Topic: Vitalik and Tual going to end up in jail? (Read 11013 times)

I know Barry Silbert been in trouble with the SEC. Vitalik going to prison is a good april fools joke.

However, there’s already indications that at least the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is responsible for overseeing the nation's securities laws, is paying attention.

Consensus amidst crisis

Last month, the deputy director of the SEC’s trading and markets division, Gary Goldsholle, pointed to the hack as illustrative of his concerns over consumer protection in similar instances in the future, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

To minimize the negative impact the hack might have on those consumers, Jentzsch said a series of measures have been organized within the community.

Until the legal framework is in place, giving in to the seduction of ICOs puts you and your company at risk of a regulatory crackdown. Founders and non-ICO investors could lose everything to a big penalty.
And that risk doesn’t stop at the company level. Founders and directors could be personally responsible to investors, or even face criminal charges.

So far regulators have taken a light touch, but since The DAO debacle we know the SEC is paying attention to the crypto-equity world, and it’s safe to assume that someone, somewhere is going to get hit with the regulatory hammer. Don’t let it be you.

Still think they're going to jail?

a) The terms and conditions of the particular smart contract supersedes hundreds of years of US legal contract law, not! Directly or indirectly, this has been fudded all over the internet. 100% of the legal consensus is that  in the US, US contract law is the guiding agent. Who has jurisdiction is another matter, but in whatever jurisdiction, that jurisdiction's legal system is the controlling entity. You are not waving away the US court system with words written in magic pixie dust on a piece of paper.

b) It''s clear that the Ethereum foundation immediately needs to consult with legal experts in the areas of contract law and security and exchange law in order to clarify in their talks what exactly they can and cannot claim/promise. CEO's never say anything for public attribution without clearing it with legal.

I think the "attacker" deserves the funds, because and assuming he did nothing illegal (but I am not even sure if he didn't violate some obscure law). But we are discussing about perceptions of what the risks are. Please re-read my prior post as I added to it. For me, it hinges on whether they had adequately explained/disclosed the risks to the DAO and ETH investors. I suspect not (otherwise why $168m invested[1]). Thus I argue they can fork and then make the conspicuous and repeated disclosure so that it is clear they will be consistent from here on. And they pretty much have to fork in that case, else they throw themselves under the legal liability bus (but due to the decline in the ETH price they are fucked legally no matter what they do). As for the threats of lawsuits from the "attacker", these can be ignored because they can claim that the majority has the Byzantine power to fork and everyone who uses CC knows that.

Or they can take the stance that all CC investors should know the risks and that they are the owners, because it is decentralized. In that case, they shouldn't fork, but I think they will lose this argument in court perhaps. The DAO investors can file a class action lawsuit for example (which btw supercedes every international jurisdiction!) and claim to be n00bs who trusted Vitalik and Tual their idols.

I believe this clusterfuck is going to lead to securities regulation of CC.  

Vitalik is growing up very fast I think right about now.


[1] Where are the statements about how participants could lose everything if there is a bug? They should have scared away some of the money. I read 18,000 investors for $168 million, so several $1000s each.

No. leopard2 and I mean that the intent of the DAO contract is roughly not to allow 1 user take all the value out without consensus voting.

And contract law will likely enforce rule for that intent, regardless of an weakness in the code which prevents enforcing that intent.

Edit: but note it is not clear whether the law could enforce it.

That's ture but they also could be waiting for the right time to pounce and I bet Vitalik will be at the top of their hit list.

The SEC is just looking for people to make examples out of in crypto. If they were going to do something they would have done it by now.

They are just cryptocoin developers.