3 ms·

Legally speaking, CCP goes out of its way to emphasize that isk are play tokens money with no cash value, and losing it all is part of the game. TheDAO/Ethereum

by tamana 10y ago

Legally speaking, CCP goes out of its way to emphasize that isk are play tokens money with no cash value, and losing it all is part of the game. TheDAO/Ethereum supports exchanging ether for money. And anyone who lies about contract (beyond smiling and saying "here the contract code, sign it if you want" is commiting a fraud

xoa 10y ago
>Legally speaking, CCP goes out of its way to emphasize that isk are play tokens money with no cash value CCP officially supports converting money to ISK, and there are 3rd party exchanges for ISK to money. My understanding was that TheDAO ran purely on ether, and that any exchanges for money (be it fiat or another digital currency) were also happening purely 3rd party. Does an official line on "don't go the other way" make a material difference? If CCP merely took no stance on it at all, involved in no way but not working to ban anyone doing it, would that change anything? How "seriously" do they have to police it? Is there any case law on this? >And anyone who lies about contract (beyond smiling and saying "here the contract code, sign it if you want" is commiting a fraud Can you clarify your point here, and what you were referring to? 1. (and again): How is there any legal contract here, and if there isn't what's the 'fraud' legally (not a colloquial "fraud" with no legal impact)? Are you arguing that people should not be allowed to have non-legally binding (and thus non-contractual) agreements on shifting around "value" based on coded rules? 2. In the case of TheDAO, there were no lies, TheDAO stated clearly and repeatedly that the definitive governing authority was the smart contract itself, and TheDAO organization itself was not (or at least, publicly claims it was not) involved in the controversial smart contract execution. Instead it was at least one of the independent parties to the agreement. So if you were referring to TheDAO I'm confused. 3. In the case of EVE, are you arguing that ISK is different and therefore fraud is legally ok? Or are you arguing that it's still legally fraud?

by tamana 10y ago

xoa 10y ago

>Legally speaking, CCP goes out of its way to emphasize that isk are play tokens money with no cash value CCP officially supports converting money to ISK, and there are 3rd party exchanges for ISK to money. My understanding was that TheDAO ran purely on ether, and that any exchanges for money (be it fiat or another digital currency) were also happening purely 3rd party. Does an official line on "don't go the other way" make a material difference? If CCP merely took no stance on it at all, involved in no way but not working to ban anyone doing it, would that change anything? How "seriously" do they have to police it? Is there any case law on this? >And anyone who lies about contract (beyond smiling and saying "here the contract code, sign it if you want" is commiting a fraud Can you clarify your point here, and what you were referring to? 1. (and again): How is there any legal contract here, and if there isn't what's the 'fraud' legally (not a colloquial "fraud" with no legal impact)? Are you arguing that people should not be allowed to have non-legally binding (and thus non-contractual) agreements on shifting around "value" based on coded rules? 2. In the case of TheDAO, there were no lies, TheDAO stated clearly and repeatedly that the definitive governing authority was the smart contract itself, and TheDAO organization itself was not (or at least, publicly claims it was not) involved in the controversial smart contract execution. Instead it was at least one of the independent parties to the agreement. So if you were referring to TheDAO I'm confused. 3. In the case of EVE, are you arguing that ISK is different and therefore fraud is legally ok? Or are you arguing that it's still legally fraud?