Canadian math prodigy allegedly stole $65M in crypto

2025-04-1414:21276350www.theglobeandmail.com

Andean Medjedovic says he hopes his case will be dropped as American regulators have pulled back on cryptocurrency-related enforcement since U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration

Andean Medjedovic was 18 years old when he made a decision that would irrevocably alter the course of his life.

In the fall of 2021, shortly after completing a master’s degree at the University of Waterloo, the math prodigy and cryptocurrency trader from Hamilton had conducted a complex series of transactions designed to exploit a vulnerability in the code of a decentralized finance platform. The manoeuvre had allegedly allowed him to siphon approximately US$16.5-million in digital tokens out of two liquidity pools operated by the platform, Indexed Finance, according to a U.S. court document.

Indexed Finance’s leaders traced the attack back to Mr. Medjedovic, and made him an offer: Return 90 per cent of the funds, keep the rest as a so-called “bug bounty” – a reward for having identified an error in the code – and all would be forgiven. Mr. Medjedovic would then be free to launch his career as a white hat, or ethical, hacker.

Mr. Medjedovic didn’t take the deal. His social media posts hinted, without overtly stating, that he believed that because he had operated within the confines of the code, he was entitled to the funds – a controversial philosophy in the world of decentralized finance known as “Code is Law.” But instead of testing that argument in court, Mr. Medjedovic went into hiding. By the time authorities arrived on a quiet residential street in Hamilton to search his parents’ townhouse less than two months later, Mr. Medjedovic had moved out, taking his electronic devices with him.

Then, roughly two years later, he struck again, netting an even larger sum – approximately US$48.4-million – by conducting a similar exploit on another decentralized finance platform, U.S. authorities allege.

Mr. Medjedovic, now 22, faces five criminal charges – including wire fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering – according to a U.S. federal court document that was unsealed earlier this year. If convicted, he could be facing decades in prison.

First, authorities will have to find him.

The leaders of Indexed Finance didn’t know Mr. Medjedovic’s age when they publicly accused the teen of exploiting their platform.

“Because we knew he was a master’s student, we believed that he was older,” Laurence Day, a resident of Leeds, in Britain, later stated in an affidavit.

Master’s students are typically in their 20s. But Mr. Medjedovic, who goes by Andy, was not a typical student.

Andean Medjedovic has been indicted in the U.S. and remains a fugitive, according to U.S. authorities. This photo from his website was taken around the time he completed his master’s degree in mathematics at the University of Waterloo, in 2021.Supplied

A slight kid with dirty blond hair, blue eyes and mischievously arched brows, Mr. Medjedovic grew up in Hamilton with his parents and his younger brother, Denean, and attended Westmount Secondary School, a highly-rated institution known for its unconventional self-directed approach to learning. In 2017, he was part of a four-student Westmount team that took the top spot in a regional coding contest.

The teen math prodigy wasn’t the only member of his family who was comfortable with technology; his parents, Ediz and Sanja Medjedovic, repaired computers for their neighbours, according to an Ontario court document.

Having completed high school at an accelerated pace, Mr. Medjedovic was just shy of his 15th birthday when he started his undergraduate studies in pure mathematics at the University of Waterloo. He finished what is typically a four-year bachelor’s program in a brisk three years, then breezed through a master’s degree in a single year.

On his CV, later filed in Ontario Superior Court, he listed his Putnam Competition score as 39 – a result in an annual North American undergraduate math contest that, if accurate, would render him a “math genius,” according to Indexed Finance’s U.S. lawyer, Jason Gottlieb. (The competition is known for its difficulty; while the maximum score is 120, the median score is often in the low single digits.) Mr. Medjedovic received scholarships and came close to winning a cash prize in a university math contest called the Bernoulli Trials. He also listed several rather exalted hobbies on his CV: meditation, playing blindfolded chess and crypto trading.

In the summer of 2021, as he was wrapping up his studies, Mr. Medjedovic successfully competed in two hacking contests run by an organization called Code Arena, according to court documents. During the competitions, participants hunt for weaknesses in the code governing decentralized autonomous organizations, or DAOs, which are structures deliberately designed without a central authority that utilize a digital ledger known as a blockchain.

Then, on Oct. 14, Mr. Medjedovic allegedly unleashed his skills on Indexed Finance, a platform that allows users to trade multiple virtual currencies through a single token, similar to a mutual fund with many stocks in it.

Mr. Medjedovic took out what’s known in decentralized finance as a flash loan – an uncollateralized loan in which assets are borrowed and repaid within the same series of transactions. Then, using approximately US$157-million in borrowed assets, he allegedly executed a complex sequence of trades that manipulated token prices in two of Indexed Finance’s liquidity pools, allowing him to transfer US$16.5-million of digital tokens to his own wallet, according to a U.S. court filing.

None of the allegations have been proven in court. Mr. Medjedovic did not provide a response to the allegations against him when reached online by The Globe and Mail.

In the days following the attack, Indexed Finance, its lawyer and even one of the founders of the hacking contest implored Mr. Medjedovic to return the tokens.

Mr. Gottlieb praised Mr. Medjedovic on social media as a “young, bright guy” with a “bright future.” But just because he was good at math didn’t mean that he understood the law, Mr. Gottlieb said. In an e-mail sent to Mr. Medjedovic’s personal address, he cautioned the teen that the stolen tokens were easy to trace and would be difficult to access. “Don’t screw up your whole future over money you can’t ever touch anyway,” Mr. Gottlieb wrote.

But Mr. Medjedovic wouldn’t budge. He didn’t deny that he was behind the exploit – in fact, he took credit for it on the social media platform X – but he implied that his actions were lawful.

“If Indexed wants to insinuate that I did something wrong and resort to name-calling, LOL,” he wrote, later adding: “You were out-traded. There is nothing you can do about that.”

Mr. Medjedovic was not yet 15 when he started his bachelors degree in pure mathematics at the University of Waterloo, which he completed in three years. He then breezed through a master’s degree in a single year.Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail

The Code is Law philosophy is based on the straightforward premise that if the code governing a platform permits a user to do something, then the action is legal. The analogy that is often used is that of algorithmic high-frequency trading. If one Wall Street hedge fund is able to profit by exploiting a pattern in another firm’s trades, the loser doesn’t have any legal recourse; that’s simply the risk that comes with playing the game.

