I am deeply interested in this topic.
I miss no opportunity to remind the world that “Satoshi Nakamoto” was a pseudonymous developer—and Satoshi never did KYC. Satoshi expressed some interest in applying zero-knowledge proofs to Bitcoin. But Satoshi would be ineligible to receive a Zcash grant that requires KYC—by all available evidence, I reasonably presume that he would refuse to do KYC. Food for thought.
I myself have inquired about Zcash grants before. I was ineligible at the threshold, because there is only one way that I do “KYC”—no compromises! If there were some means for me even to reach discussing the merits of what I could do for a grant, then I would very much be interested.
Thanks for thinking about this. I have mused over similar ideas. It looked to me like a transparent strawman for money transmittal. Maybe I’m wrong—I hope so; but if so, I’d want to hear it not only from a lawyer, but from a lawyer who had experience handling those types of cases. For the protection of both the paying organization, and the clearly identifiable individual (or other organization?) serving as what you call a “fiscal sponsor”.
That is entirely inapplicable here. That is about satisfying the requirements of § 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code—not so-called “AML” stuff (and not acting as a money transmitter). It is only an arrangement for making donations tax-deductable. And it only contemplates clearly identifiable parties.
I have thought about this—in practical terms, because I would like to arrange funding for more pseudonymous Bitcoin Core developers. My conclusion is that it would need the philanthropic backing of a pseudonymous wealthy Bitcoiner. Those exist. So, do it with no legally constituted organizations involved—not even “offshore”, whatever that means.
The problem here is that ZEC seigniorage money flows into organizations subject to certain laws. And because of that, there is sharply reduced incentive for wealthy individuals to make munificent gifts. Why should they?
That is why I never discussed it here before. I thought of it. I have had counterpart discussions in Bitcoinland. It seemed like a non-starter here, although I’d be pleased to be wrong about that.
Question: What are the practical prospects for changing things so that at least some portion of ZEC seigniorage initially flows directly to something other than a U.S.-based organization? (The question of to what? is a separate issue, and a difficult one; I will not reach it now.)
Not to argue with you here—to the contrary, I appreciate your supportive attitude. I understand that a U.S.-based legally constituted organization is in a predicament here. That said, I do need to get up on my soapbox about an important point:
The usual list of evils allegedly prevented by “KYC/AML” is just as wrong as the usual arguments against uncompromised strong encryption: The Four Horsemen of the Cryptocalypse.
It is as wrong as the “if you have nothing to hide” argument about privacy.
It needs pushback, because KYC is an attack on the freedom for which Bitcoin was invented by a strongly pseudonymous developer: “Satoshi Nakamoto”.
I have never done anything wrong with my money. I refuse KYC on principle. So should everybody.
#endif /* SOAPBOX */