[nahollander]

Yes -- two parties are permitted to lend money to one another in a mutually agreed environment. It's important to note, though, that developers who build end-user applications on top of Dharma ought to be cognizant of lending regulations / securities law in the jurisdictions they are active in. However, we've opted to build Dharma in a non-jurisdictionally-biased manner -- we think that jurisdiction-specific regulatory restrictions are better implemented at the application layer rather than the protocol piping.

[jbob2000]

That is a dangerous position to put yourself in. AML and Terrorist financing laws make everyone responsible, you generally cannot claim innocence if you take no precautions and are involved in some kind of incident.

Good luck.

[seibelj]

No, this is akin to building a protocol. The creators of HTTP are not in trouble when someone uses the web for illegal activities.

[jbob2000]

HTTP is not intrinsically tied to finance, though. This is specifically a protocol for financial transactions, for sure it would fall under AML laws.

[seibelj]

I’m sorry but you are mistaken. I think you should research this technology more.

[tango24]

Are you a finance law attorney? This is marketed as a financial protocol. Completely different than HTTP.

[seibelj]

An RFC and source code does not constitute participation. That is dharma at this point.

[L_Rahman]

That this choice happens to reduce the technical and regulatory complexity of your product is I'm sure just a happy co-incidence :)