Similarly, proponents of Code is Law argue that because the code governing decentralized finance platforms is open source, and because users choose to use the platform, those users are voluntarily taking on the risk that someone may exploit whatever flaws or loopholes exist within the code.

Not everyone agrees. “Code is not law. Law is law,” Mr. Gottlieb wrote in a lengthy thread to Mr. Medjedovic on X in late October, 2021. “And what you did was not a ‘clever trade.’ It was market manipulation. It’s illegal. And people go to prison for it.”

The Code-is-Law argument has never been tested in a Canadian court. But south of the border, where Mr. Medjedovic has been criminally charged, it hasn’t held up under scrutiny. In April, 2024, a New York jury criminally convicted trader Avraham Eisenberg of fraud and commodities manipulation for exploiting a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange called Mango Markets for US$110-million. Part of Mr. Eisenberg’s defence was that what he hadn’t “hacked” the platform; he’d simply taken advantage of its weaknesses.

Less than a month after the Indexed Finance attack, a U.S. company named Cicada 137 LLC sued Mr. Medjedovic in Ontario. The identity of the person or people behind the company is unknown, but Cicada said it lost US$9.69-million worth of digital tokens to the exploit. (It’s common for significant investors in cryptocurrency to shield their identities.)

The judge granted Cicada a civil search warrant, and over the course of more than seven hours, lawyers turned the Medjedovic family home inside out. But the evidence they found likely was limited; Mr. Medjedovic left home after receiving death threats, and had taken his phone and computer with him, according to court documents.

In mid-December that year, Mr. Medjedovic transferred several million dollars’ worth of tokens out of a digital wallet associated with the attack, stopping after he’d been served with a court order via e-mail. He attended an urgent court hearing that day via Zoom, but he kept his camera off, leaving his whereabouts unknown.

Justice Fred Myers, the Ontario judge overseeing the case, urged Mr. Medjedovic to deposit the disputed tokens with a custodian and participate in the legal process.

“Continuing to remain in hiding is no way to start one’s adult life,” the judge wrote. “Moreover, the civil process in Ontario is very fair and balanced. Mr. Medjedovic will be heard if he participates.”

At least initially, Mr. Medjedovic seemed to be considering mounting a legal defence. “I am looking for the most elite crypto lawyers,” he tweeted. “I will need an entire team.”

But he failed to show up at the Toronto courthouse at 361 University Ave. on Dec. 21, as ordered by the judge, or to put the disputed tokens into custody. Justice Myers issued a warrant for Mr. Medjedovic’s arrest, imploring the teen to turn himself. “I can assure Andean Medjedovic that litigation is not like a fine wine that improves with age,” he wrote.

Mr. Medjedovic’s parents told authorities that they didn’t know their son’s whereabouts. They declined to comment for this story, according to Duncan Boswell, their lawyer at Gowling WLG. But Justice Myers was skeptical of their assertions of ignorance. “It seems quite unlikely that the parents are not in touch with him and do not know where he is,” he wrote.

In fact, in one of two voicemails that Mr. Medjedovic’s father left for Mr. Gottlieb on Oct. 21, 2021, he said he’d recently been in contact with his son. In the second, he hinted that the teen was unstable.

“I’m just telling you now as a parent, if this child – and he did before – loses his nerve, he may commit something that you’re all gonna regret. The money’s gonna be gone, because he’s the only one who knows how to get it and you will not get anything, and I will not have my child,” Ediz Medjedovic said, according to court documents.

Mr. Bathgate and Ms. Stansfield, lawyers at Canadian firm WeirFoulds LLP. Ms. Stansfield says while Cicada is somewhat reassured by the U.S. indictment, their client is disappointed by the lack of progress in Canada.Christopher Katsarov/The Globe and Mail

In November, 2023, two years after the Indexed Finance exploit, Mr. Medjedovic allegedly perpetrated a very similar scheme, targeting a decentralized finance platform called KyberSwap. This time he worked with an unnamed co-conspirator – a relative who had lived in Canada and Cambridge, Mass., as well as other places, according to the U.S. indictment.

Benjamin Bathgate, one of the lawyers representing Cicada, said it’s not unusual for someone who has successfully exploited a decentralized finance platform to replicate the attack.

“A bad actor not brought to justice and held to account for one act of fraud will surely commit another,” Mr. Bathgate, a partner at WeirFoulds LLP, said in an e-mail.

“Underground blockchain geniuses from Canada, the U.S. or otherwise are exploiting digital contracts, stealing user investments, and lowering the reliability and potentially the future viability of the US$20-billion decentralized marketplace. The question becomes with what vigour our criminal justice systems will pursue them when they go offline and come up for air,” he added.

Mr. Medjedovic struggled to access some of the US$48.4-million in digital tokens he obtained from KyberSwap, according to a U.S. court document. Because the funds can be traced to the attack, some of the service providers he attempted to use to transfer the tokens blocked his transactions.

By early 2024, U.S. law enforcement was watching Mr. Medjedovic. While looking for ways to transfer the tokens, he had unwittingly enlisted the help of an undercover law-enforcement official in Brooklyn, N.Y.

The Globe contacted Mr. Medjedovic through several e-mail addresses used by the Ontario court to serve him with legal documents, and eventually received a reply from one of those addresses. The person responding, who identified himself as Andy, offered to answer some questions through the encrypted chat app, Signal.

It’s not the first time that Mr. Medjedovic has corresponded with a reporter. In March, 2023, he told crypto news site DL News that he’d travelled through Europe and South America and was on an island he declined to name, working as a white hat hacker.

Earlier, he’d told Bloomberg Businessweek that he was “not concerned about ‘getting a job.‘”

“Waging in the cage is not my idea of a good life,” Mr. Medjedovic had said, likely referring to an internet meme called the “wage cage,” which likens office cubicles to cages.

But the cage he’d eventually find himself in wasn’t a metaphorical one.

Last summer, Mr. Medjedovic was arrested in a European country he declined to name and spent “hundreds of days locked in a cage,” he told The Globe via Signal, using racist slurs to describe his fellow inmates. He’d recently gotten out after the country that had held him decided, after some deliberation, not to extradite him, he said.

“By far the worst bit is they took literally all of my property, computers and everything and sent it to the liberals,” he wrote, referring to the administration of then U.S. president Joe Biden. Mr. Medjedovic said he hopes to recover his possessions but anticipates an “uphill battle.”

