[nahollander]

Thank you! :)

We've pretty deliberately opted out of baking jurisdiction-specific protections (be they KYC / AML, accreditation, etc.) into the protocol insofar as we really want this to be a universal standard that's jurisdiction-agnostic -- to give a somewhat crass analogy, most developers would agree that it does not make sense for content-protection against, say, child pornography, to sit at the level of TCP / IP. Jurisdictions vary widely in how they treat lending law, and so we've opted to be as flexible as possible on a technical level.

With that being said, we're actively working on making sure that, at layers above the protocol, developers have an easy time plugging in / restricting functionality on the basis of regulatory parameters. There are several interesting projects in the decentralized identity space that are tackling ways of natively attesting to KYC / AML screening on blockchains like Ethereum, and we're actively in conversations with them to make sure we maintain compatibility.

[CryptoBard]

I also work in the exchange space like you used to and my thinking is pretty much fully aligned with the way you pose the issue and I'm very excited about your intention behind Dharma. I also agree with your current thoughts on approaching KYC and AML (please see my post in response to this one's parent). I'll reach out to you via your website if you don't mind since HN doesn't have PMs, would love to figure out if there's a way I can contribute.