
our
department.
We
know
which
laws
are
required
for
accreditation.
B
That
we
have
for
accreditation,
so
I
mean
you
know
as
long
as
I'm
in
the
department,
I
would
know
which
chapters
we
could
not
wave.
You
know
down
the
road
if
somebody
wasn't
familiar
and
waived
something
that
they
couldn't,
we
could
get
into
trouble.
It's
just
it's
a
matter
of
education.
I
think
to
know
what
can
and
can't
be
waived
so
down
the
road.
A
You
know
the
following
cannot
be
waived
without
consultation
with
me
or
something
along
those
lines
to
coordinate
approval,
in
other
words,
you're,
basically
going
to
say
on
these
ones.
We
expect
them
to
be
denied,
but
hey
we'll,
go
ask
dave.
A
B
On
page
18,
this
is
line
two.
It
says:
if
not,
if
an
application
is
granted,
I
was
wondering
if
the.
B
D
E
Did
you
catch
that
mr
objective
page
18
line
line
two
line
two
granted
versus.
A
K
We'll
get
your
fingerprints
and
do
all
that
stuff
where,
if
we're
trying
to
root
out
malfeasance,
they
have
an
expert
whether
they
hire
a
contractor.
That's
the
first
thing
identifying
state!
Well,
actually,
if
you
look
at
this
code-
and
this
doubt
this
is
problematic
foods
financing,
so
I
feel
giving
them
that
ability,
instead
of
just
the
old
fashion,
we'll
go
to
root
out
the
bad
guys
as
fingerprints
and
background
check
with
you.
A
K
G
And
mr
sherman,
mr
brooks
whispered
in
my
ear,
saying
gosh,
you
probably
don't
want
to
do
that,
but
thinking
through
it
we're
gonna.
Do
it
it's
whether
it's
in
the
bill
or
not
we're
still
gonna.
Do
it
it's
part
of
the
licensing
process,
so
that
would
be.
A
If
we
have
a
hardwired
statute,
there'd
be
no
possibility
for
exception
as
we're
getting
d5
type
concepts
where
you
start
wrestling
with
how
to
do
this,
I
think
representative
west
point
is
well
taken,
which
is
you
might
not
end
up
with
a
somebody
to
fingerprint
you
might
end
up
relying
on
an
expert
for
the
authentication
where
the
fingerprint
isn't
really
what
you're
doing
it's
that's
down
the
road
aways,
but
I
think
it's
it's.
A
A
Else
all
right,
we
have,
I
believe,
miss
wilkinson
somewhere
there
we
are
so
let's
go
to
ms
wilkinson
and
then
we'll
open
up
for
general
full
comment.
P
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
join
you
virtually,
and
I
wanted
to
say
a
special
thank
you
to
your
staff
for
facilitating
my
participation
this
morning.
Mr
chairman,
I
do
have
a
few
comments
on
the
bill
and
in
general,
as
a
follow-up
from
your
may
meeting.
So
apcia
is
generally
supportive
of
sandbox
bills.
We
do
have
a
few
suggestions
to
tighten
the
bill
a
little
bit.
P
Mr
chairman,
specifically,
I
don't
repeat
everything
that
I
said
to
you
in
the
last
may
meeting,
but
we
were
concerned
also
with
the
naic
accreditation
standards,
but
we
would
ask
specifically
that
the
provisions
that
would
not
be
allowed
to
be
waived
would
be
the
authorization
of
insurers
in
general
requirements,
fees
and
taxes,
assets
and
liabilities,
investments
and
administration
of
assets
and
liabilities
with
waiver
waiver
of
those.
P
It
would
not
have
a
level
playing
field
for
everyone
in
the
insurance
industry,
and
we
do
think
that
there
is
room
for
a
sandbox
and
we
encourage
the
use
of
that.
We
just
need
to
be
sure
that
the
financial
solvency
is
maintained
and
that
there
are
consumer
protections
in
place.
Mr
chairman,
one
other
comment
that
was
made
on
the
licensing
entities.
P
It
will
be
apcia's
recommendation
that
they
either
be
licensed
by
the
department
of
insurance
as
a
licensee
or
partnering
with
them.
Of
course,
they
wouldn't
be
licensed
until
they
are
granted
that,
but
that
would
be
one
suggestion,
and
we
still
think
that
that
is
a
little
unclear
in
that
section.
P
On
page
14,
section
26
55
104.,
so
we
would
again
recommend
that
they
be
a
licensed
entity
or
a
company
partnering
with
a
licensed
entity
and,
mr
chairman,
in
conclusion,
I
was
asked
at
the
last
committee
meeting
to
provide
some
examples
of
hypotheticals
of
products
that
may
be
interested
in
looking
at
the
sandbox.
I
had
to
ask
my
client
and
get
back
to
you.
P
A
All
right,
thank
you
for
that
really
appreciate
it.
Any
questions.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
getting
that
example
case.
What
one
question
I
have
focused
in
the
list
of
desired
exceptions
from
exclusion,
we'll
call
it
that
you
provided
are
those
all
a
subset
of
what
was
provided
in
this
staff
comment
as
provisions
that
the
commissioner
also
asked
to
have
you
moved,
I
believe,
that's
the
case,
but
are
there
any
that
were
missed
in
on
page
12
lines,
35.
P
Through
40.,
mr
chairman,
I
do
not
believe
so.
We
support
the
the
commission
and
any
of
those
that
they
don't
want
to
have
waived
again
for
that
naic
licensure.
A
A
P
Mr
chairman,
I
would
say
conceptually
that
sounds
great.
You
know
I'd
have
to
see
the
actual
language
of
how
it's
drafted
out,
but
conceptually.
I
think
that
that
could
be
considered.
E
Great,
thank
you,
mr
country.
Go
ahead,
catherine!
I'm
just
curious
if
this
might
not
be
a
fair
question,
but
if
you
have
any
idea,
you
know
why
there's
not
really
interest
in
the
half
a
dozen
other
states
that
have
an
insurance,
sandbox
law.
Why
there's
been?
No,
I
don't
know
if
I
heard
the
testimony
correctly
that
there
were
no
applications
or
there
are
no
granted
applications.
I'm
just
curious
in
the
industry.
If
you
have
any
feel
for
why
that
is.
P
Q
Oh
wonderful
hold
on.
I
have
a
text
messenger.
Yes,
hello!
My
name
is
brendan
maher.
I
am
a
mit
media
laboratory
alumnus
and
I
am
part
of
the
working
groups
here
for
digital
identity,
the
working
group
for
nf2s
and
daos,
so
it
was
music
to
my
ears.
Hearing
the
the
comment
of
if
it
is
just
a
piece
of
code,
how
to
make
me
chuckle
there
what's
interesting.
Q
Here
is
the
sentiments
that
were
just
spoken
by
miss
wilkerson,
and
it
is
the
fact
that,
fundamentally
what
I
understand
in
this
space,
which
is
very
little
because
it's
not
my
my
expertise,
but
the
d5
and
nft
space
has
an
entirely
different
set
of
risk.
Q
The
risk
and
risk
models
are
entirely
different
and
to
capture
that
marketplace.
It
requires
an
entirely
different
approach
and
and
sandbox
methodology
and
set
of
statutes.
So
I
really
urge
the
committee
to
take
the
precedence
of
and
sentiment
behind,
islam
regarding
regarding
the
the
move
for
the
innovation
and
banking
in
wyoming
and
make
essentially
something
which
does
not
have
the
same
requirements
as
the
traditional
reinsurance
industry.
I
think
that
would
serve
wyoming
very
well.
F
Good
morning,
thank
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
share
thomas
in
the
space.
I
really
appreciate
the
the
committee's
willingness.
It's
been
really
refreshing,
finding
a
jurisdiction
that
seeks
to
entreat
and
treat
business
to
come
versus
continuing
the
meetings
until
morale
improves
as
we've
experienced.
