The background of GITA is on April 21st, Jaclyn was invited to give a talk at a Showtime. Her topic was "ICO Transparency Platform." The idea of Jaclyn was that we would create an ICO transparency platform in Taiwan to bridge the information imparity between investors and projects. The initial idea was just for a Taiwan-based platform.

After her talk, Mik and Hida-san -- they were the other two speakers on her panel -- they approached her. They echoed the same sentiments that she had, that we needed this type of platform on a global basis, not just a Taiwan-based platform.

They talked to her. Mik invited Jaclyn to go to Hong Kong a couple of weeks later to talk to industry leaders. On May 6th, 2018...

That’s the agreement?

That’s the MOU.

We have about 19 industry leaders in the ICO industry signing this MOU, agreeing to the mission of the GITA, so those are five points there. That was from April 21st to May 6. That was pretty quick.

Half a month.

Yup. [laughs]

Yeah. I see the "By the Taiwanese representatives" here.

Yes!

Meaning that no other countries’ technologies can serve as the initial development platform?

It’s Taiwanese exclusive.

For the first prototype anyway, but yes. This is great.

That’s the most important part.

I see that.

[laughs]

From May 6th, then we jumped to July 19th, 2018. That’s when we created our foundation council. The foundation council is comprised of eight individuals. They’re leaders within their own jurisdictions. We have Taiwan. We have Korea. We have Singapore, Netherlands, Vietnam and a couple more that kind of...

They’re all in the private sectors, though?

They are.

Yes.

Yes. They are in the private sectors.

Very important.

It’s an industrial self-regulatory organization...

That’s right.

We also had our first batch of Supernodes who signed on July 19th. Two months after they signed the MOU, we set up the foundation council and our first batch of Supernodes.

Then on October 4th, 2018, we finally established our entity. It’s actually a Singapore foundation. They call it a company limited by guarantee, but in general it’s known as a Singapore foundation. The name is Global ICO Transparency Alliance.

We have basic global influence. We do a lot of activities around the globe, not just in Taiwan, because we’re trying to be a global organization. A couple of weeks ago, we co-hosted the first global conference on future of security tokens in Hong Kong. A few weeks before that, Jaclyn was here talking to the Taiwan government, introducing the GITA for the first time at the press conference.

September 16th, we were in Vietnam talking on their cryptocurrency developments and regulations. This was actually the first time this was discussed in Vietnam. The conference was put together by one of our foundation council members. After Jaclyn gave her talk, the ministers in Vietnam actually said that they will recommend what Jaclyn said.

Like a reference implementation?

Yeah.

You can see that our foundation council members, they have some types of influence in their jurisdictions. We had Kevin talking in Malaysia. This is Alice Chen. She is one other foundation council member. Also, she heads our Supernodes Steering Committee. She’s talking in Singapore. Then we had Mik talking in China. We did go around the globe introducing our alliance and then our mission.

Our basic mission, first, is to protect investors. We saw a lot of scams in the last two years. What we’re trying to do is to bridge that information gap to reduce the number of scams in the ICO industry. The second is to create an industry standard for self-disclosure. The third is to create a forum for some knowledge-sharing and industry improvement.

I like your wording. Crowdfunding campaigns on blockchain.

It’s really precise.

Like the word ICO. [laughs]

That’s exactly right.

At the core of the GITA is the transparency platform. As I mentioned, we really want to bridge information gap between investors and the issuers. Our platform will allow issuers to post pre- and post-crowdfunding information. Unlike some other information disclosure platforms that we’ve seen are rating agencies that only follow the pre-ICO crowdfunding, we also want to do the post-crowdfunding.

The accountability part, which is the real important part.

Exactly. As we mentioned, this is a self-regulatory organization or what we’re trying to do is make it self-regulate. The disclosure items are filled in at the discretion of the issuers. Also, the issuers have to ensure their own accuracy.

What we do is we have the public monitoring. Individuals who register on our platform using their real name and as subject to KYC, they can comment on the information disclosed by the issuers.

If we see something that’s incorrect, somebody knows that, and they want to express their opinions that it’s incorrect, they can actually put that on there using their real name. The projects themselves can then respond to what the register...

...say.

This is consistent in the pre- and post-stages.

Yes.

That’s awesome.

Everything that is posted on the platform will basically be open to the public. Everybody can see all the responses. Everybody can see all the responses to disclosure items made by the project. If they make any amendments later, you can also go to history and see what they had previously stated.

This public monitor is open not just for the people who come into it and people who in the alliance but really for the general public.

Yeah.

That’s great.

[laughs]

The next question would be, is it on a distributed ledger itself, like InterPlanetary File System or something like that? The blockchain is pretty good for this use also.

That’s something we need to discuss a bit more.

That’s the reasons why we are here.

Oh really? Cool.

Then we have a transparency index. Basically, on the platform, we’ll be able to sort by the percentages of disclosure made by a project. If you’re a investor and you want to see projects that have disclosed above 50 percent, you can sort it by percentage disclosure. Then, look at the top 50 percent.

