15 ms·

What is interesting to me is how it shines a light on the regulatory framework of the non-crypto economy. If you read up on edge cases, there is a lot of people

What is interesting to me is how it shines a light on the regulatory framework of the non-crypto economy. If you read up on edge cases, there is a lot of people deciding if something is "fair", and my notions of fair and a particular judges notions of fair are often at odds. To steal from Frank Zappa: Legal isn't the same as allowed, allowed isn't the same as fair, fair isn't the same as just, and just isn't music.

lbriner 4y ago
A judge is not deciding whether something is "fair" they are deciding whether it is illegal to the letter and/or spirit of the law. The reason this is at odds with us is that many things are legal that are not "fair". The specific danger here legally is trying to apply general laws into an unregulated market. It's a bit like borrowing money from your mate and then trying to take him to court because he's asking for too much interest.
- omarhaneef 4y ago
  Well, this is going to send us down a rabbit hole but the reverse is also true: there are multiple interpretations of a given law and the judge tries to use their judgement to square the law with the facts. (Rabbit hole because I sense this is a debate lawyers have all through law school, and there are various schools of thoughts about the nature of the law etc)
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    Right? There probably is not agreement on fundamentals like the root purpose of law.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  "many things are legal that are not "fair"." They are, or at least purport to be, fair at some level or through some mechanism most people may not immediately percieve. When something really isn't fair, even by some indirect means or when accounting for some other imperative like geneneral societal necessity, then they are at least understood to be failures not successes. This story though... it actually provides a good example of indirect fairness. Well yes and no, there's a point and also a counter to that point, net result throw up my hands glad I'm not in crypto: Point, it's fair: You got robbed and think it's unfair that there's no recourse. That downside is just the fair price of being in that game at all, which you pay in trade for not having to deal with the traditional system and "the man". You have to absorb the occasional loss from a mistake as just a feature of the environment like the risk of your shipping boat sinking because the ocean is not a safe place. The only protection possible is pay an insurer or maintain your own emergency escrow or something, not any kind of police or rule-daddy. Point, it's not fair: They are not in fact free of the man, and so they are not really getting the true freedom they are paying for by assuming all responsibility for their own risk.
criddell 4y ago
There are lots of stories lately about stolen NFTs. The podcast ReplyAll did an episode where they tracked down the current owner of a stolen NFT. He had sympathy for the original owner but he had no intention of turning it over. I don’t get why purchasing a stolen NFT is different than purchasing a stolen guitar from a pawn shop. Shouldn’t the previous owner be able to use the courts to demand the return of the item that was stolen from them? Or is this just something that hasn’t been tested yet?
- omarhaneef 4y ago
  One of the points of digital assets is that the code is the contract, so whatever the code says is what was agreed to. There can be no cheating (in theory) hence no need to resort to courts etc.
  - antifa 4y ago
    And there is a chance that the courts will recognize law as law instead of code as law.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      And that will expose the fundamental contradictions and hypocrisy of the crypto community writ large, if they accept that help from the legal system.
  - plandis 4y ago
    When two or more parties sign a contract, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all the terms in that contract are enforceable.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      That's true if you are litigating the enforcement of the contract through traditional legal systems. Crypto enthusiasts want to be completely divorced from those.
  - 4y ago
tablespoon 4y ago
> What is interesting to me is how it shines a light on the regulatory framework of the non-crypto economy. If you read up on edge cases, there is a lot of people deciding if something is "fair", and my notions of fair and a particular judges notions of fair are often at odds. Yeah, that's by design. If your "notions of fair are often at odds" with someone else's notions of fair, and a judge needs to intervene to resolve the dispute, then things may not break your way.

lbriner 4y ago

A judge is not deciding whether something is "fair" they are deciding whether it is illegal to the letter and/or spirit of the law. The reason this is at odds with us is that many things are legal that are not "fair". The specific danger here legally is trying to apply general laws into an unregulated market. It's a bit like borrowing money from your mate and then trying to take him to court because he's asking for too much interest.

omarhaneef 4y ago
Well, this is going to send us down a rabbit hole but the reverse is also true: there are multiple interpretations of a given law and the judge tries to use their judgement to square the law with the facts. (Rabbit hole because I sense this is a debate lawyers have all through law school, and there are various schools of thoughts about the nature of the law etc)
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  Right? There probably is not agreement on fundamentals like the root purpose of law.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
"many things are legal that are not "fair"." They are, or at least purport to be, fair at some level or through some mechanism most people may not immediately percieve. When something really isn't fair, even by some indirect means or when accounting for some other imperative like geneneral societal necessity, then they are at least understood to be failures not successes. This story though... it actually provides a good example of indirect fairness. Well yes and no, there's a point and also a counter to that point, net result throw up my hands glad I'm not in crypto: Point, it's fair: You got robbed and think it's unfair that there's no recourse. That downside is just the fair price of being in that game at all, which you pay in trade for not having to deal with the traditional system and "the man". You have to absorb the occasional loss from a mistake as just a feature of the environment like the risk of your shipping boat sinking because the ocean is not a safe place. The only protection possible is pay an insurer or maintain your own emergency escrow or something, not any kind of police or rule-daddy. Point, it's not fair: They are not in fact free of the man, and so they are not really getting the true freedom they are paying for by assuming all responsibility for their own risk.

criddell 4y ago

There are lots of stories lately about stolen NFTs. The podcast ReplyAll did an episode where they tracked down the current owner of a stolen NFT. He had sympathy for the original owner but he had no intention of turning it over. I don’t get why purchasing a stolen NFT is different than purchasing a stolen guitar from a pawn shop. Shouldn’t the previous owner be able to use the courts to demand the return of the item that was stolen from them? Or is this just something that hasn’t been tested yet?

omarhaneef 4y ago
One of the points of digital assets is that the code is the contract, so whatever the code says is what was agreed to. There can be no cheating (in theory) hence no need to resort to courts etc.
- antifa 4y ago
  And there is a chance that the courts will recognize law as law instead of code as law.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    And that will expose the fundamental contradictions and hypocrisy of the crypto community writ large, if they accept that help from the legal system.
- plandis 4y ago
  When two or more parties sign a contract, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all the terms in that contract are enforceable.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    That's true if you are litigating the enforcement of the contract through traditional legal systems. Crypto enthusiasts want to be completely divorced from those.
- 4y ago

tablespoon 4y ago

> What is interesting to me is how it shines a light on the regulatory framework of the non-crypto economy. If you read up on edge cases, there is a lot of people deciding if something is "fair", and my notions of fair and a particular judges notions of fair are often at odds. Yeah, that's by design. If your "notions of fair are often at odds" with someone else's notions of fair, and a judge needs to intervene to resolve the dispute, then things may not break your way.