Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
can someone hit me with a concrete example of a situation in which a token holder would be held liable in a way that would be damaging? imo the only potential appeal of duna is if there is a real, tangible risk to owning a noun because of the threat of legal liability. but as someone with basically no law experience I don't know what types of situations might exist where token holders could be held liable. if there are none, or if the likelihood of these situations are extremely small, then I don't think it's worth taking on the downsides of DUNA, and the pros feel more like fantasyland whatifs
4 replies
1 recast
4 reactions
w-g
@w-g
some people find auto insurance mandates onerous but many would opt in regardless. I guess it’s unclear to me if you’re questioning whether Nouns itself could incur meaningful liabilities or just whether those liabilities could be passed through to token holders?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Maybe both? To me it feels like a bank being held liable for damages committed by the recipient of the grant/loan. Like should the bank be liable? They just gave some money. I guess this is where KYC comes into play. Maybe in the grant recipient went on to do crimes, the bank could be held liable for enabling those crimes somewhat. This is where I don’t know enough about law, because in my head, trying to rationalize this all, I really don’t think the bank should be liable for something a grant/loan recipient goes on to do.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