“My life is mostly fine, but a lot of stuff with being sued/hunted is terrible, a lot of stuff did not go the way I planned,” Mr. Medjedovic wrote. He did not elaborate when asked what his plan had been, other than to say that being arrested “wasn’t the worst possible outcome, but still pretty bad.”

Asked about Mr. Medjedovic’s arrest, a spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada said the department “is aware of a Canadian citizen who was detained abroad last summer.”

“Consular officials provided assistance to the individual at the time. Due to the provisions of the Privacy Act, no information can be disclosed,” Charlotte MacLeod said in an e-mail.

John Marzulli, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, declined to comment on the arrest, saying only that Mr. Medjedovic “remains a fugitive.”

The case against Mr. Medjedovic can’t proceed until he’s been extradited to the United States. Rachel Maimin, a partner in the white-collar defence group at New Jersey-based Lowenstein Sandler LLP, said the indictment is likely to restrict his movement. “If a country has a very broad extradition treaty with the United States, you might not want to go there,” she explained.

Cicada is “somewhat reassured” by the U.S. criminal charges, but disappointed by the lack of progress in Canada said Jessica Stansfield, a partner at WeirFoulds who works with Mr. Bathgate.

“Why is a Canadian teen, prolific at exploiting decentralized markets and causing harm to Canadians and investors around the world, being held to account in the courts of New York?” said Ms. Stansfield.

She and Mr. Bathgate said their client “will continue its dogged pursuit of him until justice is served and the cryptocurrency tokens returned.”

Mr. Medjedovic, meanwhile, seems hopeful that his case will be dropped. Since U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration, regulators have pulled back on cryptocurrency-related investigations and lawsuits.

“The silver lining to all of this is that Trump promised to stop the persecution of crypto people,” Mr. Medjedovic wrote on Signal. “Like, half of the people involved in this resigned/stepped down recently.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By amit9gupta 2025-04-1414:4917 reply

    He did not steal anything. He beat the fund (Indexed Finance) at their own game.

    He has not stolen anybody's password, has not modified DeFI code - simply executed a set of financial transactions according to the rules (expressed as DeFI smart contracts) and profited from it.

    Indexed Finance is an unlicensed investment firm. The promoters knew the risk ( decentralized finance) and now they want to blame someone who outsmarted them at their own game.

    • By InsideOutSanta 2025-04-1414:5723 reply

      This. If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended.

      If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

      • By thinkingtoilet 2025-04-1415:045 reply

        > what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

        So far, to execute illegal transactions and using the lack of regulations to exploit the financially illiterate.

        • By throwaway2037 2025-04-167:051 reply

          I agree with your assessment of cryptocurrencies. Here is a thought experiment that I use with other people: Ask yourself why none of the top 10 global investment banks have started their own crypto exchange. Now, add the 20 largest stock, futures, and options exchanges. Still none. After all, it is "just" market making (with a bit of clearing, custody & execution services). What is wrong with this picture? For me, the real issue is that KYC (know your customer) legal requirements will drain all the profit from the operation and expose the ibank/exchange to enormous legal risk.

          Another one to make you scratch your head/chin: The world's busiest crypto exchange is Binance. The Wiki page literally says: "Headquarters: Unknown". How can anyone trust a company like that? Who regulates it? What enforcement agency will help in the event of fraud?

          • By b3lvedere 2025-04-1610:51

            90% agree with this , with the little caveat that law and regulation always are a couple of steps behind huge innovations. Unfortunately sometimes companies think this gives them freedom to break current laws and regulations.

            Your thought experiment reminded me a little of the Kurzgesagt video on how to debunk an internet conspiracy in seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug0rfFC_L8

        • By Salgat 2025-04-161:072 reply

          I like how every attempt to legitimize cryptocurrency by the current administration has just resulted in hurting the price of cryptocoins.

          • By rchaud 2025-04-1614:291 reply

            That's happening because crypto 'value' doesn't exist in a vaccuum, immune to the vagaries of the tradFi markets. When shit hits the fan, credibility matters. That's why traders park cash in government bonds when a market sell-off happens; a government bond essentially guarantees you get your money back quickly when you're ready to go back into the markets.

            The recent moves by the administration have been so incompetent as to tank the bond market as well, thereby leaving few safe harbors. And no harbor is less safe than crypto.

          • By close04 2025-04-167:42

            By now everyone who stands to gain from (ab)using crypto is probably already convinced. Almost everyone else heard so much about scams and illegal activities around crypto that they find it too risky. So the current admin is preaching to a small choir, to the angst of the large one.

            What I like is that every time there's a hack, or someone loses money over crypto either due to some illegal action or just unintended consequence of using it, you have a few more people demanding more regulation and state intervention. If only crypto regulation was scoped exclusively to when they need it after being swindled out of it.

        • By smcl 2025-04-168:272 reply

          By far the more common use case is as an unregulated asset you can semi-legally pump-and-dump, and to extract money from gullible rubes

          • By pavlov 2025-04-168:302 reply

            As recommended by the President of the United States.

            • By nicbou 2025-04-1614:01

              As _demonstrated_ by the President of the United States.

            • By rchaud 2025-04-1614:31

              And demonstrated by his new business partner in the private prison industry, Bukele of El Salvador.

          • By pcthrowaway 2025-04-169:541 reply

            You're saying the same thing

            > So far, to execute illegal transactions and using the lack of regulations to exploit the financially illiterate.

            • By smcl 2025-04-1613:32

              I think this was edited - my understanding of the original comment was that it was primarily for buying things on the darknet ("illegal transactions").

        • By hinkley 2025-04-1519:531 reply

          Money laundering.

          • By apercu 2025-04-1519:561 reply

            And get rich quick scams. And fraud.

            • By smallmancontrov 2025-04-1520:034 reply

              And drugs. And delivery of bribes to the sitting US president (these are not the same as illegal transactions because when the president does it it is not illegal).

              • By thinkingtoilet 2025-04-1521:543 reply

                I posted the original comment everyone is replying to so it's clear I'm not fan of crypto. To be fair, literally everyone I've ever known, including myself, has only ever used cash to buy drugs. I can't put that on crypto.

                • By dhosek 2025-04-160:201 reply

                  For online sales of drugs it’s through crypto. Also, it’s the preferred way of paying ransom these days.

