3 ms·
As I understand it, the DAO website explicitly stated that the code of the contract superseded any written or stated intent. Basically: The code is the law.
by Zarath 9y ago
As I understand it, the DAO website explicitly stated that the code of the contract superseded any written or stated intent. Basically: The code is the law.
- bhaak 9y agoI can write anything on a website. That doesn't mean that it is legally binding.
- moomin 9y agoThe behaviour of the founders would almost certainly mean the phrase was interpreted as advertising rather than a legal commitment.
- jessaustin 9y agoAdvertisers are occasionally held to some sort of legal commitment with respect to statements made in their ads. The "hackers" in this case might claim they wouldn't have invested their money if they hadn't believed the ad...
- PeterisP 9y agoThe actual law is the law, and contract law (and criminal law i.e. regarding fraud) states that the intent does matter. The DAO website doesn't make legislation - the code may specify the rules about which transactions the Ethereum system will approve, but in the real world the actual laws matter and they will determine whether some people will have their stuff taken away, their movement restricted, or be forced to do some transactions in the Ethereum system.
- stale2002 9y agoSure, the law cares about intent. But the question that is to be debated is, was the intention of the DAO too follow the code of the contract EVEN IF it had a bug. There is an argument to make that, given that "the code is law" was plastered all over the DAO, that being hacked and having all their money stolen, was explicitly allowed.