So
I
have
just
a
several
comments,
just
based
on
oh
yeah,
I'm
david
duchini,
founder
and
ceo
of
silicon
prairie,
we're
a
collection
of
financial
technology
companies,
centered
around
capital
formation
and
then
ultimate
liquidity.
F
So
we
have
a
ton
of
experience
in
space.
I've
been
involved
in
blockchain
space
since
2010.
I
also
teach
graduate
level
class
and
blockchains
in
the
third
year
for
private
university
in
minnesota.
So
just
a
couple
of
comments
based
on
the
conversation
this
morning
with
regards
to
setting
arbitrary
fees
for
participation,
fifty
dollars
is
certainly
too
low.
Five
thousand
dollars,
I
think,
is
too
high,
especially
given
the
fact
that
it
sounds
like
there
hasn't
been
an
overwhelming
preponderance
of
applications
in
other
states.
F
I
think
a
fee,
a
structure
much
lower
than
that
would
be
reasonable
again
with
small
businesses.
Five
thousand
dollars
is
actually
quite
a
bit
of
money,
especially
when
you're
staring
down
on
payroll
potentially
there
and
then
especially,
if
there's
some
sort
of
fee
structure
that
they're
going
to
build
a
fund
to
deal
with
this,
I
would
say
that
that's
probably
the
right
application
for
use
for
that.
Second.
F
Experience
between
the
the
ill-defined
use
of
the
term
approved,
especially
with
regards
to
securities,
just
as
a
general
comment,
I
would
suggest
you,
you
know,
stick
with
either
you
know,
making
things
effective
or
not.
We've
seen
a
number
of
cases
in
states
where
the
word
approval
causes
the
regulators
to
bristle,
because
it
implies
enforcement
and
that's
certainly
not
what
the
regulators
want
to
imply
at
all.
D
I'm
b
barker
I'm
a
business
partner
of
david's
at
silicon
valley
holdings.
We
had
an
example
of
some
kind
of
stuff
that
could
use
an
insurance
sandbox.
So,
like
david
said,
we
helped
the
companies
that
are
trying
to
issue
a
financial
security
and
the
biggest
fear
for
companies
in
that
position
is
like
shareholder
action.
So
there
are
some
relatively
new
laws.
For
example,
the
crowdfunding
law
in
our
state
minnesota
had
only
passed
to
2015
2016,
because
they're
really
relatively
new
laws.
To
begin
with,
there's
extra
fear
of
the
scrutiny
like.
D
Oh
am
I
sure
that
I'm
doing
the
right
thing
for
all
the
states,
all
50,
the
blue
state,
you
know
or
sorry
blue
sky
laws,
so
we
actually
have
a
vendor
that
created
a
boutique
insurance
product
around
the
issuing
of
these
exempt
securities
and
investment
crowdfunding.
So
it
protects
the
platform
which
is
us.
It
protects
the
issue
of
the
security
and
protects
the
investors
in
the
security
for
a
year
around
the
issuing
of
that.
D
So
if
there's
any
three
of
those
parties
have
some
sort
of
problem
that
the
issuer
of
the
security
doesn't
have
to
go
to
court
and
duke
it
out
there
there's
just
a
policy
that
kicks
in
and
whoever
is
wronged
or
you
know,
perceives
they've
been
wronged
can
be
made
whole.
So
I
would
see
the
point
of
a
insurance.
Sandbox
would
probably
be
when
there
are
some
relatively
new
laws
and
there's
not
a
lot
of
clarity
to
protect
people
who
might
want
to
get
in,
but
don't
want
to
get
sued
for
a
million
dollars.
G
F
To
have
self-insurance
with
regards
to
health
care,
that
might
be
another
potential
use
case
for
this.
I
also
say
that,
with
regards
to
capitalization,
I
know
like
in
the
banking,
the
spider
are
speedy,
that
you've
got
essentially
100
asset
coverage.
You
could
also
apply,
you
know,
obtain
something
similar
to
a
reinsurance
product
or
a
bonding
through
essentially
a
fintech
in
a
sandbox,
and
then
with
regards
to
the
comment
about
a
level
playing
field
like
these,
big
companies
can
also
spin
up
subsidiaries
to
play
in
the
sandbox
if
they
want
to
as
well.
D
The
last
piece
I
was
thinking
about,
since
we
are
primarily
technologists,
like
david
said
he's
you
know
been
in
since
2010
and
has
actually
written
a
whole
coin
himself-
has
about
a
dozen
patents
out
of
wells
fargo
for
blockchain
banking,
we're
very,
very
deep
technically
in
that,
and
I
think
the
idea
that
government
would
be
able
to
keep
up
with
the
software
code
would
not
go
the
way
you're
hoping
it
would.
D
Software
engineers
have
the
ability
to
manifest
new
reality
way
faster
than
the
process
of
law
would
catch
up
with
it
and
my
personal
opinion.
What
we've
done
for
ourselves
to
help
de-risk
you
know,
because,
obviously
we
don't
want
fraud.
You
know
remembering
that
fraud
is
always
still
illegal.
You
don't
have
to.
You
know,
have
new
medicine
for
that,
but
we
require
the
issuers
that
want
to
use
our
platform
to
have
a
securities
attorney.
D
F
The
last
comment,
mr
truman,
is
around
the
idea
of,
and
I
appreciate
the
idea
of
taking
fingerprinting
out
of,
because
you're
not
going
to
figure
principle
software
per
se.
You
can
certainly
get
a
digital
signature
of
it,
but
I
would
say
there
are
good
analog
models
with
regards
to
identity
through
attestations,
whether
it's
a
notary
event
or
in
the
case
of
securities,
we
have
what's
called
medallion
stamp.
It's
acts
essentially
as
a
higher
level
notary
event.
F
That
also
includes
an
insurance
policy
as
part
of
that,
and
so
I
could
conceive
of
a
model
where
a
piece
of
software
through
essentially
a
voting
like
event,
could
obtain
a
digital
identity
that
could
be
confirmed.
That
also
included
some
sort
of
higher
level
assurance
that
it
was
in
fact
right
what
it.
What
what
if
what
it
said.
Equally,
it
was
good.
F
Oh
for
sure,
absolutely
okay,
I
mean
the
cost
to
say
no
was
pretty
low.
I
mean
I'm
not
insensitive
to
the
cost
of
the
staff
to
spend
time
you
know
getting
up
to
speed
and
learning
the
stuff
and
also
for
getting
outside
consultants
to
weigh
in.
I
would
just
say
you
know
it's
not
your
today
problem
that
you
have
thousands
of
applications
put
in
the
office.
Thank
you
so
much
too
many
and
then
raise
the
price
right
exactly.
A
Public
comment
seeing
non-public
prominence
closed
back
to
the
committee,
mr
chairman
committee,
I'm
inclined
to
ask
for
the
amendments
that
be
sort
of
bounced
around
and
then
bring
this
bill
back
to
the
next
committee
meeting,
because
I
think
you
would
like
to
see
and
get
some
feedback
on
on.
Some
of
the
changes
is.
Is
that
acceptable
and
we
can
go
through
those
comments,
but
is
that
a
reasonable
approach,
rather
than
actually.
E
If
the
amendment
I
would
prefer
to
see
would
be
to
accept
the
department
of
insurance,
except
for
the
last
three
two
lines
relating
to
the
license
or
license
or
issue,
I'm
not
not
as
fond
of
that
for
those
changes.
A
All
right,
let's
take
a
motion
on
the
bill,
then
we
amend
it
and
then
we
okay,
is
there
a
motion
to
build
for
the
next
meeting.
We've
got
senator
cross.
A
A
second
all
right:
let's
walk
through
amendments
discussion
and
and
then
figure
out
what
that
next
draft
is
going
to
look
like
I've
got
a
list
of
concepts.
The
first
concept
is
the
fee
application
fees
or
a
motion
to
amend
the
application
from
from
50
to
something
else.
A
A
A
We've
got
a
request
on
page
16,
the
90
days
after
a
completed
application,
as
opposed
to
after
an
application.
