…chain developers on the idea that the minimization of blockchain governance and of crypto law would minimize their exposure to legal risk, by requiring them to exercise only the minimum amount of crypto legal power and judgement possible.
Is this is true if the value of contracts and escrows is held below a certain amount? As it turns out I really only care about contracts that hold funds in escrows that are never allowed to exceed 4,000. So for TandaPay Szabo’s law works pretty great actually.
You’ve got to give people choices, You’ve got to let people decide what works out good for them. If a user realizes that the potential loss and downside exceed the potential upside then they should not participate. But if the potential downside is minimal and the potential upside is worth it then they will.
Do we really need the broken legal system for $500 legal disputes? It doesn’t work… that’s the point Vlad. This is what I don’t like about your article:
- Our legal systems have so much friction
- Our payments systems have so much friction.
What is wrong with letting small values move on the blockchain without this type of friction and use more nuanced and careful measures to hash out disputes over very large sums of money?