Retroactive funding request

Hub Proposals Community Spend
22

I’m not sure what y’all’s revenue is like - you spend $30,000/yr to make how much??? I haven’t got paid a penny from my contributions from any crypto team/project/community — the entire time, yet I’ve made worthwhile suggestions, shared diagrams to explain myself and the code - and I have a fairly strong grasp of the value of my contributions. When things 1st started to get going with Cosmos - the discord and other outlets rant and raved about conpensating valueable contributions. The ISO opperuntiy gap was one that aligned with my interests - so I foccused on that. The ISO definitions cost money. $30,000 a year is a joke salary to anyone worth their 2 cents.

I’ve already stated I have NDAs signed with a real-estate amentity developer who I’ve given 2 unique concepts that I can secure a master agreement for. That master agreeement cost $1M. I wouldn’t get a cent of that money. It would be an investment in a community project that would have Cosmos branding and promote Cosmos technology…but there is still a requirement for signficant investment, probably $5M or so to break ground on ONE of the project/concepts that I have. That additonal invetment could come from the Cosmos community or from other venture capitalist - including bank financing.

It would be a long-term, several year - multiphase project - yet deeply ingrained into a community. Here is potential returns on this investment minus operating expenses. Labor/Tax, ect…this is WITHOUT any real-estate development sales assosiated with it, which could produce $10s of millions of dollars in additonal revenue.

Here is the subscription service revenue model at 100K, 200K, 500K and 1M subscriptions…anually. A good comparison marketing wise - to an investment in this concept - would be naming rights on a sports stadium - but it can/will generate revune AND be quality marketing.

Screenshot_2024-09-03_111136
Screenshot_2024-09-03_1111361269×724 168 KB

For the same reason the HEMP manafacturing and agriculture investment in Texas that I broached as a $5M investment is worth serious consideration as a commmunity investment - so is this real estate investment.

I do have a genuine interest in how much free time validators have, to manage “aligned” services…meaning that those services can be paid for with a crypto transaction - it could be managing a team of people that clean houses, mow lawns, or any other kind of experience one might have - where a brand could be devloped with people who bring their passions together to create synergies and growth.

I get that if y’all (validators) are being a real steward of the community that you actively participate in governance and lend your experience and feedback to the process…but if there is free time, to do other things in parallel that ALSO can be benefical to the community - I for one, have some very compelling ideas to enguge community members on a level I haven’t seen in a “crypto project.”

For example: the HEMP stuff - I’ve got alot of legal agreements, and understand additonal revenue share and collabortations with chains like Regen…for carbon credits.

The 29,000 atom that I’m requesting - is a “breaking the ice” transaction - that I’d expect to lead to exploring other oppertunities for community growth.

23

Put simply, we believe your work is essential—but requesting community funding to support it does not seem like the appropriate path forward.

We recall having discussed this very topic with you privately, which is why we were quite surprised to see a formal proposal submitted to the forum requesting 29,000 ATOM. Our position on this matter remains unchanged from what we shared with you at the time: your work primarily serves private or hybrid chain implementations of the Cosmos SDK.

For further context, we refer readers to the previously shared post:
:backhand_index_pointing_right: “Cosmos: A World of Private Chains”

If these private or hybrid chains seek ISO-20022 compatibility, as they rightfully should, then they should also be prepared to compensate you appropriately through licensed usage of your contributions. We strongly encourage you to explore these more direct and fitting channels of compensation.

To Be Clear

We want to underscore how much we admire your longstanding commitment to the Cosmos ecosystem. Your technical contributions and intellectual clarity have consistently stood out, and nothing in this message should be interpreted as a dismissal of your value.

Rather, we believe that the community pool is not the right funding mechanism for this particular scope of work. We fully support your continued efforts and sincerely hope that you find the right partners and compensation model to carry it forward.

Thank you for your understanding.
Govmos
pro-delegators-sign

2 Likes
24

Appreciate the acknowledgement, but community funding is how a lot of Cosmos projects and tools get brought to market. That’s always been a reasonable request.