                  • By smcin 2025-04-167:441 reply

                    You only mean ransom of data or platforms, not people?

                    • By Lionga 2025-04-1612:46

                      Both. All kind of ransom is just better with crypto. Talk about disputing an industry.

                • By sfn42 2025-04-1613:41

                  There's a pretty big market for drugs and other illegal things on onion websites. You send an encrypted order, transfer crypto to an escrow wallet, then they send the product in the mail.

                • By waspleg 2025-04-1612:161 reply

                  The only person I knew who had BTC in like 2008 used it to buy drugs from the Silk Road. They're dead now so it doesn't matter.

                  • By apercu 2025-04-1711:17

                    On a whim in say 2011 I bought 2 bitcoin. 3 weeks later they had tripled in price (not like what happened much later) and I immediately sold them as I was uncomfortable using a USB drive s a wallet for currency. It was dumb to sell at that stage but I have always been somewhat risk averse with my finances. (making money has always felt like _work_ to me ;)

              • By eftychis 2025-04-1521:271 reply

                Oh, it is illegal. It's just that the DOJ is turning a blind eye because someone at some point wrote a "memo"[0,1], which it seems can be the bane of global peace and prosperity as we know it. (Yes, it is ironic that a memo in some countries like the U.S. can affect everyone else.)

                P.S. I understand the context in your comment here. Just expanding on it for cynicism's sake.

                [0] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm [1] https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline [Note it has been updated since 2000.]

                • By xp84 2025-04-1521:422 reply

                  (i'm not GP but...)

                  You've cited policy which blocks prosecution of sitting Presidents -- but that didn't necessarily enjoin eventual justice from being served after his term(s) end. However the outcome of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) appears to not just block prosecution but grant immunity, meaning what would normally be a crime ceases to even be a crime.

                  That ruling appears to draw a nearly complete shield of immunity around Presidents for any crimes done as 'official acts,' and nearly everything can be claimed to be an 'official act' especially given how vaguely-scoped much Presidential power has become. I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime if Congress doesn't explicitly repudiate this ruling with an actual law.

                  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text...

                  • By roenxi 2025-04-1523:463 reply

                    > I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime...

                    You could have stopped the sentence here; most US presidents are responsible for acts that appear to be criminal but for the fact that it is political convention not to charge them. The most egregious case I recall was Anwar Al-Awlaki [0] - where he seems to have been killed on the president's orders without actually having done anything specific to justify it. Searching for "crime" on his Wikipedia page turns up nothing much. If a president isn't publicly investigated by the judicial system for having a US citizen killed it is hard to see when charges would be appropriate.

                    [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

                    • By bawolff 2025-04-1612:111 reply

                      > where he seems to have been killed on the president's orders without actually having done anything specific to justify it.

                      This was an assaination as part of an armed conflict if i understand correctly.

                      There are a lot of things you can argue about with the morality of the drone strike program, but its at the very least grey. As a general rule, armed conflict involves killing people who have done nothing wrong other than being on the wrong side of the conflict.

                      Its possible it still might be a crime, but i think it would be on the standard of if its a war crime, and not an ordinary murder.

                      P.s. i dont understand what him being an american citizen has to do with it. Its not any more ok to kill non-citizens.

                      • By roenxi 2025-04-1723:491 reply

                        If you feel the US executive unilaterally assassinating a US citizen without even any particular accusation of a crime (while he was breakfasting, apparently) is clearly legal then that is cool, I just don't see what conditions would lead you to expecting the US president to be charged with a crime are. It is quite clear that unless he does something that the majority of Congress objects to there isn't going to be a prosecution, Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) or otherwise. This is longstanding convention; if the president does something dodgy while in office it is broadly ignored by the legal system.

                        • By bawolff 2025-04-182:591 reply

                          I think the accusation was that that person was a member of a non-state armed group that the united states was in an armed conflict with. There is certainly a bunch of grey area with that (given we are talking about a trans-national "war" against non-state entity, which is a bit out there legally), but at the same time i don't think its exactly out there as far as presidential powers go. Shooting at combatants during a war is a very normal state of affairs. Generally we assume such combatants have not done any crimes. The relavent question is if this person was a legal target (is he really a combatant), not if he comitted any crimes.

                          • By roenxi 2025-04-184:211 reply

                            I mean sure. You're asserting a bunch of mitigating circumstances. The point of a trial is (its in the name) to test the evidence to see if it justifies a response. That step got skipped, so we can't really say if those mitigating circumstances are a good enough justification under the law.

                            If that is your standard then under what conditions is the US president going to be prosecuted for a crime? He or she will always claim there are mitigating circumstances and/or that they think their actions were legal. Nobody is going to stand up and say "oh gee, I've just done something clearly criminal!".

                            I suppose I'll put my challenge one more time just to be clear - if you feel the US executive unilaterally assassinating a US citizen without even any particular accusation of a crime is clearly legal, what conditions do you anticipate where the US president would be charged with a crime? While acting in an official capacity? The Trump decision codified it but the standard has been set for decades if not centuries - unless Congress gets involved there isn't going to be a prosecution.

                            • By bawolff 2025-04-1811:191 reply

                              Honestly i think its pretty clear the office of the us president has become king, Rex non potest peccare. So i do agree with your broad point.

                              I just mostly think this is a particularly bad example of executive ignoring laws - using military force in armed conflict is not usually considered a crime and certainly not unprecedented. It is in fact very, very precedented throughout the history of the united states. There are circumstances where it can be illegal (war crimes, crimes against hummanity, etc) but generally the justice system around that is quite different than normal domestic laws around murder.

                              I would contrast that with some of the accusations against trump which are much less wrapped up in armed conflict and very unambigiously crimes (if you want an older example i would say the same thing about watergate)

                              • By roenxi 2025-04-194:561 reply

                                We've probably reached the point where I bow out. But, on a related note, was the US even officially involved in the armed conflict in Yemen? I don't think there is such a thing as a declaration of armed conflict and my memory is the drone strikes were being kept relatively secret-squirrel. Obviously at the time everyone knew they were involved but I don't recall how official it got.

                                • By bawolff 2025-04-195:191 reply

                                  Declerations of war are not really a thing anymore in international law. Its not like usa ever declared war on Vietnam, but it clearly was one. Ditto for the iraq war. And its not just USA either. Declerations of war more or less stopped being a thing after the UN charter was signed.

