Shots fired between SEC and Uniswap. Uniswap forcefully sets forth its arguments in this blogpost. My one caveat with the language architecture: why position this as merely “fighting for DeFi,” when they could broaden the appeal by “Fighting for Your Digital Autonomy.”

Shots fired between SEC and Uniswap. Uniswap forcefully sets forth its arguments in this blogpost. My one caveat with the language architecture: why position this as merely “fighting for DeFi,” when they could broaden the appeal by “Fighting for Your Digital Autonomy.”
https://blog.uniswap.org/fighting-for-defi

Lawyer, Professor, other stuff too, tech is cool

www.rosariotechlaw.com

poet-lawyer making meanings sans the mean

IANAL, but my guess is decreasing scope of the argument makes it easier to win in court

@nelsonmrosario - any thoughts?

Aurarchitect for /opacity --
host of vibe check podcast 
▶️ https://pods.media/vibe-check
❄️ icebreaker.xyz/dawufi
👀 seemore.tv/free/fc/dawufi

Let me think about that. You can't really argue things that are not specifically at issue. I mean, you can, but it's a bad idea and may make you look stupid.

i hear ya

but i wouldn't want that in the public domain for prosecutors to have

at least from my extensive researching watching law & order lol

Agree it’s a good idea to narrow the scope in a legal filing, but this is a blog post, where it’s important to connect with legislators and the general public. Non-DeFi folks aren’t moved by “fighting for DeFi” but they could be moved to fight for digital autonomy.