The Disrupt Weekend

“Corporations are organized under the laws of a specific jurisdiction and require human involvement in their governance. DAOs, however, operate under a transparent set of software protocols – a pre-agreed set of governance rules, maintained and executed on a blockchain – that allow a distributed group of individuals or entities to self-govern.

While the law has long imposed the useful fiction of personhood on corporations – allowing them to sue or be sued, enter contracts and offer its members protection against liability – DAOs do not yet enjoy these privileges (for the most part). The clash between the growing popularity of DAOs on the one hand and the lack of legal protections and practicalities available to them on the other present DAOs, their lawyers and the courts with a host of execution and analytical challenges.

To the extent applicable state law would not permit a DAO to enter a traditional commercial arrangement without sacrificing its members’ personal liability, the law should be updated.

A few states have already begun to do so. Vermont, for instance, permits DAOs to register as blockchain-based limited liability companies. Wyoming, too, recently passed legislation providing liability protection for DAO members who organize as a limited liability company in the state.

A DAO is, like other entities, a useful tool to allow a widely dispersed and multi-jurisdictional group of individuals to privately and efficiently order their business arrangements. While blockchain-based governance is rapidly expanding, the law has been slower to catch up.”

See Also: DeFi Is Like Nothing Regulators Have Seen Before. How Should They Tackle It?
See Also: DAOs will be the future of online communities in five years

“Some $16 million in cryptocurrency was pilfered in an exploit of a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol last week, and the victims believe they know exactly who did it.

Despite threats from the team, however, the alleged attacker – a Canadian teenaged graduate student – is refusing to return the funds, potentially setting the stage for a groundbreaking legal confrontation. On one side of the conflict is a child math prodigy and an outspoken champion of DeFi’s self-regulating “code is law” ethos.

At stake in the fight are a number of thorny issues that have so far been successfully obscured by DeFi’s explosive growth: What is the role of law enforcement in an unregulated $220 billion sector? When, if at all, should the gendarmes be summoned? And, most importantly, is the notion of “code is law” sufficient to grapple with all of DeFi’s ethical complexities?

Because Indexed is a decentralized DAO, I am curious to see how they file their claim and how they describe their relation to the protocol and other DAO members. Will they say it is a partnership or a corporation? Or will they say they are individuals?

No builder in this space in their right mind believes that code is law. It’s just a meme that is perpetuated by anon on-lookers who just like to see chaos unfold. Is robbing a bank an ‘economic exploit?’ Saying that is frigging stupid. There’s nothing about this, if handled properly, that is groundbreaking precedent.

He added that if the community were to embrace such principles, the end result would quickly turn dystopian.

He’s trying to stamp his name in history, and he’s going to get it, but ruinously so.”

See Also: Terra’s Do Kwon Was Served by SEC, New Lawsuit Shows
See Also: Largest DeFi Prediction Market Polymarket Said to Be Under Investigation by CFTC: Report

“In 1997, the Clinton Administration published the groundbreaking “Framework for Global Electronic Commerce,” which set forth five key principles:

  • Governments should recognize the unique qualities of the internet.
  • The private sector should lead.
  • Governments should avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce.
  • Where governmental involvement is needed, its aim should be to support and enforce a predictable, minimalist, consistent and simple legal environment for commerce.
  • Electronic commerce on the internet should be facilitated on a global basis.

In the ensuing decades, the internet transformed our economic and social interactions in ways that have profoundly changed society. Today, we stand at a similar moment for the next generation of the internet, and it’s time for a new set of principles that incorporate lessons learned over the past 25 years.

Policymakers are finally taking a long overdue interest in Web 3. But the conversation is overwhelmingly about what policymakers don’t want from technology: fraud, illicit use, unsustainable energy consumption, systemic risk. We believe it’s time to establish an affirmative vision of what we do want from technology.

Web 3 is the most credible alternative for reshaping and redeeming institutions that have fallen short over the last few decades. Decentralization is more than a buzzword. It puts power and control back in the hands of consumers and individuals. Web 3 systems can be more inclusive, more equitable and more resilient.

Technological innovation is often necessary to unlock social change and economic growth, but it is certainly not sufficient. Without a well-conceived public policy framework that recognizes the wide diversity of the Web 3 ecosystem, we may never realize the benefits of decentralized digital transformation.”

See Also: Ethereum Price Prediction Using Logarithmic Regression (Video)

Worldcoin, which already touts a $1 billion valuation, aims to onboard more people into crypto by doling out free coins to anyone who scans their eyes on a device called “the Orb” that will convert an image of your eyes into “short numeric code” to check whether you already have Worldcoins.

Privacy advocate Edward Snowden blasted the project on Twitter.

This looks like it produces a global (hash) database of people’s iris scans (for “fairness”), and waves away the implications by saying we deleted the scans! You save the hashes produced by the scans. Hashes that match future scans. Don’t catalogue eyeballs.

Many on Crypto Twitter have lampooned the concept, including predicting an inevitable data leak that could result in biometric information being leaked and sold around the internet.”

“The Hong Kong-based firm’s biggest criteria for investment is that companies are building open, composable elements—whether it’s assets, tools, or platforms—that can fit into the company’s vision for a decentralized metaverse ahead. In other words: no walled gardens, or closed-off ecosystems like those from Apple and Google.

Siu is passionate about the potential for the metaverse, describing it as the defining focus for his company. He also sees a battle brewing between the projects and communities building open, interoperable tools for the metaverse and large companies that may try to co-opt the idea (and its potential profits) for their own benefit.

I describe the age we’re living in as a kind of digital colonialism. The likes of Facebook are essentially the imperialists of our age.

The biggest threat is not regulators. I think regulators are necessary to keep the space proper and everything is secure […] I think the threat is Facebook, and the threat is Tencent.”