9 ms·

Ethereum’s $150M DAO Opens as Researchers Call for a Halt

170 points by sangfroid 10y ago

applecore 10y ago
Does the governance structure of the DAO support permanently shutting itself down? What system of checks and balances exists to govern its behavior if things get really bad?
- sidko 10y ago
  It allows a way to 'split' the DAO, and also take your 'share' of what's left and just leave. For instance, you are already scared and don't want to deal with this anymore, you can just take all the ETH that you put into this and forget the whole thing happened. However, there are some issues with timing, and other attack vectors/flaws in this mechanism outlined in the research being referred to in the article. Here's the original research paper. It's a very good read: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10kTyCmGPhvZy94F7VWyS-dQ4lsBacR2dUgGTtV98C40/mobilebasic https://docs.google.com/document/d/10kTyCmGPhvZy94F7VWyS-dQ4...
  - curiousgal 10y ago
    I believe you'd have to wait like 21 days for your ether to clear so that you're completely out. But I am not sure.
    - reddytowns 10y ago
      It's 48 days. https://daowiki.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DAO/Step-by-Step%3A+Splitting+the+DAO https://daowiki.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DAO/Step-by-Step%...
jsprogrammer 10y ago
>“In general what you really want in any kind of a voting-governed structure like the DAO is you want the voters to vote their true preferences. You want them voting in line with what they want to see happen,” says Sirer. In other words, if a token-holder thinks that the proposal will yeild[sic] profits and increase the net worth of the DAO, he should vote yes. If not, he should vote no. But that’s not what we’re likely to see, according to the analysis. Sorry, but I had to stop reading there. The sentences do not logically follow each other. The other words used by the author are not equivalent to what Sure was quoted as saying. In fact, the author's assertion removes all autonomy from a token holder and reduces them to a revenue maximizing rubber stamp. Edit: if you can't deal (or even read), pls downmod
- ianai 10y ago
  I suppose the statements agree if all the voter is interested in is profit.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    It removes all autonomy from the voter being able to express their true preferences as the author has subjugated them to profit.
    - schwabacher 10y ago
      You are missing the point - whether their motivation is purely profit, or altruistic, or whatever - if they do not want to fund a project, they have an incentive not to vote 'No' against it because as soon as they do they can no longer remove their money from the DAO, and have committed to funding the project if it passes.
      - jsprogrammer 10y ago
        Maybe you are missing the point? The author conflates an (presumably autonomous) individual's true preference with necessarily increasing the net worth of the DAO. There is no a priori reason to believe that. Edit: you could, like, you know, post a reason to believe the equivalency.
        tripzilch 10y ago
        I think .. I believe the point of the featured article was the example: (given the voter is mainly interested in profit, then) IF a voter thinks that the proposal will yield profits and increase the net worth of DAO: vote yes but only if their interests align that way. if they don't, obviously their decision will be based on other factors. the point being, it should be straightforward and obvious to vote yes or no, depending on whether the result of a majority-vote yes or no, would align with your particular interests yes or no. while that statement seems almost tautological, it's a very desirable requirement for voting systems. I'm not 100% sure on the terminology (it's been a while since I studied it) but it might be called "monotonicity" or something. the point of the article was that in some cases it would be advantageous to do something different instead of voting yes or no along with your particular interests. in this case that it would be better to split than to vote no, in many cases. that demonstrates the (mathematical/logical) assumption of monotonicity (if it was called that) is violated. but you only need one example to demonstrate that. so it doesn't quite matter that this is not everybody's incentive, as long as it's a reasonable incentive that people may choose. I admit the added bit about "increasing the net worth of DAO" raised my eyebrows as well. I just assumed many profit-interests would align with the net worth of DAO, and that it'd be healthy for the system or something (I don't know).
eterpstra 10y ago
