the reason why Elon crashed Bitcoin is the same reason why he's been sued for breach of fiduciary duties, securities fraud, etc.-he thinks his "mission" (sometimes cloaking his mere whims & lulz) preempts every other concern, & his fawning simps agree
for example, this enabled him to bail out his own failing company (Solarcity) at the expense of Tesla stockholders because it's 'solar power' & therefore green & progressive / important--he is set to stand trial for breach of fiduciary duty over this
this enabled him to tweet '$420 funding secured' when Tesla was in crisis, get a stock pump that may have saved the company, and get away with a slap on the wrist from the SEC
'Transactional law' practice (venture, M&A, etc.) is fundamentally broken, marked by an evil convergence of self-perpetuating bad incentives that make it almost impossible to reform or even incrementally improve.
Yes, it's the lawyers' fault.
In any rational world, a deal would just be a checklist of standard terms, and the parties would argue about which boxes to check instead of their lawyers spending weeks trying to trick each other through bespoke verbiage spread out across 10 different docs.
Honestly can't believe I've wasted 11 years of my life on this stupidity. After I wrap up my current slate of deals I will no longer engage in this charade.
Here is a new @iearnfinance governance proposal by @tracheopteryx and me. We worked on it on & off for months, with @tracheopteryx putting in especially heavy time.
I will say a few words about my own thinking on it (speaking only for myself).
there are a lot of ideas & narratives out there about DeFi/protocol/DAO/community governance, but they often don't match up to the reality of what happens on the ground:
narrative: if there is a governance token, that means the token holders are in control of 'the protocol'
reality: governance token holders lack off-chain authority & thus rely on a fragile deference-by-rough-social-consensus upheld by devs & users who help define the protocol
what still seems odd to me is that mere functionality of the token / network takes it out of the securities laws; I do think that's inconsistent with current U.S. securities law, so unless Congress approves that, I would delete clause (ii) of the definition of "Network Maturity"