Our discussion was primarily about different design implementations, including how to privately assosiate the required informaiton to satisfy the basic descriptions of an ISO-definition, ie. not have presonal identifiable information stored on-chain. On the github issue I suggested that Line Financial Blockchain might want to look into building a moduel for their CBDC product that the Cosmos chains could use. The imlementaiton is Module vs Direct Inclusion in the logic as an event. A module can be built, but would primarily be a file store with the ISO definitions that are imported into the execution block of the logic…this would be a Cosmos moduel all Cosmos chains can import. It adds bloat to the kernal, that could be better addressed other ways - in my opinion. The ISO definitions still need to be purchased to build this.

We didn’t have any discussions if that is private or hybrid - it’s something all Cosmos oriented products can use, as is all the rest of the funded Cosmos tooling and projects that have been funded by the community pool.

For the Digital I.D. aspect related to Cheq’d - all chains can verifiy KYC/AML ISO compliance related to a specific address through IBC.

To be clear - there’s multiple pieces to the ISO product.

  • end-to-end KYC/AML address validation
  • a web based product
  • a cli tool
  • a Cosmos module

Some of the products, as of now, are better situated for others in the industry to head certain pieces of it…like Cheq’d, which can provide IBC validation to every IBC connected chain for the associated address on that chain. To further streamline this - there is the Interchain Name Service (ICNS) gives you one name for all IBC chains - that could auto-magically incorporate validation of all the associated cosmos address…including cosmos Atom.

A Cosmos module - is Cosmos ecosystem specific…this is what the community pool is for, and how a lot of cosmos products and tools get to market.

AS A SIDE NOTE: I’m not sure others truly understand how much work is left to get any of these solutions to market. The Web and/or Cli tool would generate the more appropraite implementation - importing a definition type is less succient than other options. It’s kind of crazy internalizing the resistence to funding that is a net positive for crypto in geneneral. It’s almost disheartening that anyone involved in crypto and invested in it’s success finds this funding request irrational or inappropriate.

25

Let us rephrase our position with the clarity it deserves.

We believe that the funding for this initiative would be more appropriately handled by the Foundation and/or direct clients of the work involved. Given the Cosmos Hub’s evolving role as a service-provider chain, as outlined in its updated roadmap, it is important that community funding in ATOM remains closely tied to the delivery of concrete interchain services.

These services include, but are not limited to:

  • Liquidity deployment and coordination
  • Shared Security mechanisms (e.g. ICS and PSS)
  • Interchain Virtual Machine (VM) offerings
  • Oracle infrastructure and related data services

From our perspective, ATOM’s community pool should prioritize funding that enhances and supports these core services, especially when they drive utility and adoption directly aligned with the Hub’s mandate.

That said, we respect the importance of your work and invite continued dialogue on how it can be integrated within the broader interchain ecosystem—potentially under the support of those who benefit most directly from it, or through the foundation which is in charge of supporting the Cosmos SDK as a whole, which your contributions seems to be much more aligned with.

2 Likes
26

#1 was based on my erroneous perspective the community would be ecstatic about this work item and contributions towards it thus far. It was contingent that #2, #3 would be funded so I could work on positive cash flow initiatives that used Cosmos hub tech.

This is just to state what my expectations on this were. Working to produce a solution for any length of time on #1 for no compensation was never in my expectation matrix.

27

How about you pitch this to a VC or some other investor and get him to purchase 29,000 ATOMs instead.

2 Likes
28

I appreciate the comment.I 'm just not sure how many people that are commenting understand what ISO-20022 is and why it’s important.

Institutional portfolio investments are in the process of being explored by several countries. This equates to billions of dollars of potential investment in this technology, in a five to twenty year range, maybe trillions.