Discussion around the issues outlined in the report have already begun (before the report was published) in the DAO forums. It's not unexpected that there will be problems. This has never been done before. But the fact that this report exists, the problems are being discussed, and there are already talks of proposals for resolving some of the issues is a good sign that the DAO is working as intended... The community discovers problems, the community fixes problems. Compare this to a traditional investment fund where you hand over your money to a private organization with opaque investment strategies, business operations, and technology. If I invest in a Vanguard or Fidelity fund, they only report back what is required of them by regulators. They take little to no input from investors, and may be running their business on decades old technology filled with flaws and bugs. I view the DAO as an open source investment fund in the same spirit as "The Cathedral and The Bazaar". It's not perfect, it's messy, some people are more influential than others, there's a lot of noise, and it could collapse on itself at any time. But everyone gets to participate (for better or worse). Lots of eyeballs are constantly watching, and plenty of concerns will be voiced. I know the HN crowd is a skeptical one, but try to keep an open mind. This could grow into something great. And if it doesn't... hey, it's not your money, so don't sweat it.
- zekevermillion 10y ago
  The "investors" risk losing all their money, and the curators and contractors risk going to prison because they are conducting an illegal securities offering with no valid exemption.
  - HappyTypist 10y ago
    Curators may face legal risk, but contractors are just contracting. Nothing illegal about that.
    - zekevermillion 10y ago
      In many cases, like slock.it, they appear to be the same groups on all sides (curators, contractors, token-holders), but do not necessarily disclose the relationships or voting power.
awt 10y ago
I would be interested to know how much the creators of the DAO have studied the history of democracy.
- eterpstra 10y ago
  I can't speak for the individual creators, but the 'tyranny of the majority' has been discussed at length and is the basis for the 51% attack mitigation. DAO and Ethereum enthusiasts also seem to enjoy discussing 'delegative democracy' (or 'liquid democracy') at length.
ianai 10y ago
I love the idea of a corporation ran completely by rules and regulations. But the blockchain sours it for me. I just do not believe that operates in any way like a currency must.
- llamataboot 10y ago
  In this case, the blockchain isn't acting like a currency, it's acting like a impartial applyer of decisions made by people..
  - ianai 10y ago
    Interesting, got a link?
    - DennisP 10y ago
      Here's the main site, link to the whitepaper at the bottom of this page: https://daohub.org/about.html https://daohub.org/about.html
- brighton36 10y ago
  You need a blockchain so that you can secure funding
intrasight 10y ago
I read the article as saying "passive investors might get screwed". So this discussion should be healthy for the DAO if it gets these passive folks to become more active. Creating the future will require some work.
- joosters 10y ago
  No, it's worse than that. Everyone (with money in the DAO) may be screwed.
dreamdu5t 10y ago
Wake me up when the DAO does something interesting
- wyck 10y ago
  Haven't you heard they are going to destroy airbndb because they invented a self install lock app, people will be rushing to the stores to install these locks because it solves so many lock related issues, it's more expesive then what's already on the market, it's a great signal to local regulations that your illegally renting your house, and as a bonus they do zero marketing, it's all win.
  - fudged71 10y ago
    This is the funniest take on dao/slock that I've seen so far
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > and as a bonus they do zero marketing The locks or the company does zero marketing? Also, I went to their page: https://slock.it/ https://slock.it/ First thought: "OMG this looks like just another bullshit startup". Pages looking like that are a pretty reliable signal of very low value to presentation ratio...
- josu 10y ago
  Raising 150M is no small feat. Anything that happens to that money will be interesting. Everything about the DAO is interesting given that it has never happen before. So if you can't find it interesting right now, you won't probably find it interesting later either.
brador 10y ago
What advantages does the DAO offer over a regular fund for investors? It looks like you get less regulartion and legal weight if things go wrong...am I missing something?
- dimino 10y ago
  Lower overhead if things go right, I think is the point.
- ilaksh 10y ago
  Its transparent and everyone can vote. So its like being able to read over all contracts and investment strategies that a fund manager is considering ahead of time and voting whether you want to be part of it. Then you can see every single transaction the 'fund manager' makes. If you understand how Wall St. works then the question becomes 'why does anyone use regular funds'.
  - dpc59 10y ago
    People use regular funds because they want their capital to grow without having to think or work.
_Marak_ 10y ago
I spent a few days in the DAO chat room discussing a potential proposal. The general consensus among the developers was that the DAO isn't ready for a real business, and any business owner intending to use the DAO would face real potential risks for loss of funds or worse. Still, it's a really interesting idea. Wish it was ready for prime-time.
- ilaksh 10y ago
  That's just the difference between honest problem solving people and the average Wall St. sales guy. One tells you about the risks, the other doesn't really understand the risks or care, he is just trying to get more of your money to play with.
force_reboot 10y ago