Also, we have verifications. A lot of issuers might say, "Oh," for example, "Jaclyn Tsai is their advisor." Unless Jaclyn goes and confirms it, they won’t get a verified check on it. That’s pretty important because we’ve talked to a few of our foundation council members. A lot of their names have been used inappropriately by projects because of their reputation.

Vitalik has to change his Twitter handle to Vitalik "Not giving away Ethereum" Buterin.

Because it’s been asked so much. [laughs]

As we’ve said, we are trying to create industry standard for self-disclosure. What we did was, when we creating the disclosure items, we reference a lot of the suggested disclosures by different governments and industries. We created from that list, a list about 75 different items.

From that 75 different items, we went through it. We selected the ones that we felt were mandatory for investors to know.

75 in general.

Right now, there’s about 75.

Then the one that are mandatory are...

About 37.

Thank you.

Once the project fills in the 37 items, then they can get a mark that’s saying that they’ve met the GITA minimum standard. You can have some types of assurance as a investor that if you find a project that has our mark, they have actually made the disclosures that we thought are important to them.

Awesome.

Operational guidelines, who can post? Issuers can post after they’re being introduced by a Node. Nodes are basically entities that provide services to ICOs. It could be a crypto exchange. It could be advisors. It could be just different entities who are involved in this ecosystem.

While the issuers are responsible for the accuracy of their own information, there is an implicit filtering mechanism, because on the platform, when a Node introduces an issuer, you’ll be able to see the Node’s name. They’ll be the referring Node. As a referencing Node, you don’t want to be the one that refers a lot of scam projects onto the platform.

What happens if you do do that?

When you do do that, you can still have the projects on there. I think the public will see that the projects that you’ve been referring are basically not very legitimate. When investors go onto the platform, they probably won’t be looking for the projects that you referred.

I ask because in a crypto 1.0, before the whole blockchain stuff, we have the secure HTTP connection. The mark of a secure website is issued by, as you know, the certificate authorities, the issuers, which is very similar to this model.

There’s some rogue CAs that just randomly issue SSL certificates to I wouldn’t say malicious but negligent actors. After some point, that CA may be penalized by being removed by consensus of other root CAs from the root CA list. Basically, the issuing certificate for them for those websites no longer count as secure by a consensus of people who run the root CAs.

I’m just wondering whether there is such kind of a process when a supernode or multiple supernodes decide that a node is just not trustworthy where you can delist it or at least mark it somehow.

We should leave this issues to discuss among the supernode communities.

We arise that issues too. We have discussed that for long how we can verify a node that are doing bad things, how can we list them, or just let them go because we are quite global. We have discussed with more...

Obviously. I’m just saying that there is an existing what we call the public key infrastructure model that you can look toward as a way for the industry to self-regulate. Because, again, that is not government mandated, this is basically community of certificate issuers, exactly like this works.

One of the supernode obligations that’ll be in one of the last slides, we do have an obligation for them to uphold the integrity and credibility of the GITA. That would probably fall under that type of concept.

It is a supernode level one.

That can probably also be put in the Node level obligations.

As for who can view? Based on our intention to make the industry more robust, we want everybody to be able to be able to view the information. It’s not going to be restricted by people who register.

Everybody, including humans and robots.

Then, who can download? Certain information will be free. Some information will be downloaded for a fee. We do need the fee for operational purposes. ICR rating or rating agencies can actually use this information for their purposes by paying a fee. That’s who can download.

Who can challenge the accuracy? We were talking about how registered members can comment by using their real names. Then also, again, the comments and responses will be fully reflected on our platform.

This is our governance model. On the top, we have the foundation council which, as mentioned, was formed by the eight members in different jurisdiction. Then we have four committees transversing platform, supernodes, administrative, and treasury.

Jaclyn is the chair of the transparency platform committee. Of course, Kevin is one of the leads in the transparency platform committee. In that committee, we do the development of the platform. Also, we update the disclosure items.

Underneath, we have, of course, the transparency platform. Then we have the supernodes who are like the community leaders, coordinators in their jurisdictions, and then also the Nodes.

But there could be multiple supernodes within one jurisdiction?

Definitely. There can be as many there needs to be.

Currently, we will have five supernodes in Taiwan.

This is our foundation council list of members. We see that it’s from some pretty major jurisdictions. Then a lot of them from blockchain associations. This is our first batch of supernodes that we sign on on July 19th.

Then a brief description why people should join as supernodes. Basically, because we are a global alliance, we do have a strong network. That is one of the reason why being a supernode would be beneficial.

Then also we want to create a community. What we’re trying to do is have people attend these meetings and also discuss the future of the industry.

Do they have to pay annual fee to be supernode?

Yes. [laughs] The next slide is on the obligations. We have an annual fee of 5,000 for commercial entities and then 1,000 for nonprofits. Then participation, we hope that they attend supernode meetings and also they attend our events. So we can actually create a community.

Then they need to recommend projects on the platform, which is important to have information there, and then promote the GITA. Also, maintain integrity, credibility of the GITA. Basically, that is what our organization is.