                                  You're right that that makes it messy. The us wasn't engaged in an armed conflict with the state of yemen, but with a non-state armed actor operating within yemen (and elsewhere). (And its not like that isn't true right now either - america bombed houthi positions in yemen just a few weeks ago. Different group but still a non-state armed group i would consider america to be in an armed conflict with). A lot of the ways we think about wars and what is just and unjust implicitly assume two states fighting each other. Its much more ambigious with non-state armed actors.

                                  • By roenxi 2025-04-196:59

                                    I'm guessing if Trump conducted a drone strike on the US Congress and claimed that the Democrats were associated with the Houthi you'd say that was illegal (correct me if I'm wrong). Would you say the major difference is the attack happening on US soil or would you draw a different distinction?

                    • By jollofricepeas 2025-04-160:571 reply

                      I agree.

                      The story of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his American US-born son who was killed in the attack authorized by the Obama administration must not be forgotten.

                      The issue of presidential powers and conduct must be a non-partisan issue. Trump merely walked through the cracks created under Obama.

                      Being well-intentioned (“protecting Americans against terrorism”) is not sufficient excuse for murdering an American minor due to the sins of his father no matter how much the Obama administration DOJ attempted to make it legally permissible to do so.

                      • By greedo 2025-04-1611:59

                        <Trump merely walked through the cracks created under Obama.>

                        Which were dependent on the GWB administration (forced renditions, torture prisons), the Reagan administration (Iran-Contra etc), the Nixon Administration (Watergate etc), FDR's admin (concentration camps), on and on and on.

                        The expansion of Presidential power is non-partisan. Congress would be the logical counterbalance but other than in fits and starts has generally abdicated this role to the SCOTUS which has now been captured by believers in the unitary Presidency.

                    • By dullcrisp 2025-04-160:571 reply

                      Did you actually read the article you linked, or just search for the word “crime?”

                      • By roenxi 2025-04-161:051 reply

                        Both. I was doing the search because I was thinking "well maybe there was a crime in there somewhere that I missed".

                        • By dullcrisp 2025-04-162:301 reply

                          Okay. Well in that case, my (uninformed) take is that both holding the president personally criminally liable for actions of the US government that they authorized, and not holding the president accountable for campaign finance violations they undertook on the path to getting elected, are about equally ridiculous. But it seems that we’re doing the second one.

                          • By roenxi 2025-04-164:081 reply

                            I'm honestly lost on what you might be alluding to with the "campaign finance violations"; but that is a classic up there with the remarkable rate that whistle-blowers turn out to be guilty of sexual assault nothing-burgers. I expect candidates will routinely violate campaign finance laws and don't see why that is more than a minor problem until someone outlines what the actual issue is in a specific case.

                            If they're taking millions of dollars from Chinese NGOs that would be a problem. If they filled out a form wrongly and there is no motive involved that isn't interesting. Might be worth a few political points on a slow news day.

                            Those laws are a poster child for the high risk of selective enforcement leading to political corruption.

                            • By dullcrisp 2025-04-1623:20

                              I was thinking of The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, but that was a guilty verdict with a discharged sentence and not an immunity ruling, so I guess never mind.

                  • By eftychis 2025-04-1521:591 reply

                    Thank you. I tried to keep my comment short, but your expansion was necessary on second thought. For better or for worse, I expect this to be relitigated. (Unless all outgoing presidents start the tradition of pardoning themselves from now on.)

                    The reason is that what constitutes an official act is up in the air, and let us be honest, the incumbent president is not known for staying inside the Executive branch's lane.

                    But the sheer unwillingness of the DOJ to prosecute, creates a catch-22: you need indictments to change or clarify Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, and right now there are two options:

                    Somehow revive the private right to criminal prosecution (and of the president at that)(See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., (1973) 410 U.S. 614 (citations omitted)) or a Federal Court to appoint counsel to investigate a former or incumbent president. (Young v. U.S. ex re. Vuitton et Fils, (1987) 481 U.S. 787.) And I am not sure which one is less likely to happen. (Or for Congress to take that role beyond impeachment, which is even less likely.)

                    • By btilly 2025-04-1523:441 reply

                      The case where the precedent was set suggests that it is within the outer perimeter of what the President does to give a speech designed to whip up a crowd before they head them off to the Capitol to attempt a coup.

                      While Trump may go farther than that, it is hard to imagine any other President in our history who would have considered doing anything more deserving of criminal prosecution in a US court.

                      Given how polarized our country has become and the requirement for a 2/3 majority in the Senate, it is also difficult to see how we could ever again wind up in a situation where the threat of impeachment is a significant concern to a sitting President. Given the current state of the Republican party, I'm not even sure whether an attempted military coup by Trump would get that result.

                      • By xp84 2025-04-163:12

                        I agree completely. He doesn’t need to do a coup now that he has absolute power for four more years given the vacuum of leadership that is the legislative branch, but he absolutely would get away with it if he chooses to someday.

              • By anonym29 2025-04-164:00

                Some of the first early adopters of pagers and cell phones were drug dealers and prostitutes.

                The economic conditions that push vulnerable people to committing crimes enhanced by technology are not a condemnation of the technology itself.

              • By hinkley 2025-04-1520:11

                Amongst our weaponry are such elements as graft, narcotics, money laundering, fraud… I’ll come in again.

        • By oh_my_goodness 2025-04-1523:591 reply

          Who's using a ledger system for illegal transactions?

      • By BlackFly 2025-04-1415:182 reply

        You'll need a stronger defense than that in court because courts absolutely create and deal in gray areas where technical fine lines exist.

        What you need to argue is that the the smart contracts were valid contracts that the creators intended to and had opportunity to understand and that their creation was their act of negotiation of a position. It isn't really a stretch, but with amounts like this probably more diligence would have been due than that. Calling it theft is ridiculous on the other hand.

        • By Brybry 2025-04-160:042 reply

          In the indictment[1] he's not charged with theft.

          He's charged with:

          1) wire fraud (the smart contracts/swap exploit)

          2) unauthorized damage to a protected computer (running the exploit on the ethereum network)

          3) attempted hobbs act extortion (contacting kyberswap to attempt to gain control of kyberswap in exchange for return of some of the crypto)

          4) money laundering conspiracy

          5) money laundering (knowingly laundering the proceeds of the previous, including paying an undercover agent to help bypass a blacklist to do so)

          [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/media/1388036/dl?inline

        • By Calwestjobs 2025-04-1523:051 reply

          it can be said that laws are social contract

          • By kulahan 2025-04-160:202 reply

            I disagree simply on the principle that nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate. Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is.