The no vote bias looks like a serious flaw in the DAO. As the authors say, it is safe for an informed investor to split than to vote "no" on a proposal (for reference, users who split are still entitled to the proceeds of any proposal they funded so far). So passive investors would either be in danger of an attack from a bad proposal, or would find a way to automatically split if the investor wasn't available, defeating the purpose of the DAO. Put another way, the stock market rewards passive investors with exactly the same rewards as active investors (which has its own problems - shareholder control over management is notoriously lax), but the DAO goes to the opposite extreme. I personally think that calling for a moratorium is presumptuous - I'm certainly glad there was no moratorium of the stock market when it was introduced because some economists identified some real flaws. But it is a well researched critique.
- CyberDildonics 10y ago
  But wouldn't that end up being all or nothing? If there were many investments going on and someone splits, do they retain all the previous investments? I suppose the answer is yes, but then are the same curators working for them?
sillysaurus3 10y ago
https://boards.4chan.org/biz/thread/1271161/wtf https://boards.4chan.org/biz/thread/1271161/wtf Transcript: http://pastebin.com/raw/ATJSADgr http://pastebin.com/raw/ATJSADgr One could argue that the thread consists of nothing but trolling, and that no one could possibly be so stupid as to invest their entire life savings, take out loans, and attempt to use credit cards to buy coins. Unfortunately, I've seen it happen. The conversations on that thread are almost exactly the same as they were several years ago. "Hold. Things will get better, you simply must hold." "But I lost half my life savings..."
- CyberDildonics 10y ago
  Everyone learns their lesson at some price, but for some it is higher than others.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
CyberDildonics 10y ago
I have to say that as far as flawed systems of incentives go, the one outlined in the article seems pretty tame. I feel like it is something people don't understand in general and something that is often manipulated, but simply not paying attention roughly amounting to an implicit 'yes' doesn't strike me as a fatal flaw. That being said I think ethereum is very interesting but enormously risky (even more so than some other crypto-currencies). I think experiments like this are fantastic, but starting with 150 million is not. It would be much better in my opinion if it started with 1000 dollars and tried to grow from there gradually. As far as incentives go, 150 million is a huge incentive to play fast, loose, and dirty by any means necessary to get balance into keys you control and cash out. From what I've seen of kickstarter, the internet is WAY less skeptical than they should be and it seems everyone needs to learn the lessons of their grandparents on how not to lose money to false promises.
bunkydoo 10y ago
This ultimately ends with Vitalik receiving a subpoena from the feds on behalf of a U.S. based investor who loses and gets pissed. Then he either complies and builds a backdoor for Ethereum, or he gets banned from the U.S. has trouble going back to Russia because they want the same thing. So he will ultimately become like the Bobby Fischer of crypto in effort to not give government backdoor access to Ethereum. Will it work? Tune in next week!
- mahyarm 10y ago
  And what will Vitalik testify in this subpoena? What could he reveal that wouldn't already be public? It's like giving a subpoena to a hammer maker to ask them what happened with hammer x that built thingy Y that they sold long time ago.
- DennisP 10y ago
  Ethereum is defined by a 32-page spec and has seven independent implementations so far, each in a different language, with only one produced by the organization that Vitalik leads. It might be a bit challenging introducing a back door.
lukebp 10y ago
Could ethereum be used to create verifiable transparency in investment funds? Something that would prevent fraud, such as the Bernie Madoff ponzie scheme, from occurring.
- josu 10y ago
  Yes, and kind of. You'd probably avoid a Madoff-like kind of scheme, but scammer will always exist and they'll find new ways.
kordless 10y ago
I bet you an Ether it's also highly vulnerable to polarized voting.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
reddytowns 10y ago
Slock has responded to this by creating a proposal to fix these security issues: https://blog.slock.it/slock-it-security-proposal-1-is-now-verified-we-look-forward-to-you-guys-being-able-to-vote-on-it-d20b3a2e7d9c#.4ng99aiix https://blog.slock.it/slock-it-security-proposal-1-is-now-ve...
hNewsLover99 10y ago
DAO's claim of being "jurisdictionless" -- and thus not subject to any state or federal laws governing the rights and duties of business organizations, fiduciaries and beneficiaries or creditors and debtors -- then its equity owners (i.e., those who spent Ether in exchange for proportional ownership tokens) wouldn't enjoy the investor liability limitations and other protections provided by those laws. As a result those equity owners could be on the hook for claims and judgments against the DAO for sums in excess of the value of the Ether they've paid in or the tokens they've received.
Animats 10y ago
So the same people behind the DAO are behind Slock? That is, the people behind the exchange are also pushing the first offering? Uh oh.

