…sputes after the DAO hard fork (specifically, in the still-unresolved stuck funds dispute). Indeed, Nick Szabo’s law is often cited by core developers to justify their choices in blockchain governance disputes. Szabo’s law is therefore crypto law.
Man you are way way off here.
For small value disputes Szabo’s law is perfectly good to operate as crypto law.
For huge gargantuan sums of money NO it doesn’t work.
You are just black and white with no shades of grey here. You can’t apply one law to every single dispute no matter how large it becomes.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I believe Szabo’s law works fine for any sum where:
- A single participant has less than 1,000 USD at stake
- The entire contract holds less than 200,000 for all participants.
Maybe try taking a nuanced approach?
The moral of the story here is never give your money to a contract that is holding 10s or 100s of millions of dollars worth of ETH unless you have a really good reason to do so. ICOs as it turned out were not really good reasons to make oneself vulnerable to this type of risk.
Sucks to be you if you gave your ETH to an ICO and now it’s stuck. But just imagine how much more sucky it would be if a large enough amount of ETH was stuck in there such that we endured yet another contentious fork and now we have three flavors of Ethereum:
So yes please lets all not use Szabo’s law for large sums of money because it doesn’t make for sound legal advice. But for smaller sums of money maybe consider it as a tool to lower the total costs of burdensome regulation to users.