Color around Dead Token Litigation
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•1,704 views
This document discusses mistakes and issues that can occur with blockchain projects, including making unrealistic promises, exaggerating claims, and not being able to deliver on what was promised. It mentions the Munchee Order from the SEC in 2017 that found a blockchain startup engaged in unlawful activity. The document also discusses rumors, lying about being a coin creator, subpoenas related to ICOs in 2017, and potential lawsuits related to issues like lost or stolen cryptocurrency. It concludes by questioning how legal and contractual responsibilities are determined when mistakes or problems occur on blockchains.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Color around Dead Token Litigation
Similar to Color around Dead Token Litigation (20)
More from Tim Swanson
More from Tim Swanson (14)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Color around Dead Token Litigation
- 1. Whoops, you made a mistake and now it’s on a blockchain
- 2. What not to do
- 5. Making promises you cannot keep
- 6. From the “ICO Whitepaper Whitepaper” on June 6, 2017:
- 7. Fast forward to December 11, 2017... … the “Munchee Order” from the SEC
- 9. Overhyping and exaggerating didn’t start with ICOs, just rewind to bitcoin memes in 2014
- 10. That didn’t work out...
- 11. Rumor mongering is still part and parcel of how coin-focused VC’s drum up attention for deal flow to their funds
- 12. This event didn’t actually happen
- 13. Or publicly bragging about something you may not have
- 16. Claiming to be a coin creator… but analytics say no
- 17. Someone always cheats in the cartel
- 19. Putting lipstick on a pig… or renaming a company in this case
- 21. What are the step-by-step mechanics of this?
- 23. Subpoenacoin era: 2017 – to present
- 25. Arrestedcoin era: 2018 -->
- 28. In 2014 Ray Dillinger attempted a thankless task
- 29. Necronomicon
- 30. Dillinger’s cataloguing legacy lives on
- 32. At some point, we might even begin the era of “dead token litigation.” While not dead (yet), there is an interesting lawsuit that was filed earlier in April 2018.
- 34. What about Nano? tldr: a significant portion of Nano (formerly Raiblocks) were being stored at an Italian exchange called BitGrail. BitGrail got “hacked” and one of the plaintiffs hired a US law firm (Silver Miller). Part of the attempted recourse in the class-action suit is to require the developers to coordinate an emergency chain “roll back.”
- 35. These anecdotes, social media screenshots, and actual court cases are just the tip of the iceberg, which leads to the conclusion...
- 36. Code is not law When validating transactions and code on a network: How do we decide who has legal standing when something forks or breaks? How do we decide who is liable when a hack or mistake occurs? How do we decide who bears responsibility if a block reorg or orphan occurs? How do we decide who is responsible for recourse and restitution? How do we decide who has a contractual relationship to fulfill validating duties? How do we decide who can enforce the rulings of disputes? Or in short: when the system doesn’t behave like it was expected to, how do we decide who is at fault and extract recourse?
- 37. Questions or comments? Contact: tim@postoaklabs.com 37