Re:The math prodigy whose hack upended DeFi won’t return funds
by glerk on Monday May 23, 2022 @05:30PM
(#31485002)
> If did have an owner, that person is probably violating all sorts of securities laws in countless jurisdictions.
That's probably what upsets me most about this story. These developers want to have it both ways: it is decentralized finance and nobody owns the contract as long as we are making money, but we want all the laws and regulations of traditional finance to protect us if things don't go our way.
I am saying this as someone who is pro-crypto. There are trade-offs to this technology. We need to pick a lane be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Re:The math prodigy whose hack upended DeFi won’t return funds
by nicoburns on Monday May 23, 2022 @06:45PM
(#31485789)
Frankly, I don't think it's up to you to pick a lane. It's the wild-west at the moment because the technology is new. But it won't be long before the law catches up and crypto will be subject to it the same as everything else.
Re:The math prodigy whose hack upended DeFi won’t return funds
by glerk on Monday May 23, 2022 @07:10PM
(#31485995)
Publishing a piece of code on a public blockchain cannot be made illegal. The Court of Appeal already ruled that code is speech making this a first amendment issue [1].
Decentralized finance is here to stay as an alternative to the traditional system. Some things are just impossible to regulate.
[1] https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/11/09/smart-contract-code-is...
Re:The math prodigy whose hack upended DeFi won’t return funds
by nicoburns on Tuesday May 24, 2022 @04:52AM
(#31489622)
Perhaps not in the US (but many countries have no such constitution), but redeeming said tokens for fiat currency could still be made illegal, which would dramatically reduce the usefulness of such a a system.
Re:The math prodigy whose hack upended DeFi won’t return funds
by QuantumGood on Monday May 23, 2022 @08:17PM
(#31486498)
The "laws and regulations of traditional finance" also protect them if things "go their way". They're not trying to "have it both ways", the law protects everyone in all scenarios.
Re:The math prodigy whose hack upended DeFi won’t return funds
by glerk on Tuesday May 24, 2022 @06:23PM
(#31498236)
In practice, the law would protect them if they were the owners of the exchange. But here the "exchange" is just a public piece of code that all participants agree to interact with. I can't even begin to imagine the legal hoops they would have to go through to run a centralized regulated exchange.
In the case of the smart contract, you don't own the vending machine. It doesn't have an owner, it just "is". If it did have an owner, that person is probably violating all sorts of securities laws in countless jurisdictions. That's at least part of the point of all this smart contract stuff.
To make the analogy a little more apt, let's say the smart autonomous vending machine 1) lets people buy DRNKs by inserting money, 2) incentivizes people to refill it with DRNK by spitting out money, 3) once a month spits out money to the amused landlord, and 4) was deposited by aliens who disappeared without trace.
Presumably the smart vending machine would continue on its merry way like this until it either broke down or someone figured out a way to jimmy the lock. Looks like the later happened. Though everyone is upset, it's not clear who has the right to prosecute.