Except that they never actually asked the law if code can be law. They just...decided among themselves. And somehow expect the law to follow along.
Personally happy that these cases are now going to court. At least we'll get some clarity on whether code can actually be the law. Or if law is ultimately, well, the law.
The premier smart contract platform, when they had a bug in a popular dApp, summarily forked their chain to fix it. It's almost like the popular "code is not law, the law is the law" is not a serious point.
If anything, in the "crypto industry", hacks are widely considered illegal (market manipulation like in this case, less so). The ecosystem however is purpose-built on pseudonymous bearer assets, so that the law can be the law, and the code can be fact.
It seems that exploiting a smart contract in a way that doesn't involve market manipulation might still be fine, or not. Who knows?
Indictments are about specific crimes, not broad generalities.
> It seems that exploiting a smart contract in a way that doesn’t involve market manipulation might still be fine, or not.
“Exploiting a smart contract” isn’t a specific offense, and some instances might be legal. But even if they aren’t specifically “fraud” or “market manipulation” as is charged here, they can also “theft of service”, “theft by false pretenses”, or any of a wide variety of other crimes and torts.
>“Exploiting a smart contract” isn’t a specific offense, and some instances might be legal.
Exactly, there does not seem to be easy catch-alls here like wire fraud or unauthorized access.