Is
there
a
motion
to
make
that
amendment
senator.
A
A
The
the
general
concept-
and
so
I
mean
the
j
provision
the
person
authorized
under
sub
section
half
of
this
section
to
participate
insurance
sandbox
shall
be
deemed
to
possess
an
appropriate
license
for
the
purpose
of
federal
law
requiring
state,
licensure
or
authorization.
So
the
idea
there
is,
if
you
have
there,
is
an
assertion
of
a
license
that
you
possess,
whether
you
do
or
not,
and
that's
the
concern,
regardless
of
really
the
underlying
implications
of
what
we're
talking
about.
It's
the
we're
asserting
a
license
when
they
have
not
been
licensed.
A
That
leads
to
the
concern
by
the
commissioner
and
regarding
naked
accreditation.
So
maybe
that's.
E
A
A
A
The
language
in
space
on
page
12
lines
35
through
40.,
the
insurance
commissioner,
requested
that
those
provisions
be
eliminated
from
the
draft
we
discussed
and
had
a
conversation
about
creating
a
two-tier
system
where
a
separate
paragraph
is
created
where
these
provisions
require
coordination,
explicit
coordination
with
naik
prior
to
any
waiver
as
a
way
to
keep
it
in
statute,
but
add
a
tear
of
clear.
This
might
not
be
a
good
idea.
A
I
agree
we're
in
a
realm
of
unlikely.
That's
that's
the
concept
here
where
drafting
legislation
for
a
sandbox,
where
we
anticipate
what
needs
to
go
in
the
sandbox
and
then
craft
statute
around
the
sand.
The
box
assumes
we
know
what
the
heck
is
actually
going
to
be
applying
to
the
sandbox.
We
don't
so
keeping
options
on
the
table,
but
making
sure
we
don't
threaten
naked
accreditation
seems
like
a
simultaneous
objective
that
we
can
go
forward
with.
We
don't
want
to
break
make
accreditation.
We
want
to
make
that
very
clear.
A
A
Good
thumbs
up,
and
that
was
a
bit
singing
compelling
thumbs
up.
The
next
discussion
point
was
the
idea
of
approve
versus
granted
page
18
line.
Two.
Do
we
want
to
make
that
amendment
at
this
point?
We
want
to
give
it
some
thought.
It's
an
easy
one,
and
I
don't
actually
I'm
not
either.
E
Sherman,
I
I
think,
that's
a
fair
question.
Frankly,
I
think
we
have
been
tweaking
some
of
the
language
changing
it
too
approved
from
granted,
and
that
was
one
that
was
just
missed.
So
I
think
other
places
in
this
bill
draft
I'd
have
to
double
check,
but
I
think
they
used
the
term
approved
versus
granted
already
elsewhere,
and
so
it
would
be
more
consistent
to
make
it
approved
at
this
point.
A
A
K
K
A
Representative,
I
I
think
I
think,
there's
probably
two
separate
concepts
there
that
can
be
amended
with
regard
to
the
removal
of
the
fingerprints.
We,
if
you
want
in
the
next
draft-
and
I
think
we
generally
favor-
that
we
can
just
say,
remove
that
paragraph
and
perform
and
have
that
brought
to
us
in
the
draft.
I
think
that's
reasonable
unless
there's
objections,
but
I
I
think
we're
all
pretty
cool
with
that.
Anyone
have
any
concerns
about
that
all
right.
A
So,
let's
take
that
as
a
motion
got
a
motion
from
representative
western
in
a
second
from
co-chairman
olsen,
any
discussion
on
removing
the
fingerprint
information
and
conforming
seeing
none
of
the
paper
say:
hi
all
right.
Oh
no.
That
motion
is
scary
with
regard
to,
and
I
had
this
written
down
above,
but
just
have
a
star
next
to
it,
which
is
really
why
I
didn't
mention
it.
A
The
appropriation
concept
should
cover
what
you
said
where,
if
we
add
a
paragraph
that
provides
a
commissioner
authority
and
we
can
get
the
language
specifically
from
the
commissioner
but
authority
for
250
000
of
assessment
that
can
be
brought
to
bear
to
bring
in
experts
as
needed
to
implement
this
act.
A
Then
I
think
that
covers
that
other
concern
broadly
enough,
that
they
can
make
their
decision
and
it's
out
of
assessment
money.
So
the
beautiful
thing
about
it
is
it's
not
appropriation
of
new
funds,
it's
an
internal
appropriation
through
assessment,
and
hopefully
that
could
get
through
the
appropriations
committee
representative.
What
do
you
think
about
that?
Is
that
going
to
be
something
that
appropriates
when
you
might
be
comfortable
with?
Mr
chairman,
I
think
so.
A
I
don't
think
we
need
to
because
the
rest
is
so
broad
for
the
exceptions
that
they
could
literally
create
an
exception
for
that
language
if
they
saw
the
necessity
of
it
as
part
of
the
sandbox
requirement
and
if
they
were
willing
to
do
it
and
basically
work
within
the
verification
process
to
credential
through
like
a
digital
identity
as
opposed
to
a
fingerprint,
and
so
they
would.
They
would
basically
internally
say
well
we're
going
to
make
an
exception,
we're
going
to
call
it
equivalent.
A
A
A
A
Yeah,
it's
not
an
appropriation,
but
they
want
authority
to
change
their
assessment
so
that
they
can
bring
into
her
okay,
you
might
even
go
to
the
foundation,
probably
in
a
set,
and
everything
goes
appropriate.
A
H
A
A
E
F
A
A
A
Next
item
on
our
agenda
is
decentralized
autonomous
organizations.
We
obviously
pass
the
first
of
its
kind
legislation
last
year
this
year.
I
guess
in
the
legislative
session
to
recognize
llc's
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
and
we've
immediately
started
working
on
some
drop
updates
to
that
legislation
to
ensure
that
we're
taking
inspiration
and
concerns.
So
we
have
a
fuel
drop
to
consider
before
us
today,
but
before
we
get
to
that,
let's
take
some
updates
from
the
leads
on
that
effort.
A
Mr
kaufman
and
mr
aaron
wright,
I
believe,
he's
joining
us
and
then
we've
got
members
of
the
dow
working
group
with
us
as
well.
I
see
christopher
allen,
I'm
not
sure
who
all
we
have
virtually
as
well,
but
we've
got
a
good
group
through
our
dog
working
group
that
has
basically
been
looking
at
considering
any
amendments
that
we
need
to
make
to
update
performer
work.
So
with
that,
mr
kaufman,
can
you
present
us
a
little
bit
of
update
what
we'll
be
looking
at
today?
Yeah.
Thank
you.
F
Mr
chairman,
so
for
the
benefit
of
the
group
you
know
almost
all
of
these
amendments
were
things
that
we
were
working
on
last
year
during
session
and,
quite
frankly,
we
just
ran
out
of
time
to
get
them
done
as
we
got
towards
the
end
of
the
push
last
year
to
get
this
bill
finalized.
F
We
got
a
lot
of
great
input
from
law,
professors,
practitioners,
folks
in
the
technology
communities
regarding
how
this
was
going
to
be
used,
and
some
of
the
concerns
you
know
candidly
most
of
if
not
all
of
this
is-
is
cleanup
oriented
towards
bringing
some
consistency
to
definitions
with
the
underlying
llc
act,
to
bring
clarity
with
respect
to
some
of
the
mechanisms
and
the
definitions.
F
One
of
one
of
the
biggest
themes,
at
least
in
my
mind,
is
that
we
we
leave
the
impression
in
this
build
that
there
are
two
different
types
of
dials
that
there's
algorithmically
managed
and
member
managed.
That
was
not
the
intent.
The
intent
is
they're
all
member
managed.
We
just
want
to
create
a
burden
on
these
companies
to
express
to
what
extent
they're
going
to
be
managed
by
algorithm
algorithms
or
software
and
make
sure
that
the
underlying
information
is
provided
in
their
filings.