Those three. Awesome. Thank you. This slide itself, is it public online on the GITA home page?

We can make it public on the home page. We’ve been creating it on https://gita.foundation/.

Because after 10 days of editing, I will be releasing this transcript. It would be awesome if we could just link to the gita.foundation home page so that people can actually understand what we’re talking about in the slides.

This is very well to put together. Congrats.

我們等一下會來demo platform？

The next part will be the live demo?

That’s the part we need to...

When Jaclyn comes with me and telling me this idea, I say, "Yeah, wow," and not organizing and just talking about ring the whole committee and nothing else. I just suggest that we all just made a platform. That’s why we are here. We need some pair from that committee. We’re some kind of saying that maybe rule-maker and what.

Many committee associations don’t really have a platform to let the real committee or the commercials to do something. We just made a platform. We say, "Those information actually, we make it in a website." I can send you a later today about this website. Actually made the platform.

Now the platform is still under development but some project are reaching now. We need to communicate with projects that actually doing ICOs or want to do ICOs to let them give some comments. It’s actually gita.foundation. That’s the development platform here. Maybe you can click to the projects.

This is an iPad. Feel free.

Some sort of ideas that we have some transparency level. We say that, because we believe that if the projects, we discuss as much information as possible, there are some kinds of ledger. If you got many, then you don’t want the public to know you are some kinds of, maybe, scammy. It doesn’t like it.

If you’re willing to public more stuffs, or to let the public criticize, or information, or even let VCs and the community to view and comment out. We just list out some sorts of image, that how the product it goes there.

First is the testing, but this one is a Taiwan project now, that is going to be great and we can go inside...

The percentage means the self-disclosure items, right?

Yes.

The percentage of self-disclosure or whatever.

Yeah, just the items they disclose, but yeah, maybe some concern that maybe they just fill order fills get 100 percent. If you are bringing not right information, or just, yes...Yeah. [laughs] Yeah will just see that all, while you just want to make it 100 percent, and just do wrong things. That’s your representation to world, where you’re at.

Yeah, sure, of course.

This is actually one of the Taiwan project here that Jaclyn likes to fill in. They gave us many comment, because they are willing really in there, real business stuff is said. Many... right now is commenting in...is quite long.

They want us to refine the whole process. We are doing that also. Many projects just want to come and join our platform, and we just opened the access for them to fill in. We are now refining the whole process. Just a one development problems has quite happen early.

Joined our platform two days, to make the development push forward. You can see we’ve got many items for filling this. We just ask for how many you can fill in. You just fill in to see how the performance on that.

I think that -- sorry, but just nitpicking -- I think the slash between Taiho imposition and between bio and profile is kind of confusing. If you scroll down, you can see here, that like the slash here, and the slash here.

Usually, it’s like either/or, right? Bio and profile is pretty synonyms. It’s kind of confusing. What I’m saying is that maybe it makes sense to just use one word.

Yeah, that’s why we were quite so close for later, now, and still refining the wording. Actually, Jaime take a list. We go and refine this page all by the picture.

Yeah, I like the visual side though.

We actually launched this because the first prototype usually is very problematic.

Yeah, I know. HR and everything like that.

We made it to collect more comments about our committee, because maybe what we are thinking about are not really the people doing actual business want to feel, or they feel that this troubles them or what. We’re working to try them out.

If you have a newer demo, feel free just to hijack the airplane.

OK.

You can see, there’s many quite items in there, and we think that maybe people need to really think about order this item here, too, to fill in, before they are really doing business.

Yeah.

In last year, many items just come up with the idea, and say, "I want money." They got nothing. We want people to really arise that they need to think more about this issue. We communicated with many investors and the communities, and they’re really concerned about all this issues.

Jaime, can you hijack,the document?

I am opening our systems.

Sure, no problem.

Yeah, so...

This is in closed-beta, and there’s quite a few real cases on it already?

Yeah, because many projects actually really just contacted us, and they wanted to try out the platform, because they think the guy is really great. We open the access for them to try. Some are still preparing their stuff to put on it, because they know we are investors looking.

Maybe some sorts of this, they think it is too long, so we see how we can make it more better to present their information.

OK.

That’s what the problem. Actually really working, we focus our trying their best to give us the real showcases about what we can improve. I’m quite impressed about that already. Many say that it’s too long, so you should cut it down.

You can have some folded, and ellipses, and click to expand.

That’s the next version.

Yeah, the next version.

I’m sure. I think it’s a pretty good first prototype. It’s more obvious now that you’re showing this, if you have any example that is in a post stage, like post prior of sales, or post...

Yeah, the post-axial.

Yeah, is there any?

Not yet, actually. We are inviting them. I assume that post-axial project, they are working hard.

Of course, but some of them may want the publicity.

Some contact us, actually, but they are still giving comment that because they don’t want to make such long descriptions. They gave us comments, "Could you just cut it down," or whatever.

Use a template, or some template use, or something like that.

Yeah.

OK.

We are just refining this process and make it more presentable to the public. They don’t just want to put up tons of work, and make that people don’t want to do that project. They concerned about their brand.

