IANAL and all, but bad/unfavorable contracts and literal deception/fraud are two different things, at least in the legal system. Not everything that's technically possible is also allowed, obviously.
Compare it to using a security flaw to hack into a system. Technically you're only using the official API, maybe in unusual ways, but still. But you're doing it in bad faith and causing harm, maybe pretending to be someone you're not or injecting fake data into the system, and that can make a difference.
Hacking a private corporate system, which is generally on closed nets and requires an internal actor / phishing, is significantly different from exploiting a code fault on a public network.
Trustless systems rely on mathematics to secure their networks. This is both the revolution of them and the risk. If you build a system of value and it is on a public network, and you fail to properly secure it, that is supposed to be the risk. You lose money, hopefully go bankrupt / lose credibility, and a more efficient actor eats your lunch.
Treating it like a traditional system with these unspoken legal safeguards when it uses a public blockchain and public network is absurd.
What's absurd is this crypto maximalist take.
You can't just make up your own permission and punishment system, and then expect the legal system to just step aside and let it handle all disputes, especially when it comes to fraud. That's like founding your own city in an existing country, and declaring all existing law obsolete. I know some people think this is a real possibility, but the real world doesn't work like that.
The "real" world works however the people want it to.
As it stands, it works with laws that protect the rich and elite with superior rights.
Someday, maybe the people will decide on a more equitable system. Nature and mathematics might be heavy contributors to that system.
IANAL and all, but bad/unfavorable contracts and literal deception/fraud are two different things, at least in the legal system. Not everything that's technically possible is also allowed, obviously.
Compare it to using a security flaw to hack into a system. Technically you're only using the official API, maybe in unusual ways, but still. But you're doing it in bad faith and causing harm, maybe pretending to be someone you're not or injecting fake data into the system, and that can make a difference.
Hacking a private corporate system, which is generally on closed nets and requires an internal actor / phishing, is significantly different from exploiting a code fault on a public network.
Trustless systems rely on mathematics to secure their networks. This is both the revolution of them and the risk. If you build a system of value and it is on a public network, and you fail to properly secure it, that is supposed to be the risk. You lose money, hopefully go bankrupt / lose credibility, and a more efficient actor eats your lunch.
Treating it like a traditional system with these unspoken legal safeguards when it uses a public blockchain and public network is absurd.
What's absurd is this crypto maximalist take.
You can't just make up your own permission and punishment system, and then expect the legal system to just step aside and let it handle all disputes, especially when it comes to fraud. That's like founding your own city in an existing country, and declaring all existing law obsolete. I know some people think this is a real possibility, but the real world doesn't work like that.
The "real" world works however the people want it to.
As it stands, it works with laws that protect the rich and elite with superior rights.
Someday, maybe the people will decide on a more equitable system. Nature and mathematics might be heavy contributors to that system.