4 ms·

Until law enforcement brings a case to court and secures a win, this is in fact exactly how it works. I'm not saying that it's right or good, but bullshit "bug

Until law enforcement brings a case to court and secures a win, this is in fact exactly how it works. I'm not saying that it's right or good, but bullshit "bug bounty" payouts are pretty well established in the crypto ecosystem at this point and to the best of my knowledge the only case of anything like it resulting in a conviction is Joe Sullivan being convicted for covering up a data breach at Uber with such a scheme.

seanhunter 2y ago
Well Avraham Eisenberg was convicted of manipulation in the Mango Markets case[1] spite of such a deal. I believe his sentencing is tomorrow so we'll know then whether or not the deal[2] affected his sentence but it didn't affect his conviction. There is a general belief among a lot of crypto folks that "if it's on chain, it's fair game" and you can make these kind of deals etc but as far as I can see, there's absolutely no basis for that in law. If law enforcement/regulators start to take actions they can do so for any case they suspect of being market abuse irrespective of whether the parties agreed some kind of deal. That is certainly my read of both the US and UK/EU regulations, which are the two cases I'm aware of. Neither of them have any sort of carve out to allow participants to make a bilateral arrangement to give someone a post-hoc waiver for some act that would otherwise be considered abuse. [1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-cryptocurrency-scheme https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-c... [2] This has info about the money he returned in what him and Mango thought was a bounty/settlement type thing https://blocktribune.com/avraham-eisenberg-seeks-leniency-in-crypto-fraud-case-sentencing/ https://blocktribune.com/avraham-eisenberg-seeks-leniency-in...

4 ms·

Until law enforcement brings a case to court and secures a win, this is in fact exactly how it works. I'm not saying that it's right or good, but bullshit "bug

by some_random 2y ago

seanhunter 2y ago
Well Avraham Eisenberg was convicted of manipulation in the Mango Markets case[1] spite of such a deal. I believe his sentencing is tomorrow so we'll know then whether or not the deal[2] affected his sentence but it didn't affect his conviction. There is a general belief among a lot of crypto folks that "if it's on chain, it's fair game" and you can make these kind of deals etc but as far as I can see, there's absolutely no basis for that in law. If law enforcement/regulators start to take actions they can do so for any case they suspect of being market abuse irrespective of whether the parties agreed some kind of deal. That is certainly my read of both the US and UK/EU regulations, which are the two cases I'm aware of. Neither of them have any sort of carve out to allow participants to make a bilateral arrangement to give someone a post-hoc waiver for some act that would otherwise be considered abuse. [1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-cryptocurrency-scheme https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-c... [2] This has info about the money he returned in what him and Mango thought was a bounty/settlement type thing https://blocktribune.com/avraham-eisenberg-seeks-leniency-in-crypto-fraud-case-sentencing/ https://blocktribune.com/avraham-eisenberg-seeks-leniency-in...