Originally written by Will Papper, founder of Syndicate

Original compilation: 0x9F, BlockBeats

Yesterday, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed a lawsuit against Ooki DAO, the operating organization of the Ooki protocol (formerly bZx protocol), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and fined Ooki DAO $250,000.

The Ooki protocol allows users to provide margin (collateral) for opening leveraged positions, the ultimate value of which is determined by the price difference between the two digital assets between the time the position is established and when it is closed. The Ooki protocol claims to provide users with the ability to engage in these transactions in a decentralized environment, i.e. without third-party intermediaries having custody of user assets.

The CFTC has accused the trades of being illegal because they must take place on designated contract markets. In addition, by soliciting and accepting customer orders and conducting retail merchandise transactions with customers, and accepting money or property (or providing credit in lieu) to margin those transactions, Ooki DAO is operating illegally as an unregistered futures exchange. Ooki DAO also failed to adopt a customer identification program as part of its Bank Secrecy Act compliance program, as required by futures trading institutions.

The CFTC's ticket holds that Ooki DAO is an unincorporated organization responsible for violations of the US Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. This penalty has aroused heated discussions among many cryptographers. BlockBeats sorted out the views of Will Papper, the founder of the investment DAO management platform Syndicate, on social media:

The CFTC claims that all participants in DAO governance can be held accountable for the actions of the DAO.

The CFTC claims that all participants in DAO governance can be held accountable for the actions of the DAO. This is a terrible precedent, meaning both voters and multisig participants of on-chain governance are responsible, but on-chain governance spreads the responsibility over more people.

For years, it has been claimed that multisig participants have liability risks, while on-chain governance does not. This view, while questionable, is based on the assumption that if enough participants participate in sufficiently decentralized governance, then no individual will be held accountable for the actions of the DAO.

A (more pessimistic) answer is that both on-chain governance and multisig are unincorporated organizations with unlimited individual liability. This is based on stronger legal theory and is the view of many lawyers, although most do not believe it can happen.

In this more pessimistic view, if the DAO did something for which it could be held accountable, everyone involved could be held accountable. For multisig, is the signer. For on-chain governance, it is the voters.

here

hereis a dissent to their decision,On-chain governanceOriginal link

Original link