It's not even clear that "exploit" applies, since exploitable behavior usually exists somewhere in the undefined weird machine[1] of triggerable but not intended program state. But Code is Law in cryptocurrency land, and it's not clear what "intent" means when philosophically the code and not a human has the final say.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_machine

> But Code is Law in cryptocurrency land, and it's not clear what "intent" means when philosophically the code and not a human has the final say.

I don't think courts would feel the same way. For instance: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/12/22/teenage-suspect-i...

(IANAL) Don't contracts have intent of the contract and in some courts the interpretation of the contract is as important as the contract itself. What was meant versus what it literally says so to speak?

Yes, but a "smart contract" is not a (legal) contract: it's just a fancy name for "a software program that runs on a blockchain".

Thus, "smart contracts" behave like software programs (what happens is what is actually written in the "smart contract", not the intent that programmer had when he wrote it, nor the expectation of the user when he interacts with it), and not like legal contracts (where intents and expectations come into play, and courts can be involved for arbitration).

Besides, which exact court would have jurisdiction over a smart contract exploit that happens in Ethereum, for example? A court in the country of the person deploying the contract? A court in the country of the person that interacted with the contract and lost their assets? A court in the country of the (unknown) exploiter? A court in the country of the blockchain developers?

Where is the intent other than in the contract?

Github comments, tweets saying you didn't mean to get hacked like that.

Contracts also need things like consideration and not being "against public policy".

I guess we’re just waiting for a court case to test this. Smart contract code as an exhibit for the defense, and GitHub comments as an exhibit for the plaintiffs.

We need a smart court to handle it.

Code is lol

I would love to become a crypto dev for these people.

Me: Hey boss the code is to spec ready to deploy? Just need my payment in USD.

Crypto Entrepreneur: Yes, here is your 50k, I will now turn my 100k into 5M, with my smart contract.

Me: actually it looks like your money is gone. They used feature X that you requested in a way that you didn't expect.

you know what you're right. now that I think about it nothing in computing can ever be considered a hack, because computers are merely following the (poorly construed) instructions given to them. your post meaningfully adds to this discussion

furthermore courts all operate on phoenix right "gotcha!" rules where one slight mistep in a business contract means the other party can go Scott free off the hook, and not have to worry at all about reasonable intentions or fairness