TandaPay Cannot Be Regulated — 1
Direct payments are a protected first amendment right
Substantiating what was previously said
Previously I wrote the following:
“TandaPay isn’t insurance. TandaPay is speech. As protected speech, it cannot be regulated by anyone … The government would have to radically curtail 1st amendment freedoms in a way that violates all previous precedent set by cases such as Citizens United v. FEC or the recent case with Janus vs. AFSCME, and they are not going to do that.”
But what grounds do I have to make such statements? This series of blog posts will examine the legal precedent which establishes the following assumptions:
- Court precedent establishes that financial regulation exists primarily to regulate custodians who hold funds and not the payments themselves.
- Payments of premiums and claims which pass directly between policyholders and claimants are not subject to regulation because there is no custodian to regulate.
- Direct payments of money between two parties for the purpose of building an ideologically motivated community is speech and cannot be regulated.
To help establish the validity of these assumptions I am actively conducting legal research which will establish the foundations of my case. TandaPay policyholders who seek regulatory relief will likely assert that their premium is a form of protected speech. Their belief that payment of their premiums is a contribution (not a premium) which helps build their local community is a critical requirement. This is why each participant must take the TandaPay pledge. Before being allowed to use the app these are the terms to which the participants must agree.
The TandaPay pledge
By using this application I vow that I believe the following statements to be true. These statements apply to both my motivation for using TandaPay and my expectations as to the outcome of my participation in TandaPay. I vow that if required I will testify in a court of law that the following statements apply as to my participation in the building of my local TandaPay community:
- I believe that TandaPay is a special form of speech protected under the first amendment.
- I believe that my TandaPay community is an ideologically motivated group who is forming a collective for the purpose of making life better for the members of our group and the greater community.
- I believe TandaPay is not a form of insurance. The funds collected from members are not policy premiums they are community contributions and the funds granted to members are not claim payments they are community grants.
- I understand that when I make a community contribution I am publishing a transaction to the blockchain which is a living record of my community which will remain active for as long as people continue to contribute to it.
- I believe that by writing to the blockchain I am building my community. For the government to take away my right to build my community would be a grievous violation of my first amendment freedoms.
- My contributions are an affirmation that I believe no fraud has ever occurred within my community.
- As soon as I believe a community grant has been fraudulently approved I vow that I will no longer participate in this TandaPay community.
- My funds are the way that I am able to speak my belief that our community is free from fraudulent activity. If I am denied the opportunity to contribute funds I am denied the opportunity to make any meaningful statement as to the virtuous care our community is providing.
- I believe that no member or entity of TandaPay ever takes custody of funds that do not belong to them. All funds held by the app are always held directly by their owners. Transfer of the ownership of funds is always voluntary and is never mandatory. I have the right to leave my community with my own funds at any time.
- I vow to actively protect my first amendment rights to participate in TandaPay. I will actively oppose any government intervention which would seek to remove my ability to build my local community.
Continuing research is an ongoing process
Currently there are three blog posts which consider what legal precedent provides protection to TandaPay groups:
- Court precedent as it applies to TandaPay
- Grounds for TandaPay groups to seek regulatory relief
- Analysis of Legal Precedent as it Applies to Payments in Discretionary Mutuals
As this idea gains more traction there will be a clearer definition of our strategy for dismantling regulatory interference into TandaPay’s operation. I have no doubt that we will bring this fight to the steps of the supreme court and we will win a decisive victory for the American people. I hope that you would join me in my quest for the vindication of a more perfect model of transparency and honesty in the age of decentralized insurance architecture.