DeFi websites will never be prohibited or require a broker/dealer license to operate
they are just information about what is on a blockchain and what commands you can separately send to unrelated third parties to perform transactions on that blockchain
if creating/owning/operating such a website makes you a broker/dealer, then so does writing/publishing this article
at most there should be / could be some regulations designed to punish people who provide the information in a misleading way; these are called consumer protection laws and antifraud laws, and they already exist
think about it--all the same things you can do with a "DeFi website", you can do with etherscan through its "write contract" feature
are the owners/operators of etherscan unregistered securities broker/dealers? block explorers must be run by securities pros? absurd! impossible!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you talk to lawyers in the space who are working on SEC defenses for DeFi projects, one of the biggest issues is that internal chats/communications (discoverable by SEC) lapse into talking about the project as if it were any tech start-up instead of a FOSS project
if you talk like you're running a business, there is a high risk that you will be regulated like you're running a business
people like to poke holes in how XRP has been treated vs. how ETH has been treated, but one of the biggest distinctions between them is that Vitalik and others are very disciplined--communicating that they basically research & develop network clients & designs for network clients
I simultaneously agree that algo stablecoins like UST are very risky and experimental and disagree that USDC and DAI (which is also USDC) are categorically safer. Just different kinds of risks they expose you to.
USDC (and now by proxy DAI) expose you to counterparty risk, censorship risk, classic info asymmetries, classic agency problems and certain regulatory risk (I think both are securities or securities swaps).
UST and RAI present different kinds of risks around game theory, the adequacy of the incentives people are expected to respond to, etc.
Had a chance to review this "Tractatus" by @judge_jowday this morning. . . very interesting.
It appears to be a sort of gnomic, Wittegenstein-style philosophy of cryptolaw, intended to reconcile the two paradigms of "law is law" and "code is law".
There is no 'color commentary' provided on what the 'Tractatus' is supposed to mean or do, who would use it, whether it's meant to be descriptive or prescriptive, etc.
@judge_jowday 's intentions are open to interpretation.
The first few sections (1-3) are pretty boring, and appear to just be setting the stage for how to talk about law. They define law as an enforceable and enforced governance system consisting of rules, rights, duties and canons. (Debatable definitions).
Well, today we got two very different statements on crypto/DeFi/tokens from two SEC commissioners, Hester Pierce and Caroline Crenshaw.
I will probably write something longer about this soon, but for moment what really strikes me--and that I hope everyone in crypto will understand--is that regardless of where they land on the issues, their respective takes are *extremely* well informed.
These two commissioners have, directly as well as through very informed advisors, taken a keen interest in studying DeFi & grappling with the issues it presents.
Simply collateralize or wrap your existing tokens with $NEUR and they will be converted from non-compliant overconfident securities into fully compliant self-hating insecurities.
$NEUR will be airdropped only to U.S. persons.
Some people are asking about other $NEUR features:
--> stagflationary
--> aleatory (1M $NEUR randomly re-distributed every block)
-->negative 100,000% APY (drains all other tokens in your wallet--even your other wallets (thanks to our amazing partnership with @chain_analysis))
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'
@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:
@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)