Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

draft EIP for a DGCL compliant Token standard. #884

Conversation

davesag
Copy link
Contributor

@davesag davesag commented Feb 15, 2018

An ERC20 compatible Token that conforms to Delaware State Senate, 149th General Assembly, Senate Bill No. 69: An act to Amend Title 8 of the Delaware Code Relating to the General Corporation Law.

updated

After discussion with lawyers they have advised that the Token, with some minor alts, would be compatible with Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) and not just Regulation A+. References to Reg A+ are therefore being removed.

@janning
Copy link

janning commented Feb 16, 2018

I'm open to the idea. Maybe you could help me understand how a bill at the state level (originating from the Delaware Senate) is also-known-as a section of legislation at the federal level (17 C.F.R. §230.251 et seq.)?

Copy link

@harrisonperl harrisonperl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reg A+ and Delaware General Corporation Law are two separate issues.

Reg A+ allows a company to register a security offering with the SEC (U.S. Federal). This filing allows the company to advertise and sell the securities to all KYC verified investors, accredited or not.

Delaware GCL requires that stock issued by a Delaware corporation be recorded in a stock ledger.

These tokens are compliant with Delaware GCL, which is sufficient for registration as an equity security under U.S. federal Reg. A+.

This standard could be extended beyond Reg. A+ to include equity issued by any Delaware corporation, whether private or public.

@davesag
Copy link
Contributor Author

davesag commented Feb 16, 2018

Thanks @janning and @harrisonperl — I'll make some adjustments to the wording and re-push.

Copy link

@harrisonperl harrisonperl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updates are clear.

@nicksavers nicksavers added the ERC label Feb 22, 2018
@davesag davesag changed the title draft EIP for a Regulation A+ Token standard. draft EIP for a DGCL compliant Token standard. Feb 22, 2018
@davesag
Copy link
Contributor Author

davesag commented Feb 22, 2018

The reference implementation has been updated to suit the latest changes.

@Arachnid
Copy link
Contributor

This is a courtesy notice to let you know that the format for EIPs has been modified slightly. If you want your draft merged, you will need to make some small changes to how your EIP is formatted:

  • Frontmatter is now contained between lines with only a triple dash ('---')
  • Headers in the frontmatter are now lowercase.

If your PR is editing an existing EIP rather than creating a new one, this has already been done for you, and you need only rebase your PR.

In addition, a continuous build has been setup, which will check your PR against the rules for EIP formatting automatically once you update your PR. This build ensures all required headers are present, as well as performing a number of other checks.

Please rebase your PR against the latest master, and edit your PR to use the above format for frontmatter. For convenience, here's a sample header you can copy and adapt:

---
eip: <num>
title: <title>
author: <author>
type: [Standards Track|Informational|Meta]
category: [Core|Networking|Interface|ERC] (for type: Standards Track only)
status: Draft
created: <date>
---

@davesag davesag force-pushed the feature/EIP-N/draft-token-standard-for-regulation-a-plus-stock-ledgers branch from 24c8c93 to 7d8ad0d Compare March 28, 2018 01:06
@Arachnid
Copy link
Contributor

Is this ready to be merged as a draft?

@davesag
Copy link
Contributor Author

davesag commented Mar 28, 2018

@Arachnid I believe so, unless anyone has any strong objections

@Arachnid Arachnid merged commit baf0e7a into ethereum:master Mar 29, 2018
@davesag davesag deleted the feature/EIP-N/draft-token-standard-for-regulation-a-plus-stock-ledgers branch March 30, 2018 05:15
@davesag
Copy link
Contributor Author

davesag commented Jul 5, 2018

@jllaw interesting article, thanks. I very deliberately chose to keep personally identifiable information off-chain due to

  1. storage costs and consequent gas fees, and
  2. privacy.

So the article is correct in that ERC-884 represents transfers rather than ownership specifically, though ownership by an Ethereum Address is covered of course.

The Delaware Amendments do not require a blockchain, merely allow a blockchain based solution. So the article is a bit disingenuous there in my view.

In addition I never used the word 'authorized' (or for that matter 'authorised') anywhere in ERC-884 aside from to mention that "A traditional share registry is typically managed by a Transfer Agent who is authorised to maintain the register accurately, and to handle shareholder enquiries.". I certainly never claimed that "a certain tokenized share is “authorized” by the Delaware Blockchain Amendments" as the Forbes article states.

What is clear however is you can't have company shares partly covered by ERC-884, and partly not covered by ERC-884. It's a one-in;all-in (1iAi) model. The article touches on this (and paints it as a negative) but really that's just common sense in my opinion.

Cheers

Dave

@jllaw
Copy link

jllaw commented Jul 5, 2018

@davesag, thanks for the response. Do you mind posting it as a response to this post in the LinkedIn "Tokenization of Securities" group and the equivalent post in the Facebook "Tokenization" group? Would be good for people to see your response to the article because you make very good points, and people in those groups are very interested in the tokenization of all securities, especially equity securities (which will mostly be DE based).

@davesag
Copy link
Contributor Author

davesag commented Jul 5, 2018

Sure. Will do. Actually am on holiday right now so will do it tomorrow.

@davesag
Copy link
Contributor Author

davesag commented Jul 5, 2018

@jllaw I've requested membership of the groups you suggested.

@jllaw
Copy link

jllaw commented Jul 5, 2018

Approved. I think the posts relevant to this particular topic are at the very top.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants