Should the Bitshares committee surrender overreaching MPA permissions?
bitshares·@cm-steem·
0.000 HBDShould the Bitshares committee surrender overreaching MPA permissions?
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/e0m0Gdw.png" alt="MPA" /> Currently, the '<a href="https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/">smartcoin</a>' market pegged assets (MPA) (such as <a href="https://cryptofresh.com/a/USD">bitUSD</a>, <a href="https://cryptofresh.com/a/EUR">bitEURO</a>, <a href="https://cryptofresh.com/a/CNY">bitCNY</a>, etc) which are managed by the <a href="http://docs.bitshares.eu/bitshares/user/committee.html">BTS committee</a> have several MPA permissions which are slightly concerning. None of these permissions are currently active, but they have not been surrendered (so a future committee could potentially implement them). These permissions are: * ***white_list***: Accounts must be white-listed in order to hold this asset * ***override_authority***: Issuer may transfer asset back to himself * ***transfer_restricted***: Require the issuer to be one party to every transfer * ***disable_confidential***: Allow the asset to be used with confidential transactions The <a href="https://cryptofresh.com/a/GRIDCOIN">'GRIDCOIN' MPA</a> was the first MPA to surrender the above permissions! I don't see any reason why the committee should maintain these inactive permissions, do you? ***Remember your roots & post in the Bitsharestalk thread too***: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23331.0.html Cheers, CM.
👍 cm-steem, fer7rules, proctologic, brindleswan, linouxis9, alfaman, smech, elishagh1, fkn, furion, positive, laonie, xiaohui, kimziv, poseidon, sisterholics, myfirst, somebody, flysaga, midnightoil, elfkitchen, xiaokongcom, xianjun, laonie11, sjamayee, bitmap, the.bot, johnbradshaw, r4fken, vortac, cloh76, sulev, jonnybitcoin, officialfuzzy, fuzzyvest, garik100, n25052016, fractalnode, chamviet,