Yes.

We actually got many comments back. I am quite happy about that. Jaime made a new, a hijack...

Yeah, do hijack.

It’s in a Word document right now. We need to update it, but these are the new questions that we have after talking to several projects, and also other people in the industry. The questions are a lot more simplified, and not as open-ended as the other questions that you saw before.

Then we also have a marking of which questions are required for our disclosure standard marking. We’re trying to make it so that they can actually select more multiple choices, rather than open-ended.

Yeah.

There is about 75 questions. I assume...

That’s the new version?

This is the new version that we were going to add stuff off of.

This is much more structured.

Yes.

Yeah.

It’s probably a lot easier for projects to post information, too. Feel free to stop me if there’s anything you want to take a closer look at.

Yeah. The very first question that...

The very first question?

Scrolling too fast.

Yeah. I see the structure, this is great. I’m just nitpicking the "i.e." there. Maybe "e.g.," or something?

Yes.

Thank you.

Also, what about, here you say, "Detailed description of concrete project timeframe," but the subitems, item six, scroll down a little bit. What does "End Date" even mean? Does it mean end of the initial token you join, and of what?

Sometimes it’s in stages. Well, it’s always in stages, so it’s more like milestones. Some projects may have two, may have three, may have four. If you have a start and end date of process, that’s great, but it doesn’t say anything about in the middle milestones.

Yeah. Not end of the business. [laughs] I get that.

Maybe start issuing, or end issuing, or something like that. The current wording, it’s like it’s the end date of the project itself, which is definitely not true.

Not.

OK.

We could make that "Major Milestones."

Yeah, major milestones, that also works. Otherwise, I don’t have any problem. This is very, very good. I will stop picking typos like describe in question five, should be DE, or whatever, but this is just me being pedantic.

Yes.

The structure is great. Yeah, OK. Cool. Anything I can help?

OK。找你的原因是因為一直很喜歡這一個platform怎麼樣跟g0v合作，我也跟IPA談過，因為這個對於新的領域，我們怎麼樣說政府可以少管一點，我們民間自己來管。IPA提出第一個問題是，我們這個平台是不是可以open source？

對啊！內容先不管，至少技術是open source。

因為我們某一個程度要大家進來，也有某一個程度的客觀……安全性也很重要，就是很希望讓大家相信這個平台。

對啊！

所以我很希望跟g0v合作，但是是不是要用open source，這個是前提，因為跟g0v合作的前提是open source。

對，我也支持open source。

因為事實上你們上面每一個crypto currency大概也都是用open source的區塊鏈，不然無法取信於人。

這個是第一個，如果也同意，我們就是走open source。

當然。

我們要去挖坑。

12月？

12月8日我們要提這一個案子，現在這整個事情，比如我們要去提之前先跟你討論一下，因為你最瞭解整個運作，所以聽聽你的意見，就是這整個架構，如果要用open source的話。

提案的時候，最好給一個github的網址，因為這樣大家有什麼想法，就會直接用那個issue，就不用一個個面對面談。

對，本來是等這一個project完成之後就立馬就會open source。

對，但是我的意思是open source是release early release often，即使你有一個像剛剛show的版本，等於根本不是beta，是early offer，是很明確地這樣說，這樣子反而大家更容易幫忙。

因為你做到很完美了，反而只有很專業的人來幫你的忙，不如把不太專業的狀態先提出來。

就是掉鏈寄給人家填？

對。就是你不如是到那個時候，實質開發的狀況怎麼樣就那樣子，然後你可以說我們有另外一個設計稿，這一個設計稿當然更好，我們徵求志工願意把這個設計稿做出來，或者即使不願意，至少試用一下這個設計稿，讓我們看一下會不會比目前這一個草稿來得好一些之類的。

視覺設計上，我覺得剛才不管你們的首頁或者是這一些視覺影像都非常成熟了。像我們的社會企業也有社會企業自律平台，還有一個很明白的治理模式，有一個自律名單之類的，當然這也是沒有一般政府單位去介入的。

我覺得費用或者是年費、流程、審查會議等等，我想這個是你只要能夠用中文，把它講清楚一次，就是剛剛那個簡報，可能稍微簡化一點，然後畫成比較像這樣子的申請流程或者是流程圖，看如果我是一個project或者是node，從我的角度來看，GITA是怎麼回事，可能兩張簡單的流程圖，其實大家就會很清楚了。

所以我們去黑客松是要用中文的？

那邊當然也有講英語的，如果你只講英語的，可能會進來的人是1/5或者是1/4，或者是你pitch的方式是，你簡報是英文的，但是你講中文，當然如果你偏好講英語的話，那這也可以，簡報就要是中文，要放subtitle，也就是雙語的人可以跟上你的思想，這樣是比較好，但是大部分的人還是講中文，然後用英文簡報。

