4 ms·

> Why put words in my mouth? I was replying to the wrong post. I had wanted to make it clear that we were discussing the same person. Amusingly, I did it expl

> Why put words in my mouth? I was replying to the wrong post. I had wanted to make it clear that we were discussing the same person. Amusingly, I did it explicitly to avoid the OP thinking I was putting words in their mouth. > In what other area of contract law are people allow to solicit investment based on false representations/marketing and hide from liability based on a disclaimer that the marketing materials may be inconsistent with the contract? The "code is law" was the main point of the marketing. They repeated it constantly. > it isn't novel in law where contracts are inconsistent with marketing material What was the inconsistency? That their goals didn't come true?

will_brown 10y ago
>I was replying to the wrong post. No problem, though we clearly arrive at different conclusions, I thought we were having a interesting conversation. >The "code is law" was the main point of the marketing. They repeated it constantly. To be a little pedantic that is a misrepresentation as code isn't the law, "law is law", at best "code/DAO is contract" (not the marketing material). Nevertheless, I am not denying their disclosures/disclaimers all along, just that legally the contract will not supersede inconsistent representations. >What was the inconsistency? Just to pull some statements from the DAO white paper: "the DAO Token Holders can elect to ‘pull the plug’ on the Contractor at anytime and for any reason. This is a major advantage as it considerably minimizes risk." -In the case of the contract that took the funds, the token holders, were not able to pull the plug (unless you consider the fork pulling the plug, but that is what most people are complaining about, but it was the intent for token holders to have - what I will call - this contractual right). "This standard DAO framework is simple, decentralized and 100% secure." -Again I believe where I say the funds were not secure because they were taken, I know the other side of the coin is that funds at all times were 100% secure because they were intended to be taken since that is what the code allowed. However, why even mention 100% secure, when really what they meant was what ever happens to your funds (invested, taken without being invested, etc...) you consented to contractually. "The first, an informal vote on whether a DAO would like to switch Curator or not. The second, a confirmation vote to give a chance to DAO Token Holders to confirm the result of the first vote, or a chance for the minority to ‘split’ their DAO into two and retain control over their ETH." -The whole concept of voting discussed at length (not the quote I gave above) is a misrepresentation, because investor funds were taken without their vote, and the protections (above) were not actually available to the investors. Unless, again you consider the fork the protection discussed in the white paper, but we know the objections to that. >DAOs are formed by groups of like-minded individuals with specific projects and goals in mind. The DAO/smart contract that took investor funds didn't include specific projects with goals in mind by like minded people, it siphoned off investor funds without consent/voting on the specific proposal or the protections as included in the white paper.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > To be a little pedantic that is a misrepresentation as code isn't the law, "law is law", Which is already an overloaded term though. Personally I'm giving gravity precedence here as a law, and CFAA only second points... In that sense, law is a precise and reliable description of what will happen. At that, the code is law. It diagrams (though obviously not clearly) the allowed states for the system. But, that's just semantics. We know what they meant. > "This standard DAO framework is simple, decentralized and 100% secure." Rofl, 0 out of 3 isn't that good... But the issue is if those are actionable. Decentralized is the only objective claim there and it's trivially wrong. The rest have no standard in law that I know of. Anyways though, they were totally and hilariously wrong, but I don't think they misrepresented the nature of the deal. > However, why even mention 100% secure, when really what they meant was what ever happens to your funds (invested, taken without being invested, etc...) you consented to contractually. Well, because most of these things (human endevours) have been destroyed by theft and fraud. We've got thousands of years of being suckered into trusting people and we're still screwing that up so there isn't much hope down that path. Being screwed by a smart contract is a pleasant change. :D

will_brown 10y ago

>I was replying to the wrong post. No problem, though we clearly arrive at different conclusions, I thought we were having a interesting conversation. >The "code is law" was the main point of the marketing. They repeated it constantly. To be a little pedantic that is a misrepresentation as code isn't the law, "law is law", at best "code/DAO is contract" (not the marketing material). Nevertheless, I am not denying their disclosures/disclaimers all along, just that legally the contract will not supersede inconsistent representations. >What was the inconsistency? Just to pull some statements from the DAO white paper: "the DAO Token Holders can elect to ‘pull the plug’ on the Contractor at anytime and for any reason. This is a major advantage as it considerably minimizes risk." -In the case of the contract that took the funds, the token holders, were not able to pull the plug (unless you consider the fork pulling the plug, but that is what most people are complaining about, but it was the intent for token holders to have - what I will call - this contractual right). "This standard DAO framework is simple, decentralized and 100% secure." -Again I believe where I say the funds were not secure because they were taken, I know the other side of the coin is that funds at all times were 100% secure because they were intended to be taken since that is what the code allowed. However, why even mention 100% secure, when really what they meant was what ever happens to your funds (invested, taken without being invested, etc...) you consented to contractually. "The first, an informal vote on whether a DAO would like to switch Curator or not. The second, a confirmation vote to give a chance to DAO Token Holders to confirm the result of the first vote, or a chance for the minority to ‘split’ their DAO into two and retain control over their ETH." -The whole concept of voting discussed at length (not the quote I gave above) is a misrepresentation, because investor funds were taken without their vote, and the protections (above) were not actually available to the investors. Unless, again you consider the fork the protection discussed in the white paper, but we know the objections to that. >DAOs are formed by groups of like-minded individuals with specific projects and goals in mind. The DAO/smart contract that took investor funds didn't include specific projects with goals in mind by like minded people, it siphoned off investor funds without consent/voting on the specific proposal or the protections as included in the white paper.

EdHominem 10y ago
> To be a little pedantic that is a misrepresentation as code isn't the law, "law is law", Which is already an overloaded term though. Personally I'm giving gravity precedence here as a law, and CFAA only second points... In that sense, law is a precise and reliable description of what will happen. At that, the code is law. It diagrams (though obviously not clearly) the allowed states for the system. But, that's just semantics. We know what they meant. > "This standard DAO framework is simple, decentralized and 100% secure." Rofl, 0 out of 3 isn't that good... But the issue is if those are actionable. Decentralized is the only objective claim there and it's trivially wrong. The rest have no standard in law that I know of. Anyways though, they were totally and hilariously wrong, but I don't think they misrepresented the nature of the deal. > However, why even mention 100% secure, when really what they meant was what ever happens to your funds (invested, taken without being invested, etc...) you consented to contractually. Well, because most of these things (human endevours) have been destroyed by theft and fraud. We've got thousands of years of being suckered into trusting people and we're still screwing that up so there isn't much hope down that path. Being screwed by a smart contract is a pleasant change. :D