4 ms·

> Manipulating a program or abusing it for your personal gains at the expense of others is often illegal "Manipulating" doesn't seem like the right word here.

> Manipulating a program or abusing it for your personal gains at the expense of others is often illegal "Manipulating" doesn't seem like the right word here. This is more like a billionaire buying up a popular social media platform and then once he owns the majority of it, deciding how it should operate.

cma 5y ago
It would be buyung up majoruty, then voting to transfer all assets to self. In non-crypto world there are minority shareholder protections that cover even someone with a 1% stake against the other at 99%.
_aavaa_ 5y ago
This feels more like embezzlement
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  Not even embezzlement. Everyone put skin in the game only on the condition that the stipulations laid out in the contracts were followed. One of the stipulations was that people with more money get the most say on what to do with all the money. This was an explicit stipulation, and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would agree to put in their resources in under such conditions, but they did. Looking at the Terms and Conditions as well as the contract, this goes under "A fool and her money". There was no embezzlement at all, this contract literally said people with more money can potentially vote to take all the money. Which is madness, but people agreed to it.
lokar 5y ago
With a written contract actions allowed in the contract can still be considered as fraud. Making the contract a program does not change that.
vkou 5y ago
No, this is more like someone buying up 51% of the voting shares of a public company, and then using his voting power to transfer all of the company's assets into a shell corporation that he controls, screwing the minority shareholders. Which is illegal, and will get you sued if you try it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kybernetikos 5y ago
  Isn't that because management of a company are required to act in the interests of all share holders? It seems like this kind of structure needs similar safeguards but I doubt that it actually does in any relevant jurisdictions at the moment.

cma 5y ago

It would be buyung up majoruty, then voting to transfer all assets to self. In non-crypto world there are minority shareholder protections that cover even someone with a 1% stake against the other at 99%.

_aavaa_ 5y ago

This feels more like embezzlement

bilbo0s 5y ago
Not even embezzlement. Everyone put skin in the game only on the condition that the stipulations laid out in the contracts were followed. One of the stipulations was that people with more money get the most say on what to do with all the money. This was an explicit stipulation, and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would agree to put in their resources in under such conditions, but they did. Looking at the Terms and Conditions as well as the contract, this goes under "A fool and her money". There was no embezzlement at all, this contract literally said people with more money can potentially vote to take all the money. Which is madness, but people agreed to it.

lokar 5y ago

With a written contract actions allowed in the contract can still be considered as fraud. Making the contract a program does not change that.

vkou 5y ago

No, this is more like someone buying up 51% of the voting shares of a public company, and then using his voting power to transfer all of the company's assets into a shell corporation that he controls, screwing the minority shareholders. Which is illegal, and will get you sued if you try it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kybernetikos 5y ago
Isn't that because management of a company are required to act in the interests of all share holders? It seems like this kind of structure needs similar safeguards but I doubt that it actually does in any relevant jurisdictions at the moment.