[zepto]

> No one tells people how to build/run a company (and neither does the law in any particular jurisdiction, though they may set boundaries,

This is essentially false. Corporate law, labor law, contract law, IP law, Tax law, and other legal disciplines do a lot to tell people how to build and run companies in every jurisdiction. If you don’t obey them, the state will impose liabilities by force.

> just like the evm sets boundaries)

This is a completely false comparison. Boundaries set by the evm are nothing like legal boundaries.

> people come up with their own methods for doing such and spread/share those methods with others.

Can you think of an example outside finance, where someone has build a company as a DAO instead of using legal incorporation?

[cinquemb]

> Corporate law, labor law, contract law, IP law, Tax law, and other legal disciplines do a lot to tell people how to build and run companies in every jurisdiction.

If you fork uniswapv2 code and deploy it on chain, it enshrines a bunch of rules that essentially tell one how they can interact with it in the same way these laws do.

People have to come up with these things, turn them in to law (or code), while also varying by jurisdiction (and highly susceptible to selective enforcement unlike code the executes the same way thru the evm) that people break/exploit those rules all the time that go against whats stated in them (people can hack contracts whose logic isn't tightly defined).

> Boundaries set by the evm are nothing like legal boundaries.

I'd say they are far superior than legal boundaries at enabling consistent and transparent interactions between people to the degree that some groups of people decide at using them vs incorporating in any jurisdiction at all like they may have in the past.

> Can you think of an example outside finance, where someone has build a company as a DAO instead of using legal incorporation?

If you are seriously interested, look here[0] (which is not a comprehensive list)

[0] https://coopahtroopa.mirror.xyz/_EDyn4cs9tDoOxNGZLfKL7JjLo5r...

[zepto]

> If you fork uniswapv2 code and deploy it on chain, it enshrines a bunch of rules that essentially tell one how they can interact with it in the same way these laws do.

Except with no actual enforcement mechanism. Can we stop saying these are equivalent? It’s just not true to pretend they are.

> If you are seriously interested, look here[0] (which is not a comprehensive list) [0] https://coopahtroopa.mirror.xyz/_EDyn4cs9tDoOxNGZLfKL7JjLo5r...

I am seriously interested and that’s the best answer so far, although from what I can see nothing breaks out of the financial derivatives space yet.

[cinquemb]

> Except with no actual enforcement mechanism.

Can we not ignore when any given enforcement mechanism associated typically with laws don't get executed when laws are broken by various actors? It's dishonest to pretend that traditional enforcement mechanisms are consistently used.

> although from what I can see nothing breaks out of the financial derivatives space yet.

You'd probably think that traditional non profit organization with a bank account is a financial derivative then if you research some of these Social DAO's and consider them being in the financial derivatives space.

[zepto]

>> Except with no actual enforcement mechanism.

> Can we not ignore when any given enforcement mechanism associated typically with laws don't get executed when laws are broken by various actors?

> It's dishonest to pretend that traditional enforcement mechanisms are consistently used.

If you can find a quote indicating that I’m pretending that they are consistently used, then by all means call me dishonest.

What certainly is dishonest is to pretend that a mechanism that isn’t used consistently is equivalent to no mechanism at all.

> > although from what I can see nothing breaks out of the financial derivatives space yet.

> You'd probably think that traditional non profit organization with a bank account is a financial derivative then if you research some of these Social DAO's and consider them being in the financial derivatives space.

I looked. However I haven’t researched them all.

Perhaps you have a single good example you can point to? I assume you must think at least one of them is good.

[cinquemb]

> What certainly is dishonest is to pretend that a mechanism that isn’t used consistently is equivalent to no mechanism at all.

Arguably, any instance where such enforcement mechanism fails to happen in response to an infraction in law, or fails be applied consistently to all actors, is a failure of said enforcement mechanism in totality (compared to evm where the contract will revert at runtime to the state before such method reverting execution if inputs + contract state go beyond the bounds defined within the contract and within the evm, every single time, for all actors as defined by the contract). Just because enforcement of the law sometimes works, does not remove its systemic flaws that might as well make it no real enforcement mechanism at all (especially so for some actors who can bypass meaningful enforcement pretty much any time they make an infraction).

Granted, you do not have to use anything defined by the evm. But others have and will continue to do so without any jurisdictions permission.

> Perhaps you have a single good example you can point to? I assume you must think at least one of them is good.

I think at this point, you have enough info to start to DYOR if you want to or not. I don't think there is much point in me spoon feeding you more stuff, and you can come to your own conclusions of ones "goodness" or "badness" and not rely on mine, and what ever you conclude, everyone else will not be bounded by such.

[zepto]

> Arguably, any instance where such enforcement mechanism fails to happen in response to an infraction in law, or fails be applied consistently to all actors, is a failure of said enforcement mechanism in totality

No, that’s not ‘arguable’. It’s ridiculous and obviously wrong.

> there is much point in me spoon feeding you more stuff

Or, far more likely, you simply can’t actually produce a good example.

Given that you could simultaneously prove me wrong and inform other people by doing so, I think it’s clear this is just bluster.