Here is some research on governments enacting or exploring legislation to allow greater exposure to cryptocurrency markets

  • Department of Labor (DOL) Guidance: In March 2022, the DOL issued guidance urging retirement plan fiduciaries (those managing the plans) to exercise “extreme care” before adding cryptocurrency options. The guidance highlighted significant risks like volatility, valuation challenges, and potential for fraud, suggesting that offering crypto could violate a fiduciary’s duty to act prudently and in the best interest of plan participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
  • Proposed Legislation: There have been legislative efforts to counter the DOL’s cautious stance. For instance, Senator Tommy Tuberville reintroduced the “Financial Freedom Act” in April 2025. This bill aims to prevent the Secretary of Labor from limiting the types of investments offered through self-directed brokerage accounts within retirement plans. While crypto isn’t explicitly mentioned in the bill’s text, the intent is to allow participants access to investments like cryptocurrencies if they choose, arguing the DOL guidance oversteps its authority. This bill has been referred to committee and is not yet law.
  • Plan Provider Offerings: Some 401(k) providers (like ForUsAll and Fidelity) do offer options for participants to invest a small portion of their retirement savings in cryptocurrencies. This is typically done through:
    • Self-Directed Brokerage Windows (SDBAs): These allow participants access to a wider range of investments beyond the plan’s core menu.
    • Specific Crypto Windows: Some providers have created dedicated platforms for crypto investments within the 401(k).
    • These options often come with limits (e.g., ForUsAll defaults to a 5% cap on crypto allocation) and require participants to acknowledge the risks.
  • Crypto ETFs: The approval of spot Bitcoin Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) by the SEC in January 2024 allows easier, regulated exposure to Bitcoin through traditional brokerage accounts. These ETFs could potentially be included as investment options within 401(k) plans or purchased through SDBAs, subject to the plan fiduciary’s approval and adherence to their duties.
  • State-Level Activity: Some US state pension funds (e.g., Wisconsin, Michigan) have reportedly made small investments in crypto, often via ETFs. Additionally, several states have introduced or passed legislation concerning the investment of state funds (including potentially pension systems) in digital assets, often capping potential allocations at around 5% or 10%.
    International Comparison:
    It is difficult to provide an exact number of countries with similar laws, as regulations are diverse and evolving rapidly. However, based on current information:
  • Germany: Stands out with a law effective August 2, 2021, that allows certain institutional funds (“Spezialfonds”), which pension funds and insurers can use, to allocate up to 20% of their assets under management to cryptocurrencies.
  • Other Countries:
    • Canada, UK, Australia, Switzerland: Pension funds in these nations are exploring or beginning to allocate small portions to digital assets, often cautiously and sometimes through ETFs. Regulators are actively developing frameworks (e.g., Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) in the EU, developing rules in the UK, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong).
    • Japan: The world’s largest pension fund (GPIF) is researching crypto as a potential alternative asset but has not made direct investments yet.
    • South Korea: The national pension fund has shown interest through indirect investments (like buying shares in crypto exchange Coinbase).
    • South Africa: Currently prohibits pension funds from investing in crypto (under Regulation 28), citing volatility and regulatory concerns, although there are active discussions and calls to revise this as the country licenses crypto service providers.
      In summary: The premise of a US law allowing 20-40% of retirement funds in blockchain/crypto is inaccurate. While access is increasing through specific plan options and ETFs, regulatory guidance remains cautious. Internationally, Germany has a specific law allowing up to 20% for certain funds, while other countries are seeing gradual, cautious adoption and regulatory development, rather than explicit high-percentage mandates similar to the one you mentioned. The global landscape generally emphasizes fiduciary duty and prudent investing over specific percentage allowances for volatile assets like crypto in retirement portfolios.

Blockchains are a financial technology. Enhancing the systems to be compatible with the messaging standardizations increases the palpability for investment in that system, that plus whatever features/revenue streams a system has.

Here’s a comment about the importance of ISO 20022 for institutional investors:
Comment:
ISO 20022 isn’t just a technical upgrade; it’s fundamentally reshaping the operational landscape for institutional investors, making its adoption critically important. Here’s why:

