Yet, the US government successfully indicted and got the four founders to surrender [1] (two of whom were non-US citizens).
They can definitely claim jurisdiction if American users were affected in the scheme.
1 - https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/03/15/bitmex-founder-b...
Why? These ~~marks~~ investors wanted free unregulated finance on the blockchain, and they got it. Where's the crime?
People who spent money on Terra/Luna knew it was a cryptocurrency that used magic computer maths to make numbers get bigger (until number got small), same as all the other cryptocurrencies.
So no, it's still a ponzi, and no, most people had no idea.
https://www.politico.eu/article/wife-of-us-diplomat-anne-sac...
At core, as with most things, it's unfortunately a question of power, not legality ...
If they had just done shit by the book they would have had him on US soil with no problems at all.
FWIW I don't agree that he -should- be able to be extradited. Just stating the fact that if the US had just not screwed the pooch they would have been successful in doing so.
That's not to say that some suits won't be brought but even if bzx lost their case it would not be necessarily a reflection on other legal or political arrangements.
Have you, uh, met America?
Not only is America litigious, the long arm, when sufficiently motivated, will get you anywhere on the face of the planet. Just ask Assange. Not that I support this behavior, or this privilege, but I'm not ostrich enough to pretend it's not on the table.
> dao is a loosely defined word, except where legally defined and protected as in Wyoming
That may matter in Wyoming, but in America, I assure you, the 'ill defined' nature won't stop the prosecutors.
I don't think he dedicated his life to denouncing all morally questionable government actions everywhere. He ruined his own life by denouncing what the NSA was allegedly doing back then. I'm not sure I can demand that he should ruin his life even more by annoying the Russian government.
But he probably doesn't get any favors from Russia because he's not useful to them.
Looking very closely at the link you give in another document, you have to specifically go through a registration process to register as a DAO in Wyoming, and get the legal benefits of becoming a LLC.
> At any rate, no, there is no way that any online organized group of people will be determined to be legally and universally and internationally jointly and severally liable.
That's not how the law works. If you've got (a) two or more people that (b) agree to do something in partnership [it does not need to even be a written agreement], then by default, you have created a general partnership. An "online organized group of people" is--you guessed it--a group of two or more people that agreed to do something in partnership, so you've got a general partnership, unless someone has a quantum of legal knowledge and takes steps to form any kind of legal governance other than a general partnership. And you've got any legal knowledge, you'll avoid a general partnership, because that means every partner is jointly and severally liable.
Sure, you can override this if you take the proper legal steps. But given how much the crypto community seems to spend trying to claim the law doesn't apply to them (e.g., code is law), I'm skeptical that very many DAOs have taken the appropriate legal steps to avoid forming a general partnership.
That's an assertion that may be tested when there are tens or hundred of millions of dollars at stake. In our everyday lives how you would go after something like a DAO is not at all obvious. But that doesn't mean there are ways.
And you are right to say it will be a reflection of other legal and political arrangements.
So there's already an exception to disprove this "universal, international, jointly and severally liable" theory that is going on in this thread. OP was mentioning A16z and the like as if they are not shielded from personal liability for lawsuits targeting the companies they invest in. That's not to say that a16z cannot be sued. But the individual investors that are part of it, that participate in rounds, being sued on a personal level as if they are "jointly and severally liable partners", that is not going to happen. Sorry. Even if Bzx loses their case, the facts of the case are material. The facts of each unique situation matter. Even within the United States.
Just as a thought experiment: if a DAO was created by 7 random people on the internet from Dubai, Latvia, Colombia, Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, and Taiwan, how exactly would you go about bringing a lawsuit against them from the United States? And how would you target them on a "jointly and severally liable" basis?
Sue the Australian in the Australian court--common law jurisdiction, so it's going to be quite similar to US laws, and personal jurisdiction over them in Australia isn't going to be hard to establish. I get the judgement against them for the full amount, and it's their problem to get the other 6 people to pony up their share. That's what "jointly and severally liable" means: I only need to go after one person for any claims I have; it's their problem to get the pain distributed.
Isn't this only relevant when ash organization takes the legal steps to register as a DAO in Wyoming? If that is not the explicit corporate governance model, then a default structure is assumed.
Analogously, my state (Virginia) has laws on the books limiting my personal liability for judgments against my business iff I register that business as an LLC. If I don't do so, then the business is considered a sole proprietorship, and I can be sued personally for harms my business causes.
For your thought experiment: maybe try to use something from the CFT spectrum, because that you can make stick with a lot of places in some form or another? So not really simple civil law and probably not straight forward (could it even work?)