F
So
I
think
a
lot
of
this
clarifies
that,
obviously
you
know
mr
hopkins
will
go
through
the
bill
in
detail
and
we
can
talk
about
all
of
this,
but
I
just
wanted
to
orient
the
group
to
that.
That's
that's
really!
Where
we're
coming
from
with
this
after
we're
done.
Mr
chairman,
I
do
a
conversation
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office
over
the
past
few
days
have
maybe
a
couple
of
minor
additional
amendments
for
the
group
to
consider
when
we
get
to
that
point,
but
I
think
that's
the
most
part.
The
background.
A
Thank
you
all
right
and
mr
wright
any
comments
at
this
time.
I
I
see
mr
mar
has
joined
us
as
well
he's
been
working
on
our
tao
working
group
as
well.
Mr
right.
R
No,
I
think
mr
kaufman
summarized
everything
really
well
and
it's
an
honor
to
be
here
again.
A
Professor
right,
will
you
introduce
yourself
free
please?
Well,
obviously,
we
know
you,
but
just
for
the
record.
R
Sure
my
name
is
aaron
right.
I'm
a
professor
at
cardozo
law
school
in
new
york
and
it's
really
an
honor
to
be
part
of
this
committee.
A
That's
all
right
good
to
see
you
too,
thank
you,
so
professor
boxer
and
professor
wright
are
also
have
been
engaged
in
the
dow
working
group
and
are
here
to
support
work
on
this
draft
with
us.
So
thank
you
both
for
being
here
for
coming
and
joining
us
here
today,
all
right,
any
further
discussion
before
we
get
to
the
bill
that
we
need
to
have
mr
croftman
any
further
thoughts,
anything
looking
forward
to
get
into
the
legislation.
I
would
refer
to
professor
moxor
if
he
had
any
additional
comments.
A
S
And
I
am
don't
write,
no
relationship
a
law
professor
umkc
in
kansas
city
and
have
been
working
in
blockchain
crypto
space
for
about
four
years,
published
a
book,
a
short
happy
guide
to
bitcoin
blockchain
crypto,
which
is
really
for
policymakers
to
understand
exactly.
What's
going
on
and
happy
to
be
here.
N
So
I
did
have,
mr
chairman,
just
a
couple
of
questions
which,
which
may
have
been
answered
already,
but
in
let's
see
in
the
amendment
file
and
I've
got
version
0.3
here
in
section
102
a
6.,
it
said,
membership
interest
means
members,
ownership
right
which
may
determined,
and
it
has
a
list
of
things
there
and
my
question
and
it
might
be
a
law
professor
question
and
I
apologize
yes,
as
I
think
ahead
to
litigation,
and
the
question
is
so
to
really
two
questions
which
one
of
those
things
controls
if
they're
in
conflict
and
what's
the
default
rule,
if
neither
one
of
those
defines
in
terms
of
the
member's
membership
interest
well,.
A
A
Of
us
have
seen
it
and
then
we'll
get
to
some
of
those
nuanced
questions.
Details
and
it'll
give
mr
kaufman
time
to
think
about
the
answer.
A
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
get
to
the
bill
first
because
they
have
some
of
the
same
transformations.
Great,
thank
you
and,
and
we're
very
glad
to
have
both
of
you
here
so
with
that
we'll
toots
and
I'm
gonna
break
for
a
moment
and
we'll
we'll
get
up
here.
Walk
through
the
bill
with
us.
E
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
happy
to
do
that.
The
bill
draft-
I
guess
just
for
initial
overview
of
what
it's
doing
here
versus
what's
what's
currently
in
the
law,
it
removes
the
definition
of
quorum
and
kind
of
the
concept
quorum
throughout
the
bill.
It
removes
the
distinction
that
was
made
between
member
managed
and
algorithmically
managed,
and
it
adds
some
new
dissolution
methods.
E
Additionally,
there
is
primarily
some
cleanup
in
the
bill
on
page
two
majority
of
the
members,
the
changes
that
we
see
there
that
paragraphs
on
lines
12
through
21
again
here
we're
removing
quorum,
we're
also
removing
the
idea
that
the
majority
is
more
than
50
percent.
Introducing
this
idea
that
majority
is
more
than
50
or
as
defined
kind
of
giving
an
option
for
majority
to
be
less
than
50.
That
is
what
the
organization
desires
on
page
three.
E
E
Through
22
again
getting
rid
of
the
member
of
the
distinction,
there
remember
managed
and
making
a
statement
requiring
a
statement
establishing
management
mandatory.
E
Three
through
nine,
this
is
clarifying
and
requiring
a
fully
autonomous
decentralized
organization
to
have
upgradable
smart
contracts,
some
new
language
from
the
last
meeting
on
line
eight
able
to
be
changed
to
capable
of
being,
and
that's
just
a
clarification
thing
up
there,
and
then
the
staff
comment
is
new
from
what
the
committee
seen
before
here,
proposing
an
alternative
method.
If
the
committee
desires
to
require
all
decentralized
autonomous
organizations
to
have
a
smart
contract,
that's
capable
of
being
updated,
the
language
could
be
tweaked,
as
in
that
proposed
paragraph
or
subsection
d.
E
E
Requiring
upgradable
smart
contracts,
even
if
those
smart
contracts
are
implemented
after
formation,
because
the
way
it
is
right
now
that
would
only
require
that
to
be
the
case
of
the
conformation.
But
if
a
decentralized
autonomous
organization
were
to
not
need
it
at
the
beginning,
but
later
want
to
change
how
they're
operating,
we
could
tweak
that
language
required
all
the
time
by
adding
the
language
you
see
on
page
six
lines,
eight
through
fifteen
under
the
management
section.
E
Seven
at
the
top
there's
clarifying
changes
on
lines,
one
through
three
on
line
five,
we
add
dispute
resolution
and
this
is
adding
that
to
the
articles
of
organization
that
to
address
that,
then
the
articles
organization
need
to
address
the
speed
resolution.
E
Respect
to
rights
of
members
of
disassociated
members,
it
adds
language,
clarifying
language,
ads,
disassociated
members
to
those
who
wouldn't
have
a
right
if
to
certain
information.
If
it's
already
on
the
blockchain
bottom
of
page
nine,
some
cleanup
language
there
interchange
there
on
my
19th.
E
Change
here
on
line
ten
and
eleven
from
what
was
in
the
previous
bill,
changed
or
added
language
or
is
no
longer
under
the
control
of
at
least
one
natural
person.
Originally,
that's
a
member
that
that's
been
changed
to
natural
person
to
request
a
committee
at
the
last
meeting
so
that
a
decentralized
autonomous
organization
will
always
have
to
be
under
control,
at
least
one
natural
person.
E
The
new
paragraph
six-
and
these
are
all
just
reasons
for
why
or
when
a
decentralized
organization
solved,
paragraph
six
there,
where
all
the
members
have
withdrawn,
and
we
see
a
new
paragraph,
new
subsection
c
from
what
we
saw
last
time.
The
intention
with
this
paragraph
is
just
to
add
the
option
and
I'll
go
ahead
and
read
it
because
it
says
any
interested
party
may
petition
the
secretary
of
state,
alleging
the
existence
of
any
of
the
factors
requiring
the
solution
in
subsection.
E
In
this
section,
the
secretary
of
state
will
investigate
respond
to
the
petition
within
90
days
of
receipt
and
upon
finding
the
existence
of
one
or
more
factors
acquiring
dissolution
under
subsection.
A
of
the
section
shell
dissolved
for
the
centralized
autonomous
organization.
So
that's
creating
a
an
option
for
an
interested
party
to
petition
to
have
a
decentralized
autonomous
organization,
dissolve
that
secret
statement
into
that,
and
if
they
find
that
it
should
be
dissolved.
E
Fields
on
page
11.,
a
couple
of
sections
there,
the
language
of
those
repeals
are
included
in
the
staff
comment.
