International guidelines to the community contribution framework on Zeitgeist

To attract the community to contribute to smart contracts on Zeitgeist perhaps there needs to be consideration as to whether the following is required through registrars that are a known good and trusted with decentralised on-chain identities:

Web3 decentralised and pooled independent smart contract auditors with their skills, experience, and competency specialisations assessed by an appropriate on-chain registrar, and their authority granted by on-chain governance.
Web3 decentralised and pooled legal services and agreements.
Web3 decentralised and pooled patent and licensing services.

Motivations

Community members may wish to build smart contracts that may be used in the Zeitgeist ecosystem.
Community members may wish to be protected by an appropriate level of insurance from risks associated with any of their contributions.
Community members may wish to use known good decentralised on-chain identity registrars to duly obtain assurance that their clients and other community members that they may wish to use as subcontractors or sub-consultants have on-chain DAOs with links to on-chain IPFS or similar records containing duly decentralised Web3 legal agreements, duly decentralised Web3 insurance coverage to an appropriate level of coverage that cover their scope of work, and that use duly decentralised Web3 patent and licensing, and have demonstrated on-chain that they comply with recognised ethical and business practices.
Community members may only wish to deal with on-chain DAO entities in the Zeitgeist ecosystem that have established an on-chain identity that is recognised by an appropriate registrar.
Community members may wish for the insurance risks to be pooled to minimise the associated insurance costs.
Community members may not want to be an employee of a fully insured fronting recruitment agency that is experienced in high risk that they could use between themselves (supplier) and a client in the Zeitgeist ecosystem when the solution requires high risk, such as creating a contract that could trigger impermanent loss if used in production and would require necessary safeguards, where the fronting recruitment agency would handle relevant legal agreements and insurance coverage for contributions.
Community members may not want to contribute directly where they would be personally exposed to risk, or through their own company where in each case they would need to perform legal due diligence and risk management, audits, and arrange relevant legal agreements and insurance coverage themselves prior to and in addition to any contributions, and where they may need to include clauses like "no liability, no warranty, time and material only, use the software at your own risk", so the agreement ends when they have used up the hours specified in the agreement.
Community members may want to know what licensing agreement is going to be associated with their contributions, such as whether there would be a requirement for derived work to also remain open source (e.g. Mozilla Public License).
Community members may be concerned that they cannot contribute meaningfully as humans with human responsibility if their contributions are uninsurable by traditional insurers, and they may resort to deploying autonomous solutions without revealing the identity of the author.
Community members may be concerned that their contributions as humans with human responsibility may be diluted by malicious actors that generate and deploy malicious AI-generated solutions that resemble their solution in bulk that may cause them harm and where it is difficult to track and control to shut them down in a timely manner via on-chain governance.
Community members may be concerned that they may be collaborating on contributions from other contributors that are from jurisdictions where it is illegal to do so, or where the contributions by others are actually illegal in one or more jurisdictions without realising it.
Community members may be concerned that their contributions may not be used as intended, for example they may be recognised as an author that contributed to a smart contract that was only for development purposes, but not for production use without first being independently audited by a decentralised on-chain identity with on-chain credentials and accreditation certifying their level of competence across various smart contract specialisations, and having been granted engineering authority as an independent auditor, but then if it was used and deployed by a self-proclaimed independent auditor, and if there was a lack of appropriate safe guards in-place on-chain like adopting a standard where the smart contract must provide evidence that it was duly audited by a recognised identity with engineering authority as an independent auditor, then its adoption may cause irreversible harm the original author or other stakeholders in the Zeitgeist ecosystem.
Community members may wish to be able to highlight that contributions that they make are to be for development purposes only, and that anyone wishing to use it must only use it for legal purposes (stating the obvious is necessary).
Community members may wish to be able to highlight that contributions that they make are to be for development purposes only, and that anyone wishing to use it takes full responsibility, and must duly obtain any international licensing (e.g. casino licensing), commercial gambling, and any PI/PL insurance that covers them for Web3 crypto-related risks beforehand, as duly required, necessary, or appropriate.
Community members may wish to be able to highlight that all costs associated with using their contributions are to be fully borne by those who adopt it and not the original contributor.
Community members may wish to request that unless explicitly specified in a separate agreement, that by them making a contribution it does not construe that they also have any post-contribution obligations, such as a requirement for the original contributor to actually use their own contribution themselves, or to maintain their contribution or the codebase(s) where their contributions are hosted after their contribution, since that could otherwise introduce unnecessary disputes.

Potential Options for Consideration

Establish a "Public Web3 International Legal Agreement to Protect Contributors".
Establish a "Public Statement of Web3 International Legal Risk Assessment Report". It could provide separate advice on how contributors and clients are being protected or not protected, exhaust avenues of potential exposure to risk, consequences of each risk on various stakeholders, and mitigation measures. It could cover each of the development, production, and maintenance phases of any contribution. It could serve to provide reassurance to regulators, clients, and contributors so that they know how to satisfy the minimum legal requirements by establishing the appropriate levels of protection for peace of mind.

Each document would likely be prepared by a duly qualified international lawyer who has expert knowledge and experience not limited to cryptocurrency gambling, betting, and lotteries.
Each document should be legally binding and verified by an on-chain identity that is an independent lawyer, and published on-chain on IPFS or similar on multiple chains, and linked to by a contributors DAO smart contract that is deployed on the Zeitgeist network, and be legally binding and accompanied by a translation that is written in a language that is accessible to all community members (absent of legal lingo, jargon and legalese).
Note that the above do not constitute legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.