5 ms·

>The DAO contract was neither hacked nor broken. Broken, is an interesting choice of words, because by your very definition the DAO could never be broken it si

>The DAO contract was neither hacked nor broken. Broken, is an interesting choice of words, because by your very definition the DAO could never be broken it simply is whatever the code says it is, thus could never be broken. However, as much as some people want to claim the DAO as executed is exactly what investors contracted for, it is not. The creators of the DOA solicited investment based on marketing material in plain language that was entirely inconsistent with the code of the DAO. Under the law one can't market and solicit investment based on representations that are untrue...that is fraud and but for the false representations many/if not all investors would not have invested. Moreover, it is generally not enough to include a little disclaimer at the end of the marketing material acknowledging the marketing may not be accurate and that the investors are investing at their own risk and in the DAO "as-is".

pavel_lishin 10y ago
While I recognize that the law almost certainly disagrees, isn't ETH's "The Code is the Contract" ethos morally override any complaints people could make about unfair marketing? If you're using Ethereum, you're implicitly buying into the "the code is the contract" philosophy; it's 100% 'caveat emptor'.
- will_brown 10y ago
  >isn't ETH's "The Code is the Contract" ethos morally override any complaints people could make about unfair marketing? I am no moral authority, though I certainly have my opinions. I think the moral question breaks down to the following: 1. Do I have a moral obligation to perform a contract that I entered only as a result of fraud? Let me ask you, what if you and I enter a contract where I will pay you $10 to pull a string of my choice and you agree. After you enter the contract I show you the string and it is tied off to a trigger on a gun pointed to someones head, does the contract ethos morally override my unfair disclosure? That is obviously an extreme, but how about if you had a elderly parent who was on their death bed and I told your parent the Will makes you the sole beneficiary but it really made me the sole beneficiary, would you have a moral obligation to allow the Will/contract to stand that overrides your complaint about unfair representations? At the end of the day, people signed up for the DAO, but the DAO as executed was not what they signed up for, no matter how much people say that is the entire point of the DAO. If it were me I would feel no moral obligation to accept my losses as if it were losses based on a legitimate investment opportunity that simply didn't perform. I think people must determine for themselves what is moral, and while keeping ones word and fulfilling contractual obligations is a moral issue, it applies to all parties (the solicitor and investor), and that is why the law doesn't permit fraud, deceptive and unfair trade practices, contracts with minors, contracts with people who lack capacity to understand them, unjust enrichment, etc...
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > Let me ask you, what if you and I enter a contract where I will pay you $10 to pull a string of my choice and you agree. After you enter the contract I show you the string and it is tied off to a trigger on a gun pointed to someones head I think this analogy is very flawed, because I could inspect the DAO code before investing in it. The string doesn't lead off-stage.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      Even if it is flawed, the contract never said I couldn't untie or cut the string before pulling it (or move the head away from the gun). So I remove the string from the trigger, pull it, and walk away with $10. This illustrates the difficulty with rigid computer-enforced contracts. Clearly, both parties violated the intent of the contract by strict, bloody-minded adherence to its literal terms. The cleverest, most obfuscated contract writer thus wins against everybody but the cleverest, most analytic contract disassembler.
      - pavel_lishin 10y ago
        > Even if it is flawed, the contract never said I couldn't untie or cut the string before pulling it (or move the head away from the gun). So I remove the string from the trigger, pull it, and walk away with $10. Again, this is not an accurate analogy to the DAO contract, which I could fully inspect, and even theoretically run in a sandbox environment myself. Your analogy is more akin to what actually happened, which is that people said, "nah, we didn't mean that", and re-tied the string to something else.
      - h1d 10y ago
        I agree that is the current state but if that is going to be the case for time to come, I doubt it will fly as every investor needs to be the cleverest. If nothing is learned by the devs and if all they do is make investers look less angry, this project is not going anywhere.
        10y ago

pavel_lishin 10y ago

While I recognize that the law almost certainly disagrees, isn't ETH's "The Code is the Contract" ethos morally override any complaints people could make about unfair marketing? If you're using Ethereum, you're implicitly buying into the "the code is the contract" philosophy; it's 100% 'caveat emptor'.

will_brown 10y ago
>isn't ETH's "The Code is the Contract" ethos morally override any complaints people could make about unfair marketing? I am no moral authority, though I certainly have my opinions. I think the moral question breaks down to the following: 1. Do I have a moral obligation to perform a contract that I entered only as a result of fraud? Let me ask you, what if you and I enter a contract where I will pay you $10 to pull a string of my choice and you agree. After you enter the contract I show you the string and it is tied off to a trigger on a gun pointed to someones head, does the contract ethos morally override my unfair disclosure? That is obviously an extreme, but how about if you had a elderly parent who was on their death bed and I told your parent the Will makes you the sole beneficiary but it really made me the sole beneficiary, would you have a moral obligation to allow the Will/contract to stand that overrides your complaint about unfair representations? At the end of the day, people signed up for the DAO, but the DAO as executed was not what they signed up for, no matter how much people say that is the entire point of the DAO. If it were me I would feel no moral obligation to accept my losses as if it were losses based on a legitimate investment opportunity that simply didn't perform. I think people must determine for themselves what is moral, and while keeping ones word and fulfilling contractual obligations is a moral issue, it applies to all parties (the solicitor and investor), and that is why the law doesn't permit fraud, deceptive and unfair trade practices, contracts with minors, contracts with people who lack capacity to understand them, unjust enrichment, etc...
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > Let me ask you, what if you and I enter a contract where I will pay you $10 to pull a string of my choice and you agree. After you enter the contract I show you the string and it is tied off to a trigger on a gun pointed to someones head I think this analogy is very flawed, because I could inspect the DAO code before investing in it. The string doesn't lead off-stage.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Even if it is flawed, the contract never said I couldn't untie or cut the string before pulling it (or move the head away from the gun). So I remove the string from the trigger, pull it, and walk away with $10. This illustrates the difficulty with rigid computer-enforced contracts. Clearly, both parties violated the intent of the contract by strict, bloody-minded adherence to its literal terms. The cleverest, most obfuscated contract writer thus wins against everybody but the cleverest, most analytic contract disassembler.
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      > Even if it is flawed, the contract never said I couldn't untie or cut the string before pulling it (or move the head away from the gun). So I remove the string from the trigger, pull it, and walk away with $10. Again, this is not an accurate analogy to the DAO contract, which I could fully inspect, and even theoretically run in a sandbox environment myself. Your analogy is more akin to what actually happened, which is that people said, "nah, we didn't mean that", and re-tied the string to something else.
    - h1d 10y ago
      I agree that is the current state but if that is going to be the case for time to come, I doubt it will fly as every investor needs to be the cleverest. If nothing is learned by the devs and if all they do is make investers look less angry, this project is not going anywhere.
      - 10y ago