E
Mr
chairman,
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
Generally
speaking,
it
looks
like
the
articles
of
organization
and
that
decentralized
autonomous
organization
are
going
to
be
a
lot.
We
have
a
lot
more
information
in
them
than
our
current
say
articles
organization
for
a
woman's
liability,
and
the
question
is
with
respect
to
the
requirement
that
they
early
on
in
the
bill
that
the
article
of
organ
organization
must
specify.
E
E
A
F
A
great
point,
I
can
tell
you
what
our
conversations
have
been
to
date
about
that
sort
of
like
in
the
underlying
llc
act.
The
default,
if
you
don't
specify
otherwise,
is
member
managed
right
the
act
structures
it.
So
you
want
to
be
manager,
managed
you
have
to
make
that
clear
election
either
in
the
articles
or
your
operating
agreement.
F
That's
kind
of
what
we
tried
to
do
here
is
is
right,
you're,
obviously,
member
managed,
regardless
of
what
you
do,
but
to
the
extent
you
are
going
to
rely
on
particular
right,
smart
contract
or
algorithmic
means
for
management.
You
need
to
you
need
to
make
that
clear,
and
so
how
clear
you
make
that
to
your
point
is
a
great
question
and
something
that
we
have
debated.
F
It's
also
the
reason
that
we
require
some
public
identifier
to
point
to
whatever
protocol
they're
using
for
that
management,
which
will
come
up
later,
because
we
had
some
more
discussion
to
do
about
that,
but
I
just
wanted
to
give
that
context
with
respect
to
at
least
how
I
was
thinking
about
it
when
we
talked
about
this
last
time.
F
F
A
So,
certainly
when
we
were
presenting
in
the
legislature,
those
additional
characteristics,
the
public
identifier,
that
identifier
is
going
to
be
pointing
to
publicly
available
smart
contracts
that
provide
information
about
the
management
that
you
can
have
for
the
articles.
You
can
certainly
have
underlying
smart
contracts,
they're
pointing
back
to
and
member
agreements
that
that
are
elsewhere,
but
a
lot
of
that
was
intentional
for
the
first
state
doing
it
we're
trying
to
make
it
as
transparent
as
we
can
to
allow
it
to
happen,
but
to
have
some
light
shine
on
it.
A
E
I
find
it
curious,
though,
that
it's
under
formation,
because
how
would
the
secretary
of
state
never
know
right?
I
mean
formation
right
now
for
an
llc
happens
when
you
press
the
button
listed,
you
filled
out
the
boxes
and
the
computer
spits
out
articles
organization
and
says
you
have
a
certificate
of
organization.
You
are
now
organized
if
it's
a
condition
of
formation
that
your
smart
contracts
are
capable
and
upgraded.
A
E
Correct,
I
I
agree
it
does.
It
is
somewhat
problematic
to
have
it
there
in
formation,
and
so
I
think
it
would
be
certainly
a
good
idea
to
move
that
requirement
to
another
section.
I
think
some
of
that's
covered
by
that
proposal
to
move
it
into
management.
E
A
E
A
A
A
F
Try
to
be
quick
with
respect
to
those
changes
that
were
just
being
talked
about.
I
think
that
is
a
valid
concern
that
represents
just
brought
up
it's
something
that
we
recognized
on
the
cat
of
the
bag
here,
but
that's
one
of
the
reasons
I
would
recommend
looking
at
that
new
edition
of
the
subsection,
the
clarifying
net
management
and
removing
from
that
from
the
formation
requirement.
I
think
it
just
makes
it
a
little
bit
more
uniform
across
the
board.
F
H
F
And
I
don't
know
if
the
secretary
of
state
is
available
today
or
not,
but
as
we've
been
filing
these
entities
and
working
through
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
two
issues
have
come
up.
One
is
right:
now
I
mean
the
secretary
of
state's
office
realistically
doesn't
have
a
way
to
bet
or
verify
if
a
public
identifier
is
real
and
we
kind
of
knew
that
anyways.
We
still
want
that
requirement.
F
We
have
now,
but
might
just
be
a
simple
30-day
requirement
if
you
haven't
amended
your
filing
and
included
a
valid
public
identifier
within
30
days,
or
something
like
that
that
the
filing
is
void.
I
think
that's
worth
considering,
and
I
just
throw
it
out
to
the
body
to
consider,
because
you
know
if
there's
if
there
is
some
web
address
valid
public
identifier
in
there.
F
Obviously
that's
great
we're
not
we're
not
trying
to
make
it
a
factual
determination
by
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
but
if
they
just
what
effectively
is
happening,
is
a
lot
of
people
are
putting
in
there
to
be
determined,
so
they
feel
you
know
they
fill
the
box
and
the
filings
being
accepted,
but
there
actually
isn't
the
public
identifier
in
there.
So
I
think
that's
a
reasonable
suggestion.
F
The
other
one
along
the
same
lines
is.
We
have
in
here
some
language
regarding
an
individual's
ability
to
petition
the
secretary
of
state's
office.
If
it's
deemed
that
the
dao
is
no
longer
engaged,
you
know
purpose
or
no
longer
has
any
individual
person
that
is
capable
of
exercising
some
participation
control
again.
F
Is
is
the
secretary
of
state's
office
the
right
place
to
do
that,
or
should
that
be
the
district
court,
where
the
district
court
already
has
authority,
I'm
thinking
out
loud
here?
Maybe
we
should
make
the
chance
record,
quite
frankly
and
and
there's
a
shorter
time
frame
for
that
and
give
that
exclusive
authority
a
fact
finding
to
a
court
rather
than
the
secretary
of
state's
office.
That
was
just
I'm,
I'm
still
supportive
of
the
idea
and
the
idea
that
we
didn't
want
these
energies
to
get
away
from
us.
F
So
there's
you
know
a
shut
off
switch
but
as
we've
thought
that
through
some
more
that
might
be
more
cumbersome
than
we
thought
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
I
think
it's,
a
relatively
simple
bill
fix
to
just
switch
that
to
the
chance
record.
For
example,
it
becomes
a
remedy
of
any
right
of
any
party,
whether
you're,
a
member
or
non-member.
You
could
petition
the
district
court
to
say.
I
don't
think
this
dow
has
a
legal
purpose
or
I
don't
think
anyone's
in
charge
of
this
down
and
then
you're
doing
a
fact.
F
A
With
the
discussion
about
district
court
or
chance
report,
which
honestly
makes
more
sense,
I
don't
think
we
want
to
ever
put
this.
We
haven't
done
this
in
the
past,
where
it's
a
requirement
to
utilize
the
district
court
or
excuse
me
the
chance
report.
The
chance
report
is
always
an
option.
That's
available.
F
Mr
selfish,
I
just
want
to
prove
all
these
people
wrong,
that
don't
think
the
chance
record
is
going
to
be
busy,
so
I'm
feeling
my
bias,
but
yes,
I
think
either
court
could
be,
could
be
potential,
but,
as
the
chance
record,
I
do
think
is
obviously
designed
to
have
some
specialized
expertise
in
these
areas.
It
might,
it
might
make
some.
E
A
Because
it's
fast
the
challenge
there,
the
only
concern
I
have
there
is
that,
while
it's
fast,
it's
sort
of
a
pay-to-play
court
system-
and
we
typically
don't
deny
access
to
court
without
pay
to
play
now,
almost
anybody
who
would
want
to
do
this-
I
would
expect-
would
want
fast
and
would
be
willing
to
pay
the
chance
report.
But
that's
the
concern
I
have
is
that
I
don't
know
that
we
should
be
denying
access
to
courts.
E
F
E
Houses
yeah,
I
mean
you've,
got
to
have
a
real.
Your
point
is
as
well.
I
mean
you
have
to
have
a
real
interest
in
this
down,
not
existing
and
being
demonstrated
or
dissolved
in
some
fact,
but
I
think
you
could
adjust
that
by
adjusting
the
filing
fee,
but
I
really
do
like
the
concept
of
giving.