我就是用中文講，然後用英文寫簡報？

對。

你覺得會有人跳坑嗎？

會啊，只要你很明確說你需要什麼。

今天就是要來聽這一句話！

是，就是先說清楚需要什麼，因為鏈圈現在大部分的專案，大部分都是用來責信，就是不是用來當作投資，而是用來當作責信的工具。

什麼是責信？

舉一個很實際的例子來講。大家都聽過我們有一個叫做民生公共物聯網，相關的社群是g0v零時空污觀測網，這個是視覺化的專案，也就是g0v的專案，而後面的資訊其實除了公部門之外，大部分是一些叫做「空氣盒子」公民科學家們，很培養用2,000元左右的台幣，就可以買一個小盒子放在自己的家裡、陽台或者是學校做環境教材，任何人都可以很快知道不是非常準，但是趨勢沒有錯pm 2.5等等的一些濃度，所以你就不需要等環保署在你家附近測站，你就立刻可以收到這個資訊。

並不是自己使用，而是上載到雲端，這個雲端是由中研院陳伶志領導叫做LASS社群，這個社群就會一次把所有這一些個人的貢獻匯聚在一起，幾千個點就可以一次看到這一張圖非常明顯的，我們可以看到臺灣數位落差的狀況……不是（笑）；就可以看到臺灣實際空氣品質的狀況。

鏈圈這個的關係是因為有一個分散式帳本叫做「IOTA」，我們也知道小光這一些社群的朋友們也在投入，他們也說這一個東西行政院希望全部都匯集到國家網路中心來進行運算，不同的來源、不同的老師們就會說片面的資料不會打口水帳，而是用完全相同的資料，只是拼自己的演算法，這個當然對我們做科學非常有幫助，所以我們就專門給了一個國家級的網域，「ci」是Civil IoT，但是也有collective intelligence的意思。

但是公民社群，尤其是一些環團的朋友們，就會說把資料給了國網，如果國網選舉前篡改我們的資料，我們怎麼知道呢？他們可能是多心了，因為國網對選舉沒有興趣，但是大家會有這一種疑慮，這樣子鏈圈的朋友們就會說：「很簡單，你就是每一天上傳之前，你做一個快照，快照放到分散式的帳本裡面，國網也只是一個，不過是那五個，所以任何人需要篡改，其實其他人都知道了，而且無法篡改。」這個是分散式帳本是一個用途，因此民間的朋友很願意貢獻自己的資料，因為他們知道事後可以稽核，而且不會被國家的力量篡改，這個是很重要的。

其實行政院也有自己想要量測的地方，但是我們就抱持著打不過就加入的精神，所以他們沒有顧到的點，境外好比像這裡，這裡是很重要的，就是到底哪裡是境外、哪裡是境內的，是在臺灣海峽上，但是這個點位，我想公民科學家大概是不會去補的，但是我們會，因為我們離岸風機加在這個地方，所以我們可以放在離岸的風力發電機上，但是同樣的，因為風力發電機理論上也不是行政院直接控制，而是一個可能外商跟本土商家的結合，因此願意用相同的API、願意使用分散式帳本技術，誰也不用特別相信誰，最後的資料，大家還是可以共用，g0v的朋友對這樣的用法是非常支持的。

好比你說「我們裡面可公開、可自由下載的部分，我們希望找到人來幫助，想放到分散式帳本裡面」。這個是非常明確的坑，而且你們大概還沒有寫好這個部分。

再講一遍。

就是任何人都可以下載、不用付會員費就可以取得的部分，就是基本資訊的部分，如果你們現在在提案裡面說希望有鏈圈的工程師來協助，把我們這一些基礎資料全部放在事後不可抹滅、撤銷的分散式的系統裡，這個至少有一個好處。

基本資料誰都可以來改，但是網站上是新版的，整個修改的紀錄就不會有篡改的問題，像時間點A說了這個，大家進行一番討論，大家變成了B，但是時間點變成B改的時候，可能想要消除這個黑歷史，但是事實上這個黑歷史才是你們存在的意義。

沒錯。

IPFS……

對，所以你可能很明確地說：「我們需要懂IPFS的工程師，然後把可公開的部分定期、每一天上傳到IPFS去。」這個是很漂亮、形狀的坑，因為懂IPFS不少，早期放到上面的話，這比source code公開都來得重要，因為source公開都還要花時間去看，但是基本上放在IPFS上，github這個網站即使被怎麼樣了，我自己可以在IPFS上重建一些最基本的資訊，這個是非常好的形狀。

當然，類似的形狀，我想學技術的可以想到很多，但是只要把明確開出來，相信是絕對有神跳坑的。

你有沒有什麼想法？因為接下來我們的窗口是……

她今天是第一天……

你今天是第一天嗎？

沒有，她自己有在開班，是自由工作者。

之前是by project，現在是全職的。

空氣污染是真的有用區塊鏈技術？

對，你只要找IOTA、airbox，應該就會找到。

作為一個媒體，這個是很好的題材。

對。而且他們也還有想要引入跟剛剛講的一個一樣信用評等的系統，因為其實每一個node，不一定是出於惡意，可是可能街角沒有設好什麼的，就一直放，好比像污染非常嚴重等等的訊息出來，跟他旁邊的人都不一樣，未必是惡意，但是這個網絡需要一個方法來管理信用值，這其實也是IOTA的一個應用，因為是可以運用像TangleID這樣的方式去作信用討論。