170 points by sangfroid 10y ago

Does the governance structure of the DAO support permanently shutting itself down? What system of checks and balances exists to govern its behavior if things get really bad?

sidko 10y ago
It allows a way to 'split' the DAO, and also take your 'share' of what's left and just leave. For instance, you are already scared and don't want to deal with this anymore, you can just take all the ETH that you put into this and forget the whole thing happened. However, there are some issues with timing, and other attack vectors/flaws in this mechanism outlined in the research being referred to in the article. Here's the original research paper. It's a very good read: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10kTyCmGPhvZy94F7VWyS-dQ4lsBacR2dUgGTtV98C40/mobilebasic https://docs.google.com/document/d/10kTyCmGPhvZy94F7VWyS-dQ4...
- curiousgal 10y ago
  I believe you'd have to wait like 21 days for your ether to clear so that you're completely out. But I am not sure.
  - reddytowns 10y ago
    It's 48 days. https://daowiki.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DAO/Step-by-Step%3A+Splitting+the+DAO https://daowiki.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DAO/Step-by-Step%...

jsprogrammer 10y ago

>“In general what you really want in any kind of a voting-governed structure like the DAO is you want the voters to vote their true preferences. You want them voting in line with what they want to see happen,” says Sirer. In other words, if a token-holder thinks that the proposal will yeild[sic] profits and increase the net worth of the DAO, he should vote yes. If not, he should vote no. But that’s not what we’re likely to see, according to the analysis. Sorry, but I had to stop reading there. The sentences do not logically follow each other. The other words used by the author are not equivalent to what Sure was quoted as saying. In fact, the author's assertion removes all autonomy from a token holder and reduces them to a revenue maximizing rubber stamp. Edit: if you can't deal (or even read), pls downmod

ianai 10y ago
I suppose the statements agree if all the voter is interested in is profit.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  It removes all autonomy from the voter being able to express their true preferences as the author has subjugated them to profit.
  - schwabacher 10y ago
    You are missing the point - whether their motivation is purely profit, or altruistic, or whatever - if they do not want to fund a project, they have an incentive not to vote 'No' against it because as soon as they do they can no longer remove their money from the DAO, and have committed to funding the project if it passes.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Maybe you are missing the point? The author conflates an (presumably autonomous) individual's true preference with necessarily increasing the net worth of the DAO. There is no a priori reason to believe that. Edit: you could, like, you know, post a reason to believe the equivalency.
      - tripzilch 10y ago
        I think .. I believe the point of the featured article was the example: (given the voter is mainly interested in profit, then) IF a voter thinks that the proposal will yield profits and increase the net worth of DAO: vote yes but only if their interests align that way. if they don't, obviously their decision will be based on other factors. the point being, it should be straightforward and obvious to vote yes or no, depending on whether the result of a majority-vote yes or no, would align with your particular interests yes or no. while that statement seems almost tautological, it's a very desirable requirement for voting systems. I'm not 100% sure on the terminology (it's been a while since I studied it) but it might be called "monotonicity" or something. the point of the article was that in some cases it would be advantageous to do something different instead of voting yes or no along with your particular interests. in this case that it would be better to split than to vote no, in many cases. that demonstrates the (mathematical/logical) assumption of monotonicity (if it was called that) is violated. but you only need one example to demonstrate that. so it doesn't quite matter that this is not everybody's incentive, as long as it's a reasonable incentive that people may choose. I admit the added bit about "increasing the net worth of DAO" raised my eyebrows as well. I just assumed many profit-interests would align with the net worth of DAO, and that it'd be healthy for the system or something (I don't know).

eterpstra 10y ago

Discussion around the issues outlined in the report have already begun (before the report was published) in the DAO forums. It's not unexpected that there will be problems. This has never been done before. But the fact that this report exists, the problems are being discussed, and there are already talks of proposals for resolving some of the issues is a good sign that the DAO is working as intended... The community discovers problems, the community fixes problems. Compare this to a traditional investment fund where you hand over your money to a private organization with opaque investment strategies, business operations, and technology. If I invest in a Vanguard or Fidelity fund, they only report back what is required of them by regulators. They take little to no input from investors, and may be running their business on decades old technology filled with flaws and bugs. I view the DAO as an open source investment fund in the same spirit as "The Cathedral and The Bazaar". It's not perfect, it's messy, some people are more influential than others, there's a lot of noise, and it could collapse on itself at any time. But everyone gets to participate (for better or worse). Lots of eyeballs are constantly watching, and plenty of concerns will be voiced. I know the HN crowd is a skeptical one, but try to keep an open mind. This could grow into something great. And if it doesn't... hey, it's not your money, so don't sweat it.