I
want
to
give
the
chance
report
something
to
do,
but
I
think
it's
an
appropriate
it's
the
right
venue
for
it,
but
I
I
also
agree
with
getting
something
in
the
hopper
for
them
and
I
would
take
it.
E
I
guess,
from
the
other
perspective
as
the
secretary
of
state's
perspective-
and
I
don't
want-
I
don't-
we
don't-
have
the
office
here
to
testify
on
their
ability
to
vet
those,
depending
on
the
volume
that
they'll
get,
but
I
don't
want
them
with
standard
money
for
people
to
be
able
to
do
that
when
we
have
this
other
transfer
report
fund
ready
to
go.
A
So
I
think
it's
an
idea,
yeah!
No,
I
I
think
it
is
the
best
place.
I
just
would
be
cautious
about
restricting
access
for
the
discussion
on
that.
F
Mr
chairman,
transparency,
so
that
people
individuals
who
might
become
associated
or
members
of
of
these
dows
have
a
place
to
go
where
they
can
be
assured
that
they're
pointed
to
the
right
direction,
for
whatever
protocol
is
being
used.
So
it
was
a
transparency
thing.
So,
mr
chairman,
that
means.
A
Correct,
mr
chairman,
correct-
and
we
call
representative
that
also
with
the
requirements
that
we
have
about
transparency
of
the
articles,
if
we're
going
to
be
on
a
blockchain,
as
we
have
drafted,
that
identifier
should
provide
the
information
to
provide
the
public
with
the
information
that's
required
under
the
rest
of
this
statute,
that
is
requested.
You
should
be
able
to
determine
based
on
that
that
identifiers,
that's
sort
of
the
concept
could
just
be
tremendously
handy
if
we
had
something
like
a
api
from
secondary
state's
office.
A
Two
years
ago,
any
further
questions
before
we
move
forward
all
right
with
that,
then
let's
go
to
our
our
working
group
testimony
and
and
see
what
what
concerns
we
have.
I
see
that
we've
got
brendan,
we've
got
christopher
allen
and
then
we've
got
professors
right
and
mantra.
I
don't
know
who
else
we
have
out
there,
but
we'll
start
here
in
the
chamber,
professor.
So
let's,
let's
get
to
those
concerns.
N
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
I
think
they're
relatively
minor,
which
which
I
I'm
very
pleased
about
to
be
helping
again.
Two
of
the
questions
just
concern
default
rules
right
and
the
first
one
was
on
page
three
1
through
11,
and
it
talks
about
how
the
membership
interest
is
defined
or
determined
by
these
list
of
things.
The
articles,
the
operating
agreement
or
the
blockchain
and
just
two
questions
related
to
that.
N
If
two
of
those
things
are
in
conflict
which
one
controls
and
what's
the
default
rule,
let's
say
none
of
those
determine
the
members
of
interest.
Do
we
have
a
default
rule
and
I
suspect
the
answer
to
the
second
one
might
be
just
the
llc
act
controls
and
it's
per
capita.
But
I
did
want
to
confirm
that.
F
Get
to
it
go
ahead
and
stop.
Mr
chairman,
I
can
I
can
confirm
that
we
did
contemplate
the
underlying
llc
activating
the
default
rules
wherever
these
rules
are
signed,
but
I
think
the
call
on
professor
wright
he
might
have
to
jog
my
memory
with
respect
to
our
conversation
about
the
hierarchy,
because
we
did
discuss
that
and
there
is
a
provision
later
that
discusses
if
there's
a
conflict
between
the
operating
agreement.
The
articles-
I
don't
think
we
have
a
specification
right
now
about
if
there's
a
conflict
between
the
articles
and
whatever
the
protocol
is.
R
F
H
F
If
I'm
reading
that
the
same
way,
everyone
else
is
the
instance
of
a
conflict
between
the
operating
agreement
and
the
articles
of
smart
contract
is
resolved.
But
not
if
there's
a
dispute
between
the
articles
and
the
smart
contract
like
professor
boxer
is
suggesting.
Then
I
agree
with
mr
chairman
with
mr
kaufman.
F
N
A
I
I
thought
we
had
language
in
the
original
bill
which
basically
says
that
the
underlying
smart
contracts
have
a
dominant
position,
because
they're
literally
doing
something
and
you
would
have
to
invent
those
through
the
amendment
discussion.
If
you
had
a
problem
with
it,
I
thought
we
had.
That
said,
mr
chairman
1731-113,
if
you'd
like
I'll
just
read,.
E
A
N
I
agree,
mr
chairman,
that
the
provision
that
was
discussed
earlier
about
putting
into
the
management
section
the
the
updatability
I
I
completely
agree
that
that
works
best
and
then
one
last
question
is
on
dissolution
and
again,
and
it
would
be
wonderful
if
this
was
already
in
here
again.
N
That
would
be
just
great,
which
is
which
are
these
default
rules
right
or
are
these
mandatory
rules,
and
I
so
in
other
words
what
if
what,
if
the
parties
in
their
smart
contract
or
articles
or
or
operating
agreement,
specify
some
other
method
for
dissolution?
That's
not
one
of
these.
N
If
I
were
reading
the
llc
act,
I
would
say
that
these
are
default
rules
and
they
can
pick
their
own
rules,
but
other
parts
of
this
act
say
things
like
unless
otherwise
provided
for
in
the
art
in
where
have
you
and
the
word,
shall
there
makes
me
wonder
whether,
again,
whether
that
that
has
the
sound
of
something
that's
not
a
default
rule,
even
though
the
llc
acted
like
this,
so
the
the
I
guess
two-part
question
is:
are
they
default
rules
and
do
we
want
them
to
be
mandatory
or
default.
A
A
F
If
that
membership
so
elects,
then
yes,
the
entity
is
dissolved
so
that
in
that
instance,
it
is
a
shall.
Similarly,
then,
where,
if
everyone
is
withdrawn-
or
you
know,
as
we
talked
about
with
the
secretary
of
state,
if
there's
no
longer
legal
purpose,
et
cetera,
so
my
recollection
is
this
was
designed
to
be
a
relatively
short
list
of
absolute
backstop.
This
is
when
the
entity.
N
N
A
The
idea
is
whether
this
is
a
complete
list
or
whether
we
want
to
ensure
that
a
dao
subject
to
its
own
governance
would
have
other
conditions
upon
which
it
would
be
dissolved,
whether
that's
through
the
articles
or
through
a
member
agreement
and
like
corrupt
interpreting,
your
your
interests,
their
sponsor.
Yes,
mr,
oh,
mr
chairman,
I
think
senator
I'm
sorry.
I
didn't.
E
See
your
episode,
mr
chairman,
I
I
guess
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding
the
issue
under
existing
law.
Roman
f3
says
that
you
can
solve
your
tao
as
provided
in
a
smart
contract
large
organizational
operative,
so
haven't
we
already?
Doesn't
existing
law
already
covered
waterfront
of
what's
possible.
E
N
So,
mr
chairman,
I
I
think
that
I
think
we
want
so
something
like
this
and
I'm
thinking
aloud
here.
N
N
But
we
don't
want
those
additional
criteria
to
be
able
to
undo
any
of
these
things
listed
here.
So
perhaps
a
solution
might
be
to
do
something
like
add
to
the
beginning
of
subsection,
a
notwithstanding
anything
to
the
contrary
in
the
articles,
the
operating
agreement
or
the
smart
contract,
blah
blah
blah,
and
then
we
removed
three
because
it
wouldn't
make
sense
to
say
notwithstanding
and
then
have
something
in
there
and
then,
in
addition,
say,
roman
at
seven
or
subsection
c.
That
says,
in
addition
to
the
above,
the
the
operating
agreement,
articles
or
smart
contract.
N
E
A
Mr
chairman,
typically,
when
we've
got.