我們可以看到在Reddit上也已經有非常多的討論，雖然是臺灣出發的，但是是國際性的事件，我覺得這個是很好的……

IOTA現在是小光他們在推嗎？

IOTA在臺灣相當多人在推。

Connective很強。

主要的原因是我想它非常hands on，它不是一堆高大上的數學理論，是這一種隨做隨改。其實這一種充滿缺陷的很容易加入，數學證明太多的，反而大家沒有力氣參加，因為……都給數學家做就好了（笑），這個是具體的建議。

因為你們的文件放IPFS我想是特別適合的，有一個好處是，你們不會選邊站，上面的token一定都有偏好的技術，但是IPFS本身並沒有偏好技術，在它上面當然可以有很多別的東西，但是它本身並不是一個加密貨幣、虛擬通貨。

對。

所以我會建議從最底層開始。

因為本來是要從資料庫的東西，每一個放到IPFS，所以每一個就可以IPFS，這個是我們可以試的。

還有一個好處是，放上去之後，現在全世界最大的內容遞送網路之一，就是叫做CloudFlare，他已經把他的每一個端末都變成IPFS匝道，所以意思是你在全世界聯繫都很快，而且絕對不可能被惡意攻擊、消失，單獨的點也許可以，但是你不可能把整個CloudFlare都打下來。

這個之前，好比像香港佔中投票的時候，已經有豐富的經驗。

我有投票，所以我知道。

您知道他們跟CloudFlare的合作？

對。

就是公民投票的課責機制？

大陸的駭客真的滿厲害。

所以有在第一線實戰的認證了。現在IPFS架在CloudFlare上，我們可以很大方地說我們覺得這個是最目前達不到的分散式儲存，所以我想這個是你可以放在簡報裡、找人來幫忙。

我問一個問題。What would you like the government to do?

事實上，他們可能是希望政府不要做什麼。

Sorry. I need to ask this question because it’s quite the reason why I’m still here.

我們其實是…… We are trying to use this platform to negotiate with governments saying, "No. Actually, you don’t need to step in."

Yeah, from the broadly...

You can just wait and see. As long as industry can regulate by ourself, so why a government...

Any government interested unit should be part of it? Where do you have that possible?

其實這一個平台要demonstrate，現在不是一直在談security，IPO這整套系統是沒有網路的時代，IPO就是crowdfunding，所以當年因為沒有網路，每一個國家各一套。ICO跟STO，一開始就是從網路來的，所以你不應該在每一個國家搞一套。所以在IPO的過程中，disclosure是非常重要的，每一個國家都有一個board要求你去。

意思是，他們之間互相交換訊息，但是是跨國在進行。

對，你by regulation，你會變成我要做一個global public的……global的crowdfunding，我要到每一個國家去register，我要到每一個國家的board去publish，這個是不對的嘛！

你覺得至少有更好的做法？

對，我認為我的做法是開始說disclosure這一塊，我們有一個global的board，就是github。

我聽起來你們全球的board，有特別排除公部門，特別是監管部門參加嗎？

不是，我們把每一個國家或者是從industry的point of view，認為這一些東西你應該要揭露，從投資者的角度，你應該要讓大家知道訊息。

是的。

所以這裡面有很多country，大家所謂industry的標準，是嗎？

是。

我們要用這個來跟政府講說其實disclosure這一塊，也許將來你只要說你要register在我國家的話，你就是要在github達到多少transparency百分比。

或者可以有好幾個不同的平台？

是。

所以也是可以跟內國的IPO的機制作結合？

ICO、STO。

ICO或者是STO。就是你在規範的時候，哪一些東西是政府要規範、哪一些東西我們業界已經做了。

就是以自律作為法律的……

就是等於將來一個新的領域，尤其是有網路的因素在裡面的話，哪一些政府的東西非得你個別的政府管，哪一些東西我們自己業界管比你政府管更好。

所以法律當然也可以處理不作為的部分？

對，法律可以處理這一個部分政府不會要求你到這邊來揭露，因為公開訊息揭露有一個揭露的平台，現在不需要每一個國家這樣，因為你知道過去我們在做IPO case的話，一個公司比如你要到美國上市，那個是剝一層皮，有多少相關的人要進來review你的東西，弄一大堆東西，所以整個運作的部分，如果你現在放在一個全球擁有新科技的情況下，你不需要這麼多的review的process。

所以目標還是如果要做得起來的話，我們還是要說服主要是國家的監管單位？

對，至少你們board裡的那幾個國家？

那為什麼board當中為何沒有部分的監管單位代表？

不，不，不……

不知道，怎麼願意接受？

其實目前很多政府……我們其實很知道政府進來，現在的環境都是不好的結果，你看中國、日本，政府目前我們覺得還不太懂區塊鏈的東西。

你們的意思是，如果政府成熟了，不反對政府的加入。但是當他還是不成熟的時候，你們才要……

目前觀察還是不成熟。

大家碰到的問題都是你要去教育政府要花很大的力氣，他懂了不表示知道怎麼管，即使要管也是全球的事情，你單一個國家都很難管，所以我們自己說投資人跟project的擁有者已經有一些訊息覺得ok了，政府不需要跳進來說要保護你投資的。

