DeFi Education Fund
@fund-defi
“The same intuitive principle that governs our understanding of car manufacturer and driver liability should be the foundation of sensible policymaking in the context of decentralized networks and protocols.” Today, @a16zcrypto published a piece authored by DEF’s @millercwl & @atuminelli discussing why sound policymaking for crypto should always start from an analysis of “control” in a given system. 🧵 https://a16zcrypto.com/posts/article/doj-actions-against-defi/
2 replies
7 recasts
15 reactions
DeFi Education Fund
@fund-defi
2/ Why? Because “holding people responsible for systems and activities over which they exercise no agency or control leads to perverse outcomes.” “It wouldn’t make sense to hold carmakers responsible for the bad driving of their vehicles’ users, just as it wouldn’t make sense to impose car manufacturing obligations on drivers themselves.”
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
DeFi Education Fund
@fund-defi
3/ Unfortunately, we’ve already seen examples of how ignoring this intuitive principle leads to “perverse outcomes.” The Department of Justice has flatly ignored this distinction, holding software developers of neutral tools like [Roman Storm] liable for the actions of third-parties. This needs to change.
1 reply
1 recast
3 reactions
DeFi Education Fund
@fund-defi
4/ That is why a top policy priority for DEF in 2025 is codifying the legally correct understanding of “control” in law, including in the context of what constitutes “money transmitting” in that case. If you care about this issue or want to learn more, we want to hear from you. Shoot us a DM so we can find time to chat.
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