            • By esperent 2025-04-161:135 reply

              > nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate.

              You've hit a key point of disagreement amongst philosophers about the idea of the social contract.

              Some of them say it's not voluntary because we were all born into a existing society, others say, sure it is, you can just give up all your property and go live in the forest.

              Others then reply that disabled people and children can't do that.

              But also the idea of living in a forest is not really an option for most people in the modern world. So my personal take is that the social contract is inherently non-voluntary in the modern world.

              > Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is.

              Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world.

              • By Nevermark 2025-04-162:181 reply

                > Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world.

                I think they are saying that the words "social contract" sound more collaborative and voluntary (to them) than what the phrase actually refers to. Your examples would only reinforce that view.

                It is a subjective stance on a coined phrase, but given most of our laws were settled by people not living now, and enforced on people not living when the laws were created, and there is no periodic process of ensuring laws reflect the living, the words "social" and "contract" are being stretched quite a bit.

                (On the other hand, the meanings of most phrases drift from the nominal meanings of their constituent words.)

                • By kulahan 2025-04-1623:38

                  This was indeed my stance, thank you!

              • By RHSeeger 2025-04-164:502 reply

                But the benefit of living in a society is that those people that _cannot_ survive without the society, _can_ with it. They still have the option to live outside society, they'll just perish. And that sucks. But by being part of society and gaining the benefits thereof, you are agreeing to follow it's rules (or suffer the consequences if you do not).

                I would not survive away from society due to medical needs. In exchange for being able to acquire the items I need to survive, I follow the constraints of living in that society. But it _is_ a choice. I could choose to go live in the woods without said benefit; and I'd die.

                • By Detrytus 2025-04-165:172 reply

                  But the point of "living in the forrest is not an option" isn't that the person in question is incapable of surviving there. It is that the society claims ownership of the forrest an will punish you for trying to live there. I mean, try sleeping in your own car in California, or some other US states...

                  That's just the nature of almost any society: they are actively hostile towards such outliers.

                  • By esperent 2025-04-167:21

                    To be fair, this philosophical discussion originated in the time of Locke and Hobbes, and back then it was far more viable to go off and live in a forest, especially if you went to America to do it.

                  • By mistrial9 2025-04-1617:59

                    the societies that grew yes.. there were many others that died. Most of the major countries recognized today in the West were originally warlike and held captives institutionally.

                • By esperent 2025-04-167:17

                  > But the benefit of living in a society is that those people that _cannot_ survive without the society, _can_ with it

                  Hence why it's a "contract". Both parties benefit. Society gets to exist, the people in it mostly have better lives than they would living alone in a forest. Admittedly, that's a low bar and we could stand to improving things.

              • By _Algernon_ 2025-04-165:04

                >But also the idea of living in a forest is not really an option for most people in the modern world. So my personal take is that the social contract is inherently non-voluntary in the modern world.

                This idea is ridiculous because even if you could go live in a forest a large part of the enlightenment was that states grabbed control of the periphery (forests) of their domain. You can no longer run of into the forest. The state will still want you to fit into the existing ownership structures, censuses, taxation regimes, etc. If you commit a crime it will still be decided by the existing courts.

              • By dullcrisp 2025-04-163:081 reply

                I don’t think something being a contract is reliant on there being a compelling alternative though. But then it’s usually hard to tell what’s important to philosophers.

                • By esperent 2025-04-167:261 reply

                  > I don’t think something being a contract is reliant on there being a compelling alternative though

                  Legally, a contract must be entered into voluntarily by both parties. If either party is coerced into joining, then it is no longer considered to be a contract. I assume that philosophers use the same meaning of the word contract.

                  • By dullcrisp 2025-04-1614:211 reply

                    But you’d have to draw a distinction between “I have to sell my company to Microsoft because they’re the only ones with the expertise to run it,” and “Microsoft sent someone to hold a gun to my head until I signed this paper even though I actually have other options.”

                    In this case it seems more like the former since no one is really actively combing the woods for hermits and forcibly integrating them into society. I guess it’s not unimaginable for something like that to happen, but I don’t think you could say that that’s reason that most of us are part of society. I do guess you could argue that point, but the argument would have to be that society is actively taking away viable alternatives to force people who otherwise would not have to have to join it, not that such alternatives never existed in the first place.

                    • By lazide 2025-04-1616:151 reply

                      I dare you to name a forest that someone won’t try to kick you out of pretty quickly.

                      The US has forest rangers, among others, as do most countries. Even in remote Siberia and Alaska, it likely won’t be long before someone defending a mining claim or similar gets you removed or tries to shoot at you, though you might get long enough in some spots to live half a life at least.

                      Every society I’m currently aware of has something similar going on, and they absolutely are trying to remove opportunities to stay outside of their bounds.

                      • By mistrial9 2025-04-1618:00

                        predatory behaviors are normalized in societies that grew to be large landowning and stable, agree

              • By giantg2 2025-04-1611:151 reply

                "you can just give up all your property and go live in the forest."

                And these people are wrong since the laws will still be applied there. If you don't own the land you are likely trespassing, squating, etc.

                • By immibis 2025-04-1615:491 reply

                  If you don't sign a contract you are not bound by it, and you are not protected by it. If the law doesn't apply to you, that cuts both ways: people can kidnap or murder you with impunity for any valid-sounding or completely-made-up reason.

                  • By giantg2 2025-04-1616:451 reply

                    Consent has nothing to do with signing, look at TOS. Same things with laws - you're subject to them just because you're in their domain.

                    • By immibis 2025-04-1619:37

                      If you agree to the law, then saying the people tasked with enforcing the law can affect you because you agreed to it is an argument that has some merit.

                      If you didn't agree to the law, then the people tasked with enforcing the law can affect you for a different reason: because they can. The natural state of things is basically that people can just hurt each other because they want to, and who's going to stop them? And "anyone" includes the police, and "any reason" includes "because their boss told them to enforce the law on you regardless of some-platonic-version-of-you is some-platonic-version-of-bound by the some-platonic-version-of-law"

            • By protocolture 2025-04-162:26

              Social Handcuffs

      • By Taek 2025-04-161:113 reply

        Just because some subsets of the crypto industry want to operate entirely outside the law doesn't mean the whole industry wants to operate outside the law. As evidenced by anyone who pays taxes on their crypto.