A
And
broadcast
noted
the
language
that
is
in
statute
that
you
don't
have
before
us,
which
is
the
romanent
3,
so
1731-114,
a
roman
3
at
the
time
or
upon
the
occurrence
of
events
specified
in
the
underlying
smart
contracts
or
as
specified
in
the
articles
of
organization
or
operating
agreement.
So
that
provides
already
for
one
of
the
or
clauses
to
be
anything
else.
We
decided
as
being
a
dissolution
event
through
some
authoritative,
either
the
article
or
the
spark
contract.
E
E
N
A
A
N
Go
ahead,
but
mr
chairman
and
I
haven't
read
the
underlying
llc
act
in
some
time,
but
generally
speaking
in
corporate
law,
llc
law,
the
entire
statute
is
considered
to
be
a
set
of
default
rules
that
can
be
contracted
around
unless
it
explicitly
says
that
they're
not
and
many
of
the
statutes
in
them
in
those
areas
of
law
will
use.
The
word
shall,
even
under
the
assumption
that
they'll
their
default
rules
that
that's
where
mine
is.
F
Okay,
just
a
quick
observation,
I
think
I
can't
remember
who
made
the
suggestion,
but
I
wonder
if
just
a
paragraph
a
at
the
outset,
we
just
say
something
along
the
lines
of
not
within
any
smart
contract
or
operating
agreement
to
the
contrary.
Right
it
still
has
to
be
dissolved.
If
any
of
these
occur,
wouldn't
that
language
preempt,
then
any
attempt
to
circumvent
it
even
through
one
of
the
subsections
or
maybe
I'm
missing
something.
N
Mr
chairman,
that
was
my
original
thought,
but
then
then
roman
at
three
was
brought
to
my
attention
and
it
would
just
be
awkward
to
say,
notwithstanding
yeah
anything
in
the
blah
blah.
You
know
in
these
three
documents
and
then
one
of
the
list
is
anything
in
these
three
documents.
So
just
a
matter
of
kind
of
structures.
It's
all
there.
N
A
S
Yeah
I
have
two
and
a
half
points.
S
Thank
you.
So
so
one,
if
you
go
to
section
17,
31-11.
S
Updated
version
and
a
roman
2
run
that
too
one
of
the
issues
I
had
because
this
is
a
question
it
says:
if
all
members
have
not
contributed
digital
assets
to
an
organization,
and
one
question
is:
why
is
there?
Qualifications
for
digital
assets
contributed
because
I
actually
have
had
the
pleasure
of
representing
or
helping
a
wyoming
gal
get
organized.
S
One
of
their
issues
is
well.
Not.
Everybody
is
sophisticated
enough
to
be
able
to
contribute
keith
to
this
dow.
Some
of
them
want
to
have
a
bank
account
and
we'll
have
a
bank
account,
and
then
they
can
contribute
to
the
bank
account
we
can
convert
that
to
east
so
that
they
can
be
part
of
this.
But
under
this
rule
it
automatically
changes
to
per
capita.
A
Because
that's
how
this
rings
so,
professor
on
on
this
one,
though
you
do
have
the
clear
preemption
ability
on
paragraph
a
where
we're
trying
to
set
default
rules
that
wouldn't
be
in
the
llc
act,
and
it
says
unless
otherwise
provided
for
the
articles
organization,
smart
contractor
operating
agreement.
So
we
we
allow
for
the
clear
preemption,
it's
just
the
condition
under
which
nobody
contemplated
this
and
all
of
a
sudden
you're
going
into
a
voting
circumstance.
A
S
S
K
R
A
Taken
care
of
in
wyoming
statute,
I
mean
that's
one
of
the
things
we
hang
our
hat
on
at
the
clarity
of
property
and
how
digital
assets
relate
to
property
under
the
uniform
commercial
code
in
wyoming.
So
I
think
we'd
be
safe
with
property
honestly
and
if
we're
not,
we've
got
work
to
do
elsewhere,
but
we've
got
some
further
thoughts.
Go
ahead
and
stop
this
chairman.
F
F
Q
Oh,
it
was
brendan
mark.
Q
Yes,
I,
if
I
may
yes,
if
I
may,
I
had
a
comment
regarding
that
and
I
think
the
problem
and
challenge
is
around
evaluation,
and
this
particularly
comes
up
with
with
things
such
as
nfts,
etc,
etc,
and
the
idea
that,
if
people
are
contributing
to
an
organization,
you
know
how
do
you
know
the
value
of
the
thing
put
into
the
organization,
and
I
think
that
becomes
very
important
later
down
the
road
and
on
the
question
about
service.
Q
That
raises
issues
in
terms
of
I
believe
you
know
securities
and
and
are
people
contributing
services
for
for
the
entity,
and
you
know
that
can
be
problematic
again,
not
pegging
a
dollar
or
other
kind
of
amount
to
the
thing
put
into
the
dow.
That's
my
column.
A
One
thing
about
that
consideration,
though,
is
I
mean
we're
looking
at
first
of
all
default
rules
and
there's
no
way
that
we
can
write
a
default
rule
that
that
contemplates
all
the
complexities
of
existence,
which
is
why
we
make
very
clear
that
you
should
write
your
own
details
into
the
articles.
But
if
you
haven't
here
is
a
simple
rule
set
that
will
provide,
and
it's
we're
not
reflecting
on
roman
at
one,
which
basically
says
if
everyone
has
contributed
digital
assets.
A
Look
to
the
value
of
those
digital
assets
as
your
first
criteria,
your
your
delineator
of
rights
and
then,
if
not
all,
have
then
all
of
the
the
members
shall
have
one
membership
interest
and
have
one
vote.
A
One
concern
I
guess
I'd
have.
If
we're
changing
digital
assets
there,
we
would
need
to
really
change
digital
assets
above
the
parallel
construction,
and
then
that
would
get
to
actually
what
mr
maher
is
talking
about
about.
Complexity's
evaluation
that
you
wouldn't
easily
be
able
to
work
on,
so
it
might
cause
complexity
where
what
we
really
want
is
the
member
agreements,
the
articles
to
do
the
right
thing,
and
I
don't
know
if
we
can
do
a
better
job
than.
H
A
A
I
don't
have
a
valuation
for
that,
so
I'm
going
to
go,
I'm
going
to
go
file
a
lawsuit
to
get
evaluation
of
that
this
clean
underlying
contract
is
clean
in
terms
of.
If
you
continue
to
digital
asset,
you've
got
a
blockchain
demarcation,
that's
going
to
say:
75
x
coins
went
in
for
me,
74
x,
coins
wins
from
you.
I
get
75
votes,
you
get
74.,
that's
clean!
You
don't
need
a
lawsuit
for
that.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
whatever
we
put
here
as
a
default
position
should
be
relatively
lawsuit.
E
Mr
chairman,
I
appreciate
present
rights
concern
here,
but
I
too
like
the
existing
language.
I
don't
think
this
roman
net
2
is
going
to
be
used
very
often
because
if
you
have
negotiated
your
operating
agreement
and
you've
said
hey,
I'm
contributing
a
thousand
dollars.
You're
writing
the
software
code
for
what
it
seems
that
the
roman
f1
and
roman
at
2
are
designed
for
people
who
they're
not
going
to
spend
any
time
negotiating
they're
just
going
to
be
out
writing
code
having
a
smart
contract.
A
S
S
A
Question
professor:
the
concept:
there
is
sort
of
the
human
demand
idea
from
artificial
intelligence
where
somebody
needs
to
kill
switch,
and
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
this
captures
that
perfectly,
but
that
is
the
underlying
idea.
A
So
if
you
have
a
dow
in
charge
of
another
dao
and
you
sort
of
regress
through
this
logic
and
you've
got
a
human
in
charge
of
this
dot
which
controls
this
now,
I
think
you
could
make
the
claim
as
long
as
this
human
can
kill
this
dao,
I
think
you
said
you
certainly
satisfy
the
human
command
desire
that
this
is
reflecting,
and
so
the
question
is:
are
you
then
satisfying
statute,
which
I
think
is
your
interest?