  • Enhanced Data Richness: This is the core benefit. ISO 20022 messages carry significantly more detailed and structured data about transactions (payments, securities, etc.). For institutional investors managing vast, complex portfolios, this means:
    • Improved Reconciliation: Faster, more accurate matching of cash flows, trades, and corporate actions, reducing operational risk and manual effort.
    • Better Transparency: Clearer identification of counterparties, ultimate beneficiaries, and the purpose of transactions, which is crucial for compliance (AML/KYC) and risk assessment.
    • Streamlined Reporting: Richer data facilitates more efficient and accurate regulatory reporting and internal analytics.
  • Increased Straight-Through Processing (STP): The standardized, structured data enables higher rates of automation across the transaction lifecycle. This reduces manual intervention, minimizes errors, lowers costs, and speeds up settlement times – all vital for high-volume, high-value institutional flows.
  • Improved Risk Management: Better data quality and transparency provide a clearer view of counterparty exposure, liquidity positions, and potential operational bottlenecks, allowing for more proactive risk mitigation.
  • Global Interoperability: As ISO 20022 becomes the global standard across high-value payment systems and securities infrastructures, adoption ensures seamless interaction with counterparties, custodians, and market infrastructures worldwide. Staying on legacy formats creates friction and potential processing delays.
  • Foundation for Future Innovation: ISO 20022’s modern, flexible structure is better equipped to integrate with future technologies and evolving market practices, such as potential interaction with DLT or enhanced AI-driven analytics.
    In short, for institutional investors, embracing ISO 20022 is essential for maintaining operational efficiency, managing risk effectively, meeting regulatory demands, and positioning themselves for the future of global financial markets. It moves beyond basic transaction processing to become a strategic enabler.

It’s the community’s responsibility to adhere to the standards.The work performed. and information provided is in a direction that demands adherence to a professional standard that increases the value proposition of the Cosmos Atom asset.

This is not a venture capitalist proposition.

1 Like
29

Working in an environment that does use ISO certification, I understand its importance. But I’m not sure that the responsibility for funding it should fall to Atom’s community pool. I think it’s more an area for the foundation that could be interested in including this model for the entire stack.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but won’t this certification generate no direct revenue to the CP?

The CP should only be used for the ATOM community itself and should bring something back in return. Otherwise, we’re going to zero.

3 Likes
30

It’s something that will directly benefit the Atom brand. It could increase the interest for institutional investment…there is no direct revenue, per say. There would be “first mover” marketing rights…leadership like this has value, and that value can often be measured.

I don’t agree with what you’re asserting, here. This is a public good. The community should leave the door open to funding administrative work, legal work, valuable research, etc…this is infrastructure that is required for the most basic ISO-20022 minimal compliance.

For example: using community funding, there could be more work to do to create better ISO-20022 definitions that better match the functionality of blockchain technologies, funding a legal representative to help inform the direction of policy - these are all reasonable non-revenue generating activities - that may get exposure and represent active participation in activities that leads to larger investments.

Crypto.com didn’t spend 700 million dollars over 20 years for stadium naming rights for nothing.

31

While this is an interesting concept I think this will need a lot more of planning and proper execution hence why I think it would be a no from me at this time.

So the first big reason is I think something like this would need to be executed across multiple chains and this would need to be a collective effort. Here is the main reason. Your “script” as you called it I think it wouldn’t work on all chains.
Not every cosmos SDK chain uses Wasm or Solidity for adding functionality to the chains. In cosmos SDK you can develop your own modules that could differ from other chains and in theory you wouldn’t need smart contract on every chain.

And I haven’t mentioned even the IBC in all of these. I haven’t found any data related to the ISO 20022 but how much of the data would need to confirm if someone really did send assets to the bank for an example. Would bank need data from the IBC headers that are usually protobuf encoded for example? And if so is this in compliance with the ISO?

And if the user executed some kind of smart contract how would that work with the bank?

Also there are at least over 40 types of messages in Cosmos that are regular but I think they span over 60, and that is without custom modules on the chain. How do you actually plan to standardize every transaction on the chain to the ISO standards? Because every transaction is different in it’s own way.

I found on multiple places XML being mentioned. Would this require implementing new API endpoint into the nodes that would return the data in the XML format?

You mentioned usage of NFTs? How do you plan to implement this on the chains that do not have CosmWasm? What if someone made their own implementation of some virtual machine? For this part to work there would need to exist some kind implementation so any chain could implement this.

So a lot of questions yet your proposal lack any details of how do you plan to implement this…

To summarize:

  • Will this require any modification to the node and how they operate?
  • How do you plan to enforce a standard when there are a lot of different types of messages?
  • How do you plan to introduce NFT ID in chains that do not use Wasm?
  • Is this strictly a Cosmos Hub feature or will this be available to anyone using Cosmos SDK?
  • In the events that some transaction originates from other chain executed via IBC hooks, middleware or executed with some smart contract how will this be tracked on the Cosmos hub by some authority like banks?

