29/ Rebuttable Presumptions - This flexible judicial test could be applied with some rebuttable presumptions--for example, that if some person or affiliated group owns more than 20% of tokens or controls more than 50% of validating nodes, the system is presumptively centralized.
29/ Rebuttable Presumptions - This flexible judicial test could be applied with some rebuttable presumptions--for example, that if some person or affiliated group owns more than 20% of tokens or controls more than 50% of validating nodes, the system is presumptively centralized.
1/ **Thread** 🚨 We need to get back to decentralization and autonomy in crypto law and policy arguments. I'm against ETH and XRP being regulated the same. One is equity in a decentralized autonomous system (Ethereum), the other is a shadow-equity-style bet on one corporation (Ripple).
2/ Crypto policy people and the SEC have completely lost the lesson of Bill Hinman's speech on why ETH is not a security--because its value drivers are sufficiently decentralized. Reviving and refining this approach is more important than ever now that the SEC is attacking ETH.
3/ This gives me an excuse to revisit my old articles on decentralization and autonomy--as there is still widespread misunderstanding and denial of the importance of these concepts to law. They are more relevant now than ever, especially because they allow us to leverage the SEC's own words against them.
hard to explain this well on X, but yes, code must be law for DeFi to work
these systems would need to be designed completely differently if they are meant to be subservient to offchain understandings
you can't reference that offchain understanding only in the case of 'hacks'
For example, if Aave is meant to merely implement an offchain loan agreement, and thus the code of Aave may differ in performance from that agreement, then Aave needs to code jurisdictional usury limits on the interest rates or else that offchain agreement is itself void
But if the agreement is void/unenforfceable, then that also means you could not use it to say 'this hacker breached this agreement and therefore we can recover funds'
I've been wanting to write this for a while and have been thinking about these issues ever since digging into Solana (and its sources of centralization at the DApp level) a year ago
generally speaking it seems to me Solana seeks to achieve better scaling and composability by shifting costs onto DApp teams and infra providers instead of users...and that this is also where the SOL value flywheel comes from
I’m working with @delphi_labs and @LeXpunK_Army to hire a super saiyan lead developer for a special new project:
Building a cybernetic law platform for DAOs.
Our initial focus will be on cybernetic organizations, aka 'BORGs' 🤖
BORGs are real-world business entities intrinsically bound to smart contracts (and, eventually, AI). They create a new design space of cybernetic law bridging onchain and offchain worlds.
Purported "tokenization" of purported "RWAs" is mostly fake/impossible--a brief thread
3 kinds of 'RWAs': 1. "real" securities (e.g. shares of stock, bonds, etc.) 2. ownership titles to offchain assets (e.g., a real property deed; registered IP can also fall in this category) 3. receipts/certificates of deposit for an offchain asset (e.g. a specific gold bar)
you can't tokenize real estate titles or any other titled property without the govt endorsing the relevant tokenization scheme
so, in practice, #2 is really #1--people tokenize the shares of an entity & that entity owns the asset