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.

there's no reward in winning fights no one started, especially when you can actually lose lol

Just saying the community could do a better job of framing issues in public statements. Buzzwords and legalese are not as effective as arguing that this is merely a case of people using new technology to freely transact with their own digital property. That’s more compelling than the “fewer gatekeepers” arg.