但是這樣對政府來講有什麼誘因去做？

確實。這塊原來也沒有regulation。

這個非常有趣的事情，政府你憑什麼管我。

是，我知道，可是要……

我跟你講，現在在這一個ICO的環境裡面，我們看到非常清楚，這個國家要跳進來管，所有的人跟侯鳥一樣，所有的人就搬到另外一個地方去，所以你根本管不到。

所以你管法制跟……

是啊！今天你跳進來，其實已經有太多這個例子了。

對，已經有很多大陸人跑過來講怎麼落地臺灣。

對，因為大陸一管，他就出來。像日本先宣稱所有的exchange都要跟他register，從他announce以後，沒有新的exchange去日本。

不過exchange是另外一個題目。

Exchange也是一樣，exchange要管到哪裡？

但是exchange比較難主張說「資訊揭露就好了」。

對。我們其實只是先從資訊揭露。

我理解。

同時後來不是也有臺灣十五個exchange簽了code of conduct。

對，而且我有注意到你們新加坡的實體，並沒有說只能做ICO的transparency。

是。

所以未來也可以延伸到別的活動？

已經有人說可以GITA for Exchange。

對，當然，一次做一個。我想特別講一下，這個也是兩位的共同作品，數位通訊傳播法……

現在到底怎麼樣？

等待三讀中。

我們當時弄到討論多少？

已經出委員會了。

大架構是一樣的，但是第五、六個，這一種宣示性的這個是後來加的。

這個是很有意思。

一、二、三是有的，五至八，大家後來覺得在這一個委員會討論的時候，好像還差很多漂亮的（笑）。

不過我要引這個的原因是，你們剛剛所講的多方利益關係人的治理架構，是扣合於8的，就是通訊傳播發展所須科學技術及相關的創新應用，需要交易安全跟消費信賴的環境，我們並不是空泛說第七項的多方利害關係人之類的，特別是說如果有安全跟信賴，這樣政府應建立公眾意見諮詢及參與機制。

在說明裡面第八項中「此一機制之建立，不以政府建立者為限，相關團體組織基於網路治理之精神，當然亦得建立，政府並應以支持及協助……」，我覺得這個是比較成熟的態度，因為「以支持及協助」並不是來管、控制的意思，而是這邊揭露的資訊，政府可以納入治理結構的一部分，但是並不是土霸王，而是比較平起平坐的角色。

這個雖然比較宣示性的，但是我覺得滿有價值的，因為宣示、告訴大家說：「我們從此之後的數位通訊傳播，尤其是關於交易安全、消費信賴，不一定都要靠政府建立的機制來達成。」

邏輯上可能政委覺得應該要在最前線，所以寫法還是如果我們想做的話就要做，並不是民間做就不做了。

對，他說「不以政府建立者為限」。

所以我們看整個發展，政府可以自我感覺良好說我要進來管，你只要一管，所有的東西就搬走了，所以我覺得跟他用這樣講，他不太容易懂。

Uber沒有搬走（笑）。

因為Uber基本上還是有一個實體的東西在這裡，你說貨幣這一些交易本身，真的完全可以在網路上作業。

完全同意。

所以其實坦白來講，為什麼我說這個平台非常重要，而且要從臺灣出來，那一天跟IPA講說我希望g0v往後三年，除了「vTaiwan」以後，還有一個「GITA」是從臺灣出發的。

瞭解。

如果這個東西可以做起來，就是真的在跟全世界學一件事，就是在一些政府這一種governance跟企業的SRO中間如何取得平衡。

我覺得這裡有一個我想呼應的，因為全世界的集會、言論、結社，也就是公民社會的空間，他們這邊有一個類似責信的組織，就是各界的人權團體，每一次發生一個扣分的事件，顏色就變，變紅色一點，他們是滾動式的檢討。

我們現在在這一個CIVICUS Monitor上，選「亞洲」，再選「完全開放」，就剩一個點了（笑）。我們周邊的公民社會空間，就像剛剛講自律的能力都在縮減，因為政府就像蔡律師所說的，可能想要插手的部分越來越多，但是臺灣是一個很特殊的，在周邊，但是我們做的並不一定是被北歐或者是紐澳好，但是在各位發起的這幾個管轄領域，很明顯臺灣是一個leader，就是不管怎麼做就被查水錶的地方，本來有查水錶的，那個法律也廢止了（笑）。

所以，我覺得這個在論述上是很容易論述的，因為必須從完全開放的公民社會開始，如果不成功，至少你給下一個在開放的公民社會想要建立類似的治理機制的人一個示範，如果成功了，當然就可以照亮旁邊的這一些，不可能自己創新，但是可以平行輸出，像越南等等的方式，所以我覺得這一個方向是很切合g0v精神的，應該可以去找他們。