zekevermillion 10y ago
The "investors" risk losing all their money, and the curators and contractors risk going to prison because they are conducting an illegal securities offering with no valid exemption.
- HappyTypist 10y ago
  Curators may face legal risk, but contractors are just contracting. Nothing illegal about that.
  - zekevermillion 10y ago
    In many cases, like slock.it, they appear to be the same groups on all sides (curators, contractors, token-holders), but do not necessarily disclose the relationships or voting power.

awt 10y ago

I would be interested to know how much the creators of the DAO have studied the history of democracy.

eterpstra 10y ago
I can't speak for the individual creators, but the 'tyranny of the majority' has been discussed at length and is the basis for the 51% attack mitigation. DAO and Ethereum enthusiasts also seem to enjoy discussing 'delegative democracy' (or 'liquid democracy') at length.

ianai 10y ago

I love the idea of a corporation ran completely by rules and regulations. But the blockchain sours it for me. I just do not believe that operates in any way like a currency must.

llamataboot 10y ago
In this case, the blockchain isn't acting like a currency, it's acting like a impartial applyer of decisions made by people..
- ianai 10y ago
  Interesting, got a link?
  - DennisP 10y ago
    Here's the main site, link to the whitepaper at the bottom of this page: https://daohub.org/about.html https://daohub.org/about.html
brighton36 10y ago
You need a blockchain so that you can secure funding

intrasight 10y ago

I read the article as saying "passive investors might get screwed". So this discussion should be healthy for the DAO if it gets these passive folks to become more active. Creating the future will require some work.

joosters 10y ago
No, it's worse than that. Everyone (with money in the DAO) may be screwed.

dreamdu5t 10y ago

Wake me up when the DAO does something interesting

wyck 10y ago
Haven't you heard they are going to destroy airbndb because they invented a self install lock app, people will be rushing to the stores to install these locks because it solves so many lock related issues, it's more expesive then what's already on the market, it's a great signal to local regulations that your illegally renting your house, and as a bonus they do zero marketing, it's all win.
- fudged71 10y ago
  This is the funniest take on dao/slock that I've seen so far
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > and as a bonus they do zero marketing The locks or the company does zero marketing? Also, I went to their page: https://slock.it/ https://slock.it/ First thought: "OMG this looks like just another bullshit startup". Pages looking like that are a pretty reliable signal of very low value to presentation ratio...
josu 10y ago
Raising 150M is no small feat. Anything that happens to that money will be interesting. Everything about the DAO is interesting given that it has never happen before. So if you can't find it interesting right now, you won't probably find it interesting later either.

brador 10y ago

What advantages does the DAO offer over a regular fund for investors? It looks like you get less regulartion and legal weight if things go wrong...am I missing something?

dimino 10y ago
Lower overhead if things go right, I think is the point.
ilaksh 10y ago
Its transparent and everyone can vote. So its like being able to read over all contracts and investment strategies that a fund manager is considering ahead of time and voting whether you want to be part of it. Then you can see every single transaction the 'fund manager' makes. If you understand how Wall St. works then the question becomes 'why does anyone use regular funds'.
- dpc59 10y ago
  People use regular funds because they want their capital to grow without having to think or work.

_Marak_ 10y ago

I spent a few days in the DAO chat room discussing a potential proposal. The general consensus among the developers was that the DAO isn't ready for a real business, and any business owner intending to use the DAO would face real potential risks for loss of funds or worse. Still, it's a really interesting idea. Wish it was ready for prime-time.

ilaksh 10y ago
That's just the difference between honest problem solving people and the average Wall St. sales guy. One tells you about the risks, the other doesn't really understand the risks or care, he is just trying to get more of your money to play with.

force_reboot 10y ago

The no vote bias looks like a serious flaw in the DAO. As the authors say, it is safe for an informed investor to split than to vote "no" on a proposal (for reference, users who split are still entitled to the proceeds of any proposal they funded so far). So passive investors would either be in danger of an attack from a bad proposal, or would find a way to automatically split if the investor wasn't available, defeating the purpose of the DAO. Put another way, the stock market rewards passive investors with exactly the same rewards as active investors (which has its own problems - shareholder control over management is notoriously lax), but the DAO goes to the opposite extreme. I personally think that calling for a moratorium is presumptuous - I'm certainly glad there was no moratorium of the stock market when it was introduced because some economists identified some real flaws. But it is a well researched critique.