        Saying "he used the system as it was designed, even if not as intended" is more or less equivalent to saying that any computer hack or zero day is also "using the computer system as designed".

        You even plausibly extend that to picking locks in the physical world.

        So yes, it does make sense for the law to get involved.

        • By protocolture 2025-04-162:252 reply

          If a smart contract requires a court to execute you really should have just used a regular contract no?

          • By EGreg 2025-04-163:372 reply

            No. Definitely not.

            Smart contracts are supposed to eliminate a huge swath of disputes, so often people don’t need courts at all. People can put business rules in place that aren’t violated - and not just for contracts.

            For example bidders at Christie’s and Sotheby’s sometimes don’t have the money but the houses can’t make a big scandal. They try to hold another auction and sell it to someone else as if the guy sold it.

            In crypto it would be trivial to endure bidders have put up the money. You can refund the lowest bidder below N winners. You can also ensure payouts happen at agreed-upon rates. You can prove escrow. And stuff like that.

            Imagine a bunch of donors or investors seeing how their money is spent because it is on the blockchain. Or imagine a community having roles and knowing that each role was granted properly.

            In web2 anyone who can get into the database can modify any records and then you hope court cases and chilling effects will undo the damage retroactively.

            • By protocolture 2025-04-164:541 reply

              >Smart contracts are supposed to eliminate a huge swath of disputes, so often people don’t need courts at all

              That just sounds like near total agreement with me.

              Dont get me wrong, I love smart contracts conceptually. But if the parties to a smart contract desired court arbitration, they should include a function for it in the smart contract. Like a swing vote for a trusted third parties keys.

              Without that, to me, you are signalling acceptance of the outcome of the code without arbitration. If you seek a court to interfere with the execution of a smart contract that never included a provision for arbitration then you are in my mind, as guilty of ignoring the intent of the smart contract as any hacker might be.

              And if you were just going to court to dispute the smart contract, you may as well just have accepted a legacy contract. Escrow, multiple parties, etc etc all solved problems in the traditional legal space.

              • By EGreg 2025-04-1613:18

                The key is that the smart contract framework introduces a feature that is used let’s say 2% of the time.

                So I disagree even if you used that feature of the framework, that you “may as well have used a non smart contract”.

            • By unsupp0rted 2025-04-1614:19

              > In crypto it would be trivial to endure bidders have put up the money.

              And also not in crypto, as has been done for thousands of years

          • By Taek 2025-04-164:58

            Smart contracts give you a lot of financial automation and guarantees that regular courts do not. Furthermore, any litigation or arbitration in court is very expensive. If you can use smart contracts to simultaneously increase the complexity and sophistication of your transactions while also reducing the number of times you need to go to court, you've created value.

            And, a lot of crypto projects do pair their smart contracts with regular contracts, or at the very least with ToS

        • By ellen364 2025-04-168:17

          It seems more like a contract dispute to me. My first thought is that a commercial court could decide who keeps the money.

          (Clearly in the real world the American authorities have decided it's a criminal matter. I just find it odd that a "smart contract" dispute falls under criminal rather than commercial law.)

      • By __MatrixMan__ 2025-04-1522:324 reply

        The point of cryptocurrencies is to reward people who make hardware available for in-public multiparty computation. The point of that is to be able to create rulesets and expect that they'll be followed within the confines of the system.

        It's bonkers to me that the only rulesets people care to implement on such a platform are just reflections of money as we know it. How unimaginative. I wish we'd make something new rather than translating something old--bugs and all--into a new language.

        • By BobbyJo 2025-04-1522:513 reply

          Hardware availability is a use case of cryptocurrency, but not the point. The point is a decentralized accounting system that no single party can manipulate, for good or bad. You can apply that to hardware availability, digital game economies, supply chain accounting, etc. but the point of crypto is more abstract than any of that.

          • By godelski 2025-04-161:00

            For those unfamiliar, see "The Cypherpunk Manifesto"

               We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money. 
            
            https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

            Or "The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto"

              Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other in a totally anonymous manner. Two persons may exchange messages, conduct business, and negotiate electronic contracts without ever knowing the True Name, or legal identity, of the other.
            
            https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/cryp...

          • By __MatrixMan__ 2025-04-161:56

            I agree with:

            > the point of crypto is more abstract than any of that

            It has to do with operating in spite of somebody who would otherwise tamper with your information. It's about durability in the face of sophisticated adversaries.

            I was trying to get at the point of crytocurrency. The accounting system can handle anything at all, so why bother with the coins? We've had coins for thousands of years, they're the most boring app imaginable. Why bother maintaining artificial scarcities when we could be addressing real ones?

            But at the end of the day, if nobody provides hardware for it to run on, then, we can't have that accounting system. And those people have to pay their electric bills, and for the hardware they're using, and for that they need something money-shaped. The point of cryptocurrency is to be that money-shaped thing. We need it to interface with the traditional finance system until we can replace that system with something better.

          • By Calwestjobs 2025-04-1523:01

            his point was correct

        • By oh_my_goodness 2025-04-1523:21

          Guessed translation: "The point of cryptocurrencies is to reward the people who do cryptocurrency infrastructure."

          That's the point for them. It's not the point for anybody else.

        • By throwpoaster 2025-04-1523:181 reply

          Let's do it! What's the idea?

          • By __MatrixMan__ 2025-04-162:34

            A list of ways people can trust each other (e.g. to be a skilled plumber, or to be a fair mediator, to be a real human, to not let their key get compromised, and many other things). I call these colors.

            Also there's a directed graph where the nodes are users. Edges on this graph indicate that this user trusts that user, the edges are colored to indicate which type of trust it is.

            Given two users, they can compare graphs to decide if they both trust (transitively) any other users in some set of colors. Also, if cycles appear, then that cycle is a community of experts and they can follow the graph in reverse to find out which other users consider them experts.

            It's sort of like how we have representatives in congress, except instead of being one layer deep with millions of people being represented by one, it can be as nested as needed to ensure that the experts are not overloaded (since many of us are somewhere in the middle, we distribute the load by playing both roles--depending on who we're dealing with). It also differs from typical representative democracy because you can express trust in somebody's diplomacy and simultaneously avoid trusting their understanding of economics (or whatever other colors you care to).

