good points from @stephendpalley
a smart gov't wouldn't "regulate devs" but would offer devs who do agree to be regulated certain safe harbors--e.g., 'get this license and we'll keep SEC away from you; otherwise, go take your chances with them'
a smart gov't wouldn't "regulate devs" but would offer devs who do agree to be regulated certain safe harbors--e.g., 'get this license and we'll keep SEC away from you; otherwise, go take your chances with them'
https://twitter.com/stephendpalley/status/1447606357373464580
@stephendpalley his key point is this & one I fully agree with--DeFi lacks both the traditional separation between ownership and control and 'counterparty' risk that most regulatory regimes are premised on
it has other sources of risk, but they are not addressed by those regulations:
it has other sources of risk, but they are not addressed by those regulations:
@stephendpalley -->game theory risk (the risk that incentives designed into the system are inadequate to produce the desired outcomes)
-->tech implementation risk (the game theory is sound but implemented incorrectly)
-->tech implementation risk (the game theory is sound but implemented incorrectly)
additionally, some projects have quasi-custodial risk due to a multisig scheme--that is a serious risk which should be addressed somehow, but securities laws and derivatives laws aren't geared toward that
banking and money services laws are, but otherwise are a poor fit
banking and money services laws are, but otherwise are a poor fit
there are also some common law doctrines like bailment and escrow and fiduciary duties which could come into play with multisig arrangements
it just shouldn't be and isn't (imo) securities laws or commodities derivatives laws; they don't make sense for smart contract infra
it just shouldn't be and isn't (imo) securities laws or commodities derivatives laws; they don't make sense for smart contract infra
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
