[dvcc]

So if I read this right, I am supposed to trust a contract that sits on top of a mutable 'OS' that is managed by the community? I feel like all of these contract-as-code groups really need to have a lawyer on their team as well; for some reason, it seems like developers believe they understand the purpose of financial/other contracts and how they're actually used.

Would you sign a contract that references a contract that can be changed at anytime without your agreement?

[spalladino2]

First of all, upgrades are opt-in, so you can build on top of the OS and only switch to a new kernel version under certain conditions, such as if all parties in the contract agree.

Also, keep in mind that financial contracts are not subject to hacks, unlike smart contracts, as we have seen several times. One of the goals of upgradeability is the possibility to roll out security patches as needed.

[currymj]

yeah, people do this all the time, to a greater or lesser extent! referencing past or future agreements, agreements between other parties, the prime interest rate published in the WSJ, etc.

the difference is, if someone does something really abusive with one of these clauses, a judge will throw it out.