I’m down for DAOs, but in the meantime, why not something simpler:
Someone trusted in the community offer themselves as a ‘fiscal sponsor’ for pseudonymous grantees?
In ‘normal’ grants, far away from cypherpunk land, ‘fiscal sponsorship’ allows for - e.g. - non-501(c)(3) entities to apply for and receive grants from private foundation which require grantees to have 501(c)(3) status.
Explanation: Fiscal Sponsorship for Nonprofits | National Council of Nonprofits
Generally:
The fiscal sponsor is:
- The one who receives the money - i.e. is the legal grant recipient
- The one legally bound to any terms of agreement attached to receiving the funds, if set by grantor (ZOMG)
- The one who legally signs any legal grant agreement with grantor (ZOMG) (and/or in writing declares themselves as the fiscal sponsor of the applicant)
- Not necessarily the entity carrying out the grant’s proposed project activities
The fiscal sponsee is:
- The grant applicant (whose activities are not directly subject to any legal agreement with ZOMG)
- The one actually carrying out the project
- The one who agrees, non-legally just in a handshake agreement with fiscal sponsor, to actually do the work of the project / expend / manage the budget of the project
(Having KYC does not magically eliminate all risk in grants. Grants are always a risky activity with no guarantee of money back if the grantee does no work and runs with the money. Suing a bad grant recipient to get ZOMG’s money back is time consuming, expensive, and maybe impractical for many reasons.)
Could this concept be brought to this situation?
Let’s say a kind member of our community decides to fiscally sponsor someone’s approved Zcash grant and give their KYC. All KYC/AML boxes have been ticked at ZOMG’s end. No (general) deception is occurring here, AFAIK. Legally, what then happens with the grant money is after the fact of ZOMG’s granting. (But in some crazy AML twist, do ZOMG grantees have to do KYC with entities THEY transact with when expending grant funds? I highly doubt it, that would seem crippling and not normal at all.)
The sponsor pays out the ZEC to the person who is to carry out the grant project (the pseudonymous applicant), after which the project can start. From an AML/KYC perspective, this transaction perhaps is no different than any other outgoing expense in the course of carrying out of the grant project (in terms of the ZOMG legal agreement), like paying for supplies or outsourcing work to achieve the project.
I have not read the relevant jurisdiction AML/KYC law, but perhaps ZOMG could be legally covered, due to what’s declared / agreed to by any fiscal sponsors acting as legal grant recipients. Perhaps only minor amendments / additions might be needed, if anything.
Can ZOMG bring this up at next meeting / check with lawyers if it can work?