CyberDildonics 10y ago
But wouldn't that end up being all or nothing? If there were many investments going on and someone splits, do they retain all the previous investments? I suppose the answer is yes, but then are the same curators working for them?

sillysaurus3 10y ago

https://boards.4chan.org/biz/thread/1271161/wtf https://boards.4chan.org/biz/thread/1271161/wtf Transcript: http://pastebin.com/raw/ATJSADgr http://pastebin.com/raw/ATJSADgr One could argue that the thread consists of nothing but trolling, and that no one could possibly be so stupid as to invest their entire life savings, take out loans, and attempt to use credit cards to buy coins. Unfortunately, I've seen it happen. The conversations on that thread are almost exactly the same as they were several years ago. "Hold. Things will get better, you simply must hold." "But I lost half my life savings..."

CyberDildonics 10y ago
Everyone learns their lesson at some price, but for some it is higher than others.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

CyberDildonics 10y ago

I have to say that as far as flawed systems of incentives go, the one outlined in the article seems pretty tame. I feel like it is something people don't understand in general and something that is often manipulated, but simply not paying attention roughly amounting to an implicit 'yes' doesn't strike me as a fatal flaw. That being said I think ethereum is very interesting but enormously risky (even more so than some other crypto-currencies). I think experiments like this are fantastic, but starting with 150 million is not. It would be much better in my opinion if it started with 1000 dollars and tried to grow from there gradually. As far as incentives go, 150 million is a huge incentive to play fast, loose, and dirty by any means necessary to get balance into keys you control and cash out. From what I've seen of kickstarter, the internet is WAY less skeptical than they should be and it seems everyone needs to learn the lessons of their grandparents on how not to lose money to false promises.

bunkydoo 10y ago

This ultimately ends with Vitalik receiving a subpoena from the feds on behalf of a U.S. based investor who loses and gets pissed. Then he either complies and builds a backdoor for Ethereum, or he gets banned from the U.S. has trouble going back to Russia because they want the same thing. So he will ultimately become like the Bobby Fischer of crypto in effort to not give government backdoor access to Ethereum. Will it work? Tune in next week!

mahyarm 10y ago
And what will Vitalik testify in this subpoena? What could he reveal that wouldn't already be public? It's like giving a subpoena to a hammer maker to ask them what happened with hammer x that built thingy Y that they sold long time ago.
DennisP 10y ago
Ethereum is defined by a 32-page spec and has seven independent implementations so far, each in a different language, with only one produced by the organization that Vitalik leads. It might be a bit challenging introducing a back door.

lukebp 10y ago

Could ethereum be used to create verifiable transparency in investment funds? Something that would prevent fraud, such as the Bernie Madoff ponzie scheme, from occurring.

josu 10y ago
Yes, and kind of. You'd probably avoid a Madoff-like kind of scheme, but scammer will always exist and they'll find new ways.

kordless 10y ago

I bet you an Ether it's also highly vulnerable to polarized voting.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

reddytowns 10y ago

Slock has responded to this by creating a proposal to fix these security issues: https://blog.slock.it/slock-it-security-proposal-1-is-now-verified-we-look-forward-to-you-guys-being-able-to-vote-on-it-d20b3a2e7d9c#.4ng99aiix https://blog.slock.it/slock-it-security-proposal-1-is-now-ve...

hNewsLover99 10y ago

DAO's claim of being "jurisdictionless" -- and thus not subject to any state or federal laws governing the rights and duties of business organizations, fiduciaries and beneficiaries or creditors and debtors -- then its equity owners (i.e., those who spent Ether in exchange for proportional ownership tokens) wouldn't enjoy the investor liability limitations and other protections provided by those laws. As a result those equity owners could be on the hook for claims and judgments against the DAO for sums in excess of the value of the Ether they've paid in or the tokens they've received.

Animats 10y ago

So the same people behind the DAO are behind Slock? That is, the people behind the exchange are also pushing the first offering? Uh oh.