Also what do you mean by retroactive funding request? If you needed to purchase some rights to do a research you should have stated it like that. But any work that went into it without any product won’t probably pass. But even if you had some working demo asking retroactive funding would be wrong, No one asked you to take the initiative and to work for free. Any time that went into research and developing a demo is unfortunately a part of the process. I understand that you might have spent days, weeks even months. Also you are not the first to do something in the advance if I remember there was a couple of years ago some fiasco on Evmos if I remember correctly.

So make a detailed plan on how will this be executed and ask for the funding for the upcoming development.

1 Like
32

It’s actually well planned out. There is a Zero-Knowledge Proof that is sent to verifier server - from the KYC-AML regulatory authority. Once that hits the Interchain Name Service (ICNS) there is an attestation that validates they are KYC/AML verified. That is replicated to ever ICNS chain.

It’s done this way because the verifier logic CAN NOT be stored on-chain.

ZK-Stark.drawio
ZK-Stark.drawio1399×1078 124 KB

This is for a separate piece of the tooling. The “script” is just a code sample to represent to those that understand what the script does - how I would go about making an “OpenZeppelin” like ISO product. There is alot of work still to do on it — hence the funding request, Each ISO definition is VERY VERBOSE. We need minimal complicance.

The data would be emitted on chain and stored on chain and matched to the KYC/AML validation of the address submitted to the KYC/AML validation authority. If the money is deposited to the back that will be handled by the onramp/offramp organization — like coinbase. That is coinbases responsibility. What the chain would represent is X amount of tokens was sent from Y address to Z address - and/or what ever ISO definition the logic achieved.

I’ve addressed some of this in this comment here below…the contract generation tool would create a “stub” contract that can be extended by the developer for bespoke logic. It would provide a general blueprint for use.

No, no need for an XML endpoint - the definition type just needs to be added to event execution logic.

I did not make any mention of using NFTs - it is not in my original proposal, or design docs nor is it a process that keeps personal identifiable information private. My mention of NFT anything was a response to @jacobgadikian.

My proposal has design docs and code — from end-to-end.

import { SigningStargateClient, GasPrice } from "@cosmjs/stargate";
import { Tendermint34Client } from "@cosmjs/tendermint-rpc";
import axios from "axios";
import { EventData } from "@cosmjs/tendermint-rpc/build/tendermint34/types"; // Import EventData type

// ... (RPC and Chain ID setup)

// 2. Event Subscription (Modified)
const query = "tm.event = 'Tx'"; 
// Use a more generic query to capture all transaction events
// More specific queries can be used to listen to only specific module events

async function main() {
  const tendermintClient = await Tendermint34Client.connect(rpcEndpoint);

  await tendermintClient.subscribe({ query }, (event: EventData) => {
    const txHash = event.data.tx.hash; 
    const events = event.events; // Extract all events from the transaction

    // Iterate through all events in the transaction
    for (const eventType in events) {
      const attributes = events[eventType];

      for (const attribute of attributes) {
        // Example: Check if it's a transfer event
        if (eventType === "transfer") {
          const sender = attributes.find((attr) => attr.key === "sender")?.value;
          const recipient = attributes.find((attr) => attr.key === "recipient")?.value;
          const amount = attributes.find((attr) => attr.key === "amount")?.value;

          // Send data to endpoint (optional)
          try {
            await axios.post("YOUR_ENDPOINT_URL", {
              txHash,
              eventType, // Include event type
              sender,
              recipient,
              amount,
            });
          } catch (error) {
            console.error("Error sending data:", error);
          }
        }
        
        // ... (Add other event types to parse as needed)
      }
    }
  });
}

main().catch((error) => console. Error(error));

KYC_-_ZK-STARK_sequence
KYC_-_ZK-STARK_sequence812×489 13 KB

ALSO:

I WELCOME TECHNICAL REVIEW AND CRITIQUE - POSSBILE ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

If you don’t know what your looking at or talking about ---- please invest more time to have a better understanding so that you can communite intelligently and professionally about high-level subjects.

