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

poet-lawyer making meanings sans the mean

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

Lawyer, Professor, other stuff too, tech is cool

www.rosariotechlaw.com

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.

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

@nelsonmrosario - any thoughts?

I understand how, in a blog, making a broader digital autonomy argument can help win minds & hearts. But for purpose of setting up the legal arg in Ct, the more narrow argument (De-Fi) lines up more closely to a precedent-based ruling in their favor.