> 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 gr

> 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