A good lawyer might charge 400/hr. to talk about some words on some paper. I’m not a fan of using my time responding to what I know to be illinformed counterparties communicating generally detracting or negative things about which they know little about.

33

Yes, as you can see, anyone can ask the ATOM community for money. It’s time to destroy all the ATOM in the community fund pool.

2 Likes
34

It’s the merrit of the proposals that should be assessed. I’m actually not too against buring tokens, but there should be clear resasons for doing so on that position that is intelligently articulated.

I also should add - that I’ve also suggested these businesses should be registered business where funding is assessed based on the merrit of the proposal. I’m a registered 501(c)3 that is current with all my filing. I’m also a registered government contractor - CAGE #8S7A3.

35

We have been operating at - (MINUS) 100% to - (MINUS) 200% for the past several years. The only funding we have is securing networks, which dont cover half of what we spend.

I honestly dont feel like our work is a joke. So… Unsure what to say mate.

1 Like
36

Hey a little confused by this comment, ISO 20022 has been around and adopted by TradFi for a long time. Also, I see no compelling reason at all for a blockchain to become compliant with this, as it is a messaging standard unnecessary for a decentralized database. I also work in compliance as my main job, ISO isn’t even what the US gov would contract with. Anyways, I also got my coding project shot down and sold it to Solana instead. I would probably vote yes on this just to support actual contributions to the Hub, but you seem like a smart and capable guy and I think some work on something functionally relevant would be more useful.

1 Like
37

Some systems adopted it and some are in the process. When repurposing methods and processes for systems that function differently it creates new fields of oppertunity for Intelletcual Property.

Everything explained in this post is the compelling reason for blockchain systems to become compliant. It’s better to be proactive and work towards the ISO-20022 standard that will provide assurance to retirement funds managers, investment fund mangers and others — so that if these systems become more palpable to those kinds of fund managers — we’re operating at the professional standards of tri-fi systems.

ISO is a message standardization for system to system communication. It just so happens that FED-wire and banks are adopting this standardizaiton. So will EU banks, BRICKS finanical banks, ect…it’s a gloabal standardization for bank to bank communicaiton.

For you to work in compliance, you’d have to explain in what regard this standard wouldn’t have relevance to the US banking system - becuase that statement is catagoically false.

What do you mean by “ISO isn’t even what the US gov would contract with?”

There is several moving parts to this system. This would be for compliance in the Cosmos community. The logic for that system explained here is 70ish % correct, but I know of another professional blockchain system with a functional programming language that I got some experience with in the past.

We could try to create a decentralized automous compliance system on something like FileCoin that’ll scale, but what I’ve propsed relies on a Traditonal Tri-Fi system that’s already integrated with Cheq’d…it reduces the work load significantly. It could be accomplished with or with-out using a zero-knowledge proof. It can be done either way.

38

I’ve seen the posts from validators that are operating in the profit, and those that aren’t. I don’t know what the divide is there and what those balances are like. I’m clearly in the dark pertaining y’alls operating costs and profit. Thanks for this bit of info. I think there’s oppertunity here — and it’s not a joke.

39

I don’t do anything in TradFi banking, so if it’s required, you’re probably correct.

The OMB issues circulars which function as standards that federal agencies must follow. The 2016 revision of A-130 states that federal agencies shall:

  • “Consult National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) and NIST Special Publications (SPs) (e.g., 500, 800, and 1800 series guidelines)” (p. 6).
  • “Implement security policies issued by OMB, as well as requirements issued by the Department of Commerce, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). This includes applying the standards and guidelines contained in the NIST FIPS, NIST SPs (e.g., 800 series guidelines), and where appropriate and directed by OMB, NIST Interagency or Internal Reports (NISTIRs)” (p. 18).