What
do
I
just
think
is
this
language
good
enough
for
that
we
need
to
strengthen
it.
F
Yeah,
I
don't
know,
I
don't
pretend
to
have
the
answer.
I
I
mean
I.
I
think
that
point
is
valid,
but
I
I
agree
with
what
you're
saying
and
that
is
we
definitely
contemplated
not
so
much
layering
taos.
We
definitely
contemplated
other
entities
right
owning
the
dao
and
I
think
you
expressed
it
well
and
that
was
at
the
end
of
the
day.
We
just
wanted
to
make
sure
there
was
a
kill
switch
if
right,
if
there's
some
automation,
that's
just
going
on
into
perpetuity
whether
or
not
the
verbiage
one
natural
person
is
the
right
language.
N
N
A
It
definitely
it
implies
that
you're
going
to
face
back
a
second
all
right.
I
see
professor
wright
and
then
I
see
chris
brown,
mr
wright
thoughts
on
that.
R
Yeah,
thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
I
I
think
professor
wright's
comment
is
a
is
a
good
one.
The
language
presented
by
professor
moxry,
I
think,
is
interesting.
I
guess
the
one
question
just
I
would
have
is
whether
or
not
that
loosens
the
ability
you
know
to
have
some
form
of
human
control.
R
If
it's
ultimate,
you
could
just
see
that
getting
pretty
abstracted
away
at
some
point,
so
I
I
guess
it.
It
is
slightly
academic
that
there
may
be
kind
of
nested
dowels.
I
think
there's
definitely
a
possibility
for
that.
I
don't
know
if
that's
right
yet,
but
I
definitely
agree
with
professor
wright
that
that
could
be
ripe
in
the
future.
R
I
just
think
it
raises
some
really
complex
question
about
even
what
ultimate
control
means
is
that
something
more
like
a
beneficial
owner,
or
you
know
what
types
of
concepts
would
need
to
kind
of
be
layered
in
to
really
define
or
add
more
definition.
Here
I
just
don't
know
I
don't
know
the
answer.
It's
a
really
great
question.
C
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
distinguished
select
committee
members.
My
name
is
christopher
allen
and
I'm
the
executive
director
of
blockchain
commons,
a
not-for-profit
benefit
organization,
incorporated
here
in
wyoming,
which
is
founded
to
support
open
infrastructure
for
blockchain
and
digital
identity
technologies.
C
I
have
some
larger
statements
that
I
would
like
to
make,
but
I
thought
that
it
was
particularly
relevant
in
regards
to
this
topic
right
now,
which
is
that
we
have
begun
some
work
in
the
identity
group
and
with
law
around
a
concept
called
principal
authority
and
that
under
agency
law,
principal
authority
is
the
party
that
ultimately,
you
know
back
through.
However,
many
delegations
have
been
allowed,
you
know
where
the
buck
stops,
and
I
would
suggest
that
you
consider
some
language
in
regards
to
that.
C
There
exists
a
principal
authority
who
is
a
natural
person
who
has
some
specific
form
of
control,
because
my
other
concern
is
the
definition
of
control
in
digital
assets
can
be
quite
complex.
I
would
say
you
know
something
along
the
lines
of.
C
Maybe
there
exists
a
principal
authority
that
has
the
control
to
dissolve
or
has
the
control
of
you
know
a
majority
of
the
assets
or
I
don't
know,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
right
you
know
language
is,
but
I
would
be
also
defined
control
and
I'll
hold
the
rest
of
my
comments
for
a
later
discussion.
Q
Yes,
I
concur
with
christopher
allen.
Without
doubt.
The
issue
here
is
that,
as
as
these
get
nested
the
ability
for
one
as
they
move
away
from
the
technology
to
even
understand
how
to
stop
it
can
become
problematic
so
and
and
also
being
a
part
of
the
efforts
in
the
digital
identity,
working
group
and
earlier
efforts.
I
absolutely
concur
with
christopher
allen's
statement
about
adding
in
language
related
to
principal
authority
and
and
proof
and
verification
thereof,
I'll
haul.
The
rest
of
my
comments
for
now.
M
A
I
was
just
supporting
her
whether
while
there
is
not
detailed
specificity
that
would
necessarily
satisfy
a
technologist
this.
This
needs
to
be
interpreted
by
the
chance
report
through
litigation
theoretically
and
others,
and
the
question
is:
would
they
know
what
this
meant
effectively
and
would
just
get
the
right
outcome,
or
at
least
go
in
that
direction?
A
And
I'm
inclined
to
agree
with
representative
yen
that
I
think
I
think,
while
we
can,
we
can
play
with
some
of
the
nuance.
I
I
think
this
meets
the
high
level
objective
and
is
provides
a
substantial
amount
of
clarity
that,
of
course,
other
other
thoughts
before
we
move
on.
But
let's,
let's
again
contemplate
that
more,
we
might
put
some
ideas
over
lunch
about
how
we
could
strengthen
that
and
so
you're,
that's
two:
what's
your
half.
A
S
S
It's
not
clear,
I
don't
know
what
a
court
would
do
with
a
llc,
because
this
is
there's
no
default
rule
part
here.
It
just
says
members,
the
dow,
the
members
of
the
doubt
or
at
this
smart
contract
doesn't
say
you
can
delegate
management
to
another
entity
specifically
and
when
you
start
talking
about
nested
ll's,
nested,
dow
llc's
you're
going
to
have
delegated
magic
and
again
so
it's
it's.
I
raised
the
issue.
You
know
I
am
not
here
to
give
answers
but
to
to
raise
the
issue.
F
F
Well,
I
don't
know
what
the
right
policy
call
is
ultimately
as
to
whether
or
not
the
members
should
be
able
to
delegate
management,
they
could
right,
if
collectively,
as
a
member,
managed
llc
there's
some
proposed
protocol.
You
know
change
where
management
of
some
aspect
is
delegated
to
someone
who
are
we
to
get
in
the
way
of
that
right
and
understanding
that
that
might
create
problems
down
the
line.
I
just
wanted
to
again
remind
the
group.
We
we
did
go
down
that
road,
a
little
bit
where
we
landed
was
was
ultimately
that
might
be
too
prescriptive.
F
Whether
or
not
that's
the
right
answer,
I
don't
know,
but
that's
where
we
landed,
professor
wright
go.
R
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman,
and
I
think
professor
wright's
point.
There
is
a
a
good
one
as
well,
but
I
guess
the
question
I
would
have
is:
if
it's
member
managed,
then
the
members
either
in
the
articles
of
organization
operating
agreement
and,
frankly
also
the
underlying
smart
contracts
should
be
able
to
delegate
authority.
There's
enough
flexibility
in
just
kind
of
how
this
is
structured,
so
that
the
members
would
have
the
ability
to
do
that
if,
if
they
so
desired,
so
I
I
think
it's
accounted
for
yeah.
I
just.
R
S
A
Q
I
think
senator
ruffus
you
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
and
and
and
and
there
in
lies,
the
the
the
question,
and
it
is
really
is
the
entity
itself
becoming
and
transforming
into
a
manager
managed
to
llc,
or
are
they
delegating
a
portion
of
their
operations
to
something
else?
Q
And
I
I
think
the
important
thing
to
keep
in
mind
in
all
of
this
is
that,
given
the
complexity
of
all
of
these
entities,
it
is
going
to
be
extraordinarily
important
that
they
be
able
to
delegate
some
aspect
of
their
operations
to
another
principal
authority
and
another
entity
to
manage
portions
of
those
operations.
Q
A
All
right,
thank
you,
brandon!
This
will
be
another
thing
we
can
think
of.
I
think
about
over
lunch.
I
think,
and
it's
gonna
be
great
yeah
senator
coss
doesn't
have
to
think
about
it
number
one
if
he
chooses
not
to
any.
A
We
will
continue,
then
at
1
30,
we'll
come
back
with
city
public
testimony
on
dowse.
I
look
forward
to
seeing
you
all
back
here,
probably
at
1
30.