現在這樣平台是已經有九個國家了，你一上去，我們推知九個國家就會看到，然後就可以開始併行了。

是。

已經不是說只有先在這裡做，我們一上去就有九個國家。

當然。不過，那九個國家的監理機關是不是能接受，那個是另外一回事。

其實我們講的是，現在其他的國家，像越南的foundation council，基本上也是負責在跟政府溝通。

我知道。

有這一個平台，就可以說其他的國家怎麼樣。像我們去參加越南的，他們也很希望知道別的國家怎麼做，因為大家都想搶這一個市場。

如果臺灣現在做，別的國家慢慢有人做……

就有人響應了。

這個聲音只要越來越多。

意思是，不用同時九個，只要有一、兩個，就會有骨牌的效應？

這個平台有其他八個國家看到，臺灣先做了，臺灣可以，他也不想落後。

是的。

而且我這樣走一趟，每個國家都在爭取這個市場，都要看你怎麼做。

所以採取開放式創新，你剛剛提到Open Source及資料放在分散式存儲，這個並不是殖民式的外援，而是一種共同創作式的。

因為我們現在外交政策現在也改了，叫做「Taiwan Can Help」，這個也是主要的訊息。g0v常常在第一線，甚至比外交部、國合會那個是後面的後援，但是我覺得前面是很適合讓g0v來擔任。

總結一下，我們去g0v提案的話，你會建議坑要如何挖？

三個具體的：

第一，你的原始碼先公開在github，雖然是不太美麗的版本，但是有一個比較美麗的設計，問人有沒有人願意來協助，這個是第一個。

第二，已經有一些測試用的基本訊息在上面了，但是這個還是放在你們的資料庫當中，所以隨時資料庫被攻擊了，那就什麼都沒有了，所以希望有人幫忙放到新機存儲去，讓大家更不容易被打倒、更有韌性。

第三，很重要的是去宣導接下來旁邊八個的經濟體，大概都會看著臺灣的做法，所以如果有一些相關的倡議、文件之類的，你可以徵求對於這八個經濟體有一些瞭解的朋友們，想一想如何把這一份目前只有英文的簡報，不管是網頁八國語言的版本——不是到細節，而是主訊息——我們如何確保在各個國家不同的文化當中，都是可以翻譯、給他們的監管者聽得懂。

這個就可以徵求具有這一些外語、文化能力的人，光連github的標語或者是基本的網頁上訊息，是不是需要重新設定，在每一個不同的文化裡面，你可能倡議的方式、名稱等等，都要做一些調整。

特別像在中文當中，就是這一件事也許你們的mission statement，或者是上面這一段是不是有可能翻譯到不同的文化，但是並不是逐字翻譯，而是按照那一個地方的監管要件，不是google翻譯，好比像要推公民科技，好比像在北上廣深的話，這四個字不講，就要改「社會企業」之類的，每一個地方有偏好的用詞跟用法，這個是文化翻譯，並不是google翻譯做到的，所以第三個是詢問大家對於一開始對於經濟體的文化翻譯，特別是這一小段扣著你們的mission，徵求大家來協定。

只有5分鐘，我可以提三個？

對，這三個都可以兩、三句話講完，並不困難，這樣子你同時給一般網站工程師跟所謂鏈圈工程師、文字工作者都有一些事情做，這樣子你的範圍就比較廣。

我們可以有一個reference的準備，我們要準備PPT？

對。

要看哪一個PPT最適合。

你們剛剛那個非常好，一些比較冗的部分可以拿掉，那個其實是一個pitch，也就是希望大家加入的，那一些部分可以拿掉，你可以換成示意圖，就像我剛剛看社會企業自律聯盟的示意圖，你可以多用一些icon，也就是很明確1、2頁知道是專案，從我的角度來看這個流程是什麼，這個部分1分鐘就結束完了。

另外，一個很簡單的是我們才剛開源出來，所以我們這邊畫得很美麗，其實網站這樣子挺有改善空間的，看大家是不是願意來幫忙美化，但是source code在這邊，所以很歡迎。

再者，我們的資料是單一節點存儲，我們自己都是做分散式治理的，其實名不副實，所以希望大家放到檔案系統上。

第三，這個是跨國的專案，這個專案裡面對於不同國家、文化需要不同的訊息，所以剛好是有這一種外語專長、外國文化專長，如果認識那邊鏈圈的話，如何變成當地的治理環境聽得懂的訊息，這個也很歡迎寫文字、而不是寫城市的朋友們加入，這樣子5分鐘一定講得完。

所以是12月8日之前需要做什麼？

就把這個簡報寫好，然後一直re到你5分鐘能講完。

不需要先在哪裡？

Github要開，這個是一定的。然後像上傳IPFS等等，你自己開issue，這樣子大家一來就有明確的issue可以做，翻譯多國語言也可以開一個issue，你不一定真的要寫任何東西，你開issue就可以了，就是有一個眾人可以翻譯的，這個眾人的平台非常多，你一定很熟悉，不需要我來說，這樣就可以了。

還有沒有？

OK。

好，謝謝大家。