0x71558ae2…779csent to0xcf2f348c…b49a·#23,203,592·view on Etherscan
kyc-requirements-for-nouns-client-rewards@0x9e0e...57B1
Backup withholding is a flat % requirement on gross payments where no taxpayer information is provided and applies regardless of whether the pool is 5 ETH or 500 ETH. If we distribute without KYC, we’re required to withhold and remit, which directly costs the DAO. If we did not collect this info and have to pay additional taxes when it comes time to file, you would blame the admins for the extra costs. We are just trying to do the job we have been tasked with by the DAO.
This isn’t about building bureaucracy or nickel and diming. It’s a basic compliance requirement that applies to all clients equally in order to reduce the DAO’s tax liability. We’ve already been collecting KYC and tracking status internally, so there’s no need to establish any ultimatums.
The broader accountability questions you raise are valid, but they’re a separate discussion. Past mismanagement or treasury losses do not remove our obligation to follow compliance rules on current payments. If anything, staying compliant now is part of demonstrating that the DAO is operating responsibly moving forward and is able to hold people accountable if needed.
So the short answer is: yes, the liability is real, and no, this isn’t about scraps, it’s about meeting a clear requirement that protects both the DAO and its members.
> How much money are we actually talking about here? From what I’ve seen, the entire client reward incentives pool over the last two years has been around 50 ETH, and that’s only going to shrink further with auction price reductions. Meanwhile, I think we’ve already paid more than 50 ETH just in taxes for gifts and random payouts to people. So the question is: what’s the actual liability here? Are we talking about a meaningful burden, or are we building a whole KYC bureaucracy over scraps?
>
> If the goal is to fix past mistakes, then sure, let’s talk fairness, but that means looking at the bigger picture. There are people and projects that rugged the DAO outright, drained value, and left us saddled with debt. If accountability really matters, then those cases should take priority over nickel and diming current clients who are at least still delivering something.
>
> We’re already paying for DUNA, and that should actually benefit the DAO. Part of that should be holding accountable the people who’ve been in charge for years, failed to protect the treasury, and left us cleaning up after them. Otherwise, what’s the point of forcing every small collective into KYC just to keep a few scraps of rewards? It risks being more performative compliance than real problem solving.
>
> So before locking everyone into a 30 day ultimatum, maybe we need clarity on the actual numbers, the real tax exposure, and whether this addresses the root issues or just adds another layer of overhead while the bigger leaks go unaddressed.