[eloff]

In a way, this is like Uber or Airbnb, you can't ask permission or you'd be out of business before you managed to change the laws. Asking forgiveness is not only easier than asking permission, sometimes it's the only viable route.

They may lose money, they may make some. But it's a grand experiment of a kind that's never been tried before and I'm curious to see the results.

[zekevermillion]

Uber runs up against municipal taxi regulators. The DAO runs up against the SEC, DOJ, and state securities regulators, just to focus on the US cops. These people are a bit more serious than the City of Austin transit authority. As we've already seen in multiple cases, e.g., SatoshiDice, US regulators are aware of efforts to use profit-sharing contracts to raise funds, and view this (correctly) as a securities offering that should be registered unless there's a valid exemption. I was on a train some months ago and saw Preet Bharara reading the WSJ. At least I'm pretty sure it was him. How long do you think before a failed DAO crowdfunding ends up on the WSJ front page? If investors lose $100mm you can bet it will get that kind of publicity. Then it's just a matter of identifying the ideal defendant for symbolic punishment. If I were involved in slock.it, I would be careful not to travel through the US.

[darawk]

The DAO exists outside of the laws of the United States. If the US curators are arrested, they will be replaced with non-US residents.

This is the fundamental premise of decentralized systems. They are resilient to the interventions of governments. Bitcoin is definitely illegal in many places in the world, and occupies something of a gray area in the US. Yet, it operates just fine.

[zekevermillion]

The "dao" here is not designed in a way that is truly decentralized. It is susceptible to certain centralizing flaws. There could be a dao that is designed in a way that resists censorship, that would be more interesting.

[bunkydoo]

You've obviously never heard of extradition have you?

[darawk]

No country is going to extradite one of its own citizens for selling a financial product that doesn't happen to be approved by the US SEC and isn't a ponzi scheme / scam (the DAO may be a lot of things, but it is likely not an explicit confidence scheme). Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of countries who won't extradite to the US for any reason.

[zekevermillion]

But I am speaking exactly of the scenario where a dao project curator/contractor is perpetrating a financial crime. In that case, most countries would in fact extradite. If that's even necessary. I mention US laws not b/c I'm in favor of US imperialism but b/c I am familiar with these laws. I'm sure that there are other relevant jurisdictions that would frown upon financial crimes regardless of new age window dressing.

[darawk]

I don't think it's clear that the DAO represents a 'financial crime'. Especially not on the part of the curators. It is an unregulated, unlicensed investment vehicle, but it's certainly not predatory, and especially not on the part of the curators (who are the only arrestable individuals).

[gst]

I don't know about the law of other countries, but my home country (Austria) does not extradite its own citizens, no matter what the crime is. However, it is possible that you end up in front of an Austrian court, even if you commited the crime in another country. This will only happen in cases where the crime is actually a crime in Austria. Furthermore, the court will use Austrian law, so US law would be quite irrelevant in that case.

There might be an exception when the extradition request is issued by an EU country, but I'm not sure how this would be handled. Afaik the EU requires member states to extradite citizens and non-citizens to other member states. However, (afaik) the law that prevents Austria from extraditing its own nationals is at the constitution level.

[ubernostrum]

Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of countries who won't extradite to the US for any reason.

Try setting up a business in one of them and let me know how you like the environment.

[darawk]

You're missing the point. The DAO does not care about the business climate of any particular country. The curators can reside in any country in the world and finance any company anywhere in the world.

[aminok]

The US doesn't rule the world (yet).

[zekevermillion]

We don't and never will. Does that mean that US law is irrelevant? From from it.

[gst]

Yes - US law is pretty irrelevant for most people who live outside the US and who don't do business with the US.

How relevant is China's law for an US citizen who doesn't leave the country?

[aminok]

US law is not applicable in some countries, because they maintain independence from the US legal system.

[Vespasian]

Mulitply this times (countries in the world) and you got a legal abyss the DAO is looking into.

At least german authorities will be interested since Slock.it UG is registered there.

NB: They do not even have a website that is conformant with german law. This is not a big deal, however, it does not strengthen my confidence that these guys are able to create code able to manage a few hundred million dollars crowdfunded capital.

[jgalt212]

> you can't ask permission or you'd be out of business before you managed to change the laws.

That strategy didn't work out too well for Zenefits.

[Joof]

But it has worked out for others. Risks are still risks.

[zekevermillion]

It's a matter of degree. It might be a good risk to run a licensed recreational pot business in Colorado. Technically you're committing a federal crime, but there's a non-enforcement policy and as long as there's safety in numbers and a D in the White House you're probably OK. However, it's a bad idea to run a recreational cocaine business in any state. Requires a knowledge of the specific regulators, their views, and unofficial policies, to get this kind of decision right. Bringing this back to bitcoin-land, it seems that many bitcoin exchanges have knowingly operated without required state licenses for some years. However, the founders are not in jail. Why not? I think they have taken a considered approach to "partial" compliance, working out informal agreements with state regulators for eventual compliance, and avoiding operations in states that take a more hardline view. Eventually the top exchanges like Coinbase will get whatever licenses they need to, just a matter of time and $$$.

[jgalt212]

Yes, it comes down to risk management and decision making under uncertainty. i.e. how much of a competitive advantage can we gain by pushing the regulatory limits, and what are the potential downsides and probability associated with such downsides.

PG has expressed a view that he favors start ups that push regulatory boundaries, but I'm sure his view is more nuanced than such a blanket statement.