[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.

[cinquemb]

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

I'm arguing it now, you may disagree, but I can for sure tell you that If I had at least 5 felonies like certain corporations do (and the exact same ones they were charged with and merely paid punitive fines for that barely scratched the surface of the profits extracted), I certainly would not be able to continue to operate in certain jurisdictions like they can and continue to do. You may not think such is a utter failure of enforcement, but I do. Thankfully, my actions, thoughts and ideas are not bounded by what you think.

Regardless, there are dao's that are not incorporated in any jurisdiction and are sufficiently decentralized that even if any one or many of their actors that are distributed in many jurisdictions we're arrested or killed, their evm deployed contracts will continue operate just fine regardless of what you or I think of such dao's and the assets of such daos, will remain out of reach of punitive actions of any particular jurisdiction.

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

Right, ignore the social and non finance related dao's listed in the link I provided, and continue to form your opinions strictly based on someone else definitions of "goodness" or "badness". All just bluster ;)

[zepto]

> I'm arguing it now, you may disagree

No, you actually don’t present an argument that inconsistent enforcement is equivalent to no enforcement. You just argue that you don’t like inconsistent enforcement.

> You may not think such is a utter failure of enforcement, but I do.

You are entitled to that judgement of it, but it’s obviously not equivalent to no enforcement. To say so is ridiculous on its face, which is why you haven’t in fact been able to argue it.

> Right, ignore the social and non finance related dao's listed in the link I provided

The fact you can’t pick one out shows that there actually aren’t any good examples. That’s my point. I’m not ignoring them.