These two sentencies establish the requirement that federal agencies implement NIST SP 800 series documents. Beyond the requirements for federal agencies, there is another requirement nested in OMB A-130. It also states that agencies shall:

  • “Provide adequate security for all information created, collected, processed, stored, transmitted, disseminated, or disposed of by or on behalf of the agency, to include Federal information residing in contractor information systems and networks” (Appendix I-3)
  • “Ensure that terms and conditions in contracts and other agreements involving the creation, collection, use, processing, storage, maintenance, dissemination, disclosure, and disposal of Federal information, incorporate security and privacy requirements and are sufficient to enable agencies to meet Federal and agency-specific requirements pertaining to the protection of Federal information” (Appendix I-14).
  • “Ensuring that security and privacy controls of such information systems and services are effectively implemented and comply with NIST standards and guidelines and agency requirements” (Appendix I-14).

Here, we see the requirement that non-federal agencies which operate federal information systems and services must comply with NIST standards.

So, sorry for the book length response :sweat_smile: but what I mean by “ISO isn’t even what the US gov would contract with” is that federal agencies (“US gov”) and organizations that contract with the US gov must explicitly adhere to NIST standards (i.e., 800-53) which is already much more comprehensive than ISO standards (800-53 has over 1000 controls).

But, like I said, I would vote yes for this, and if ISO is needed for banking, then you’re probably right. If you all need any help with implementation (e.g., ZKPs), feel free to hmu too.

1 Like
40

I don’t do anything in TradFi banking, so if it’s required, you’re probably correct.

ISO-20022 is just a standardization for the communication between two banking entities. It doesn’t have to be tri-fi related.

So, sorry for the book length response

Thank you for your lengthy response, but I’m unclear how NIST supersedes ISO-20022 as they have two distinct purposes…I haven’t done a deep dive into NIST - but if I recall correctly this is more for authentification and authorization to acesss different parts of a system — as opposed to the data shared between instituations about a financial transaction and assosiated parties.

ISO-20022 is needed for financial insituations to stay relevant - SWIFT, FedWire, EBU and probably the entire financial industry - ie. BRICKs is adopting the ISO-20022 messaging standard.

I’ve got some things that I’m working on…this ISO product is one of them, I have winterfell spec’d as the ZKP solution - I’ve completed a projet using ZKPs, but I have another project I’m working towards too. Both have a large portion of the code/project already completed…

I think the more labor intensive part is enguaging those in the community so that more people use stable coins and Keplr or whattever - to do business transactions using Atom and other blockchains platforms as the payment rails. Payment splitters can be added so that all parties - including any potential mico-loan a DAO makes get the right profit share — including paying down the principle on the micro-loan.

Two Examples:
Community Gym — with additional lifestyle services, and real-estate developments to provide healthy outdoor activities
Tree-trimming, yard work and light maintenance — floods, tornados, high-winds, ect…that constantly make this kind of work in-demand. Other people who want to landscape or yard maintenacne.

There’s even oppertunity for disaster-response oppertunities, more along the lines of NIST requirements…but, alot of recovery money provided for clean-up for those kinds of disasters. I’m wondering what NIST thinks of quantum resistant encrypted decentralized systems, with granular level access and authorization on the decrption side.

Thinking about the security vulnerabilites using these relatively new tools at our disposal is honestly a conundrum, but I do understand how one could architect a clearence system for differenent levels of security clearance using them. New tools like - Muli-Party Computation (MPC). Could even do something like - hit 5 api endpoints to recieve 5 JWT tokens that you need to mint a token for time constrained top security clearance.

https://y8-app.vercel.app/ <— this is the app that I’m working on for some my organizational objectives, I seek to adhere to the necessary ISO definitions for the use cases implemented and have been contemplating developing the services in phases — the real-estate development concept is a massive undertaking. I also have a food security concept that is complementary which happens to have a lot of agriculute planning related with a successful international vision
https://goodfaith.church <---- Y8 is what I’ve described as a sister-service on the landing page.

No project too big or small — depending on your level of knowledge, and of course, it never hurts to have other capable minds see the light at the end of the tunnel and realize the vision isn’t so much about me as it is us.

1000000326
10000003261920×1446 549 KB

1000000327
10000003271920×1446 319 KB

41

800-53 is way more than A&A, and I’ve never seen a single ISO control that wasn’t covered by it. I know of no organization in the US that uses ISO if they use the RMF. If you can point me to any control that is not covered by 800-53, I’d be happy to change this stance.