If President Trump’s first administration is any indicator, antitrust enforcers will be keen to keep a close eye on competition in blockchain/Web3 as Trump pursues his pro-crypto agenda. I wrote a brief update on issues that may be top of mind here: https://t.co/1fFP8qNOMt
@Leerzeit@JoelKatz Enforcement and tracking is certainly tricky, but the DOJ has shown an interest and ability to find and serve individuals suspected of unlawful behavior. There are other, less technical ways too, e.g., otherwise anon folks regularly out themselves on Twitter, DAO forums, etc.
@Leerzeit I think it's fair to ask how, when, and under what standard to apply antitrust laws to decentralized technologies to avoid chilling procompetitive innovation.
@JoelKatz@Leerzeit It could be that, yes - I wrote about a near-miss antitrust conspiracy here: https://t.co/PXkpILUqel. A commonly-discussed antitrust risk is that the blockchain could be used to share competitively-sensitive info among competitors.
@JoelKatz@Leerzeit They do not propose specific legal protections, but note that antitrust regulators should keep this in mind and develop a regulatory framework (e.g., a sandbox) that gives platforms the ability to achieve sufficient decentralization with mitigated risk of antitrust enforcement /3
Interesting analysis of the potential antitrust implications of efforts to limit the dominance of liquid staking protocols.
@BlockchainATR makes a compelling case for courts to use a reasoned standard when evaluating blockchain related matters.
https://t.co/GHcaCQ7Rs1
So, I know reasonable minds can differ on crypto regulation and policy, but can we not try to cause giant platforms to fail and create a black eye on the entire industry over it right when we don't need that bad press? Kthanks.
@nickVrusso@NBC12 Any chance the tropical storm scheduled for Fri/Sat will dissipate and cooler weather will arrive in time for the marathon on Saturday?
Antitrust enforcers continue to eye the metaverse as a priority. The FTC's case against Meta/Within signals this, and on Monday two attorneys from the European Commission published an article arguing that enforcers in the US and EU need to get involved. https://t.co/4KhDsqoCPT
I'm not defending the enforcement action, though that the CFTC is pursuing liability for DAO members was not a shock. However, I do think we need to pump the brakes on the "DAOs are illegal" reactions - they further the chilling impact of CFTC's action beyond what is prudent.
If you are wondering whether the recent CFTC enforcement action will chill DAO participation, see below for your answer. This is a bad take, of course, for reasons below...
(1) The CFTC has not yet succeeded under this theory; (2) regardless of its success, the CFTC does not argue that voting in a DAO is per se illegal; and (3) not all DAOs are involved in leveraged commodity transactions or other conduct that could violate the CEA.
Just on the name alone, "CFTC Tech Innovation Office" seems better suited to be a steward of crypto in the U.S. than the "SEC Division of Enforcement." https://t.co/iSTxDDg0xd
"[W]e cannot arbitrarily decide who is accountable for those violations based on an unsupported legal theory amounting to regulation by enforcement while federal and state policy is developing." - CFTC Commissioner Mersinger, dissenting statement in bZeroX/Ooki DAO