            Ideally it would be a system in which the most trusted and capable people for any job are easy to find and easy to support, and in which we focus on becoming skilled and trustworthy rather than on the ownership of scarce things.

            Human societies already work like this, they have for a million years or so, but it stops working well when the cognitive burden of walking all of these trust graphs becomes too much to bear, then things get authoritarian. We now have the technology to scale it better, but the implicit non-specialized authorities are still in charge.

            A couple of applications for this that could work in the near term:

            1. If you have a dispute, you can use the data find a mediator who is trusted by you and the other party. And not just trusted, but trusted in the relevant way. This is a step towards a better court system, better because the arbiter is explicitly trusted by the complainants and because the arbiter is an expert in the color of the complaint.

            This would solve the well-somebody-needs-to-be-able-to-undo-the-transaction problem without invoking a bank and without leaving it unsolved. The transaction arbitrator would be determined by the trust settings of the parties to the transaction. There's a lot more consent and specificity in that than in what we're doing.

            2. If you find a dubious claim, you can see who signed it and check for a trust path between you and that person. 1,000,000 fake amazon reviews mean nothing through that lens, since you don't trust them. But two or three reviews signed by people that you explicitly trust (perhaps transitively) would mean a great deal. This gives us a way to ignore scammers and malicious AI's and creates a space in which being trustworthy is an asset (contrast this to the world we've built which is more about commanding the most attention).

            I'm not saying I have it right, but such things are worth trying in general, and "crypto" isa much better medium for them than bureaucracy (although I'm more excited about CRDT's than blockchains, because I think partition tolerance is more important than consistency).

        • By Jasper_ 2025-04-161:321 reply

          But how do you reward people within the system? You need some sort of token with value...

          • By __MatrixMan__ 2025-04-162:41

            You could contribute to a goal that they care about, or give them something they need, or help find somebody who will. Or you can promise to do so in the future.

            Using "value" as a medium is problematic because we increasingly don't value the same things. It worked ok back when food took so much effort to grow that securing it represented a significant portion of our mindshare. Then money was reliably a proxy for our shared agreement that food was good.

            But now that it's so much easier to make the necessities that we agree on, we spend more time perusing contradictory outcomes. Which is more valuable, if my endeavor succeeds and yours fails, or visa versa? Whose agenda am I furthering when I decide to value a dollar? It's hard to participate in because I can never figure out whether I'm hurting or helping.

            Better would to let people be explicit about what they want so that we can the things that have consensus and work towards those. As it is we're letting the ownership of scarce abstractions determine what gets done, which is just bonkers. It was once the best we could do with only the laws of physics at hand to enforce the rules (re: the scarcity of gold), but now we can do better.

      • By CursedSilicon 2025-04-1415:072 reply

        The entire idea of crypto is "I wasn't supposed to be the one holding the bag!"

        • By hx8 2025-04-1520:392 reply

          Funny, I thought the whole point was to hold on to the bag as long as you can. Think back to the first time you heard about btc or eth, and how much return a modest investment would have made. It's the people that sold early that lost out.

          • By vkou 2025-04-1522:331 reply

            How is that theory going for the bagholders of the graveyard of dead coins and rugpulls?

            • By hx8 2025-04-1613:35

              You're not wrong, but has there ever been a time when buying & holding the 3 largest market cap coins wasn't a winning strategy?

              Most of the deadcoins were very low cap, and low cap investments are inherently risky. Most of the rugpulls were schemes around small coins or individuals not actually holding the private keys to the wallet.

          • By brohee 2025-04-1612:11

            The purest survivor bias in a while, and even some of the few survivors are in freefall, e.g. Litecoin.

        • By hinkley 2025-04-1519:561 reply

          Musical chairs except you don’t want to get a chair.

          • By what 2025-04-1520:16

            That game is called Hot potato.

      • By jstanley 2025-04-1415:135 reply

        > If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended.

        If you believe in cash, does that mean you can't run to the courts if someone steals your cash?

        If your security proves insufficient to prevent a theft, that doesn't mean the theft was legal! It just means your security was insufficient.

        That security can be enforced by mathematics instead of courts is definitely a benefit of cryptocurrency, but when it goes wrong courts still matter.

        • By InsideOutSanta 2025-04-1416:312 reply

          >If you believe in cash, does that mean you can't run to the courts if someone steals your cash?

          No, because the point of cash isn't to circumvent government control of the financial system. If you build a whole system just to decentralize financial control and avoid government influence but then appeal to the government as soon as you don't like what happens, you're doing something wrong.

          • By hinkley 2025-04-1519:55

            Cash is a fiat currency issued by the government you are running to for restitution. I’m not sure GP understands what fiat currency means.

          • By kasey_junk 2025-04-1610:48

            Now do gold.

        • By koolba 2025-04-1520:051 reply

          > If you believe in cash, does that mean you can't run to the courts if someone steals your cash? If your security proves insufficient to prevent a theft, that doesn't mean the theft was legal! It just means your security was insufficient.

          Stealing someone’s private key and then using it to steal their assets is very different from exploiting edge cases of get rich quick schemes.

          • By Muromec 2025-04-1521:201 reply

            It's different in means, but not in intent. Sure, extortion, blackmail and robbery all differ from theft, but are illegal all the same

            • By lelandbatey 2025-04-1522:241 reply

              It's quite different in intent. When you stash crypto within a defi contract that you authored, and that contract states that the crypto can move under certain conditions, and then folks come along and say "hey, I meet those conditions" and move the crypto, then no crime has been committed!

              If you didn't want folks to be able to get the crypto under those conditions, then why did you make the contract grant them the crypto in those conditions? I can't take a stack of $100 bills and leave it on the sidewalk with a post-it note saying "only to be picked up by John" and then sue the person named John who comes by and picks up cash. I also can't get mad when Alice sees the stack and tells her friend John to come pick up the money with his name on it.

              So it is with crypto. Why are you using crypto if you don't want to follow the rules? That sounds to me like you're trying to do unregistered securities trades...

              • By tempestn 2025-04-160:531 reply

                In the legal system, formation of a contract requires intent. If it can be demonstrated that there was no intent to form a provision of the contract, no "meeting of the minds", then I don't believe it is enforceable. (Though IANAL.)

                • By lelandbatey 2025-04-161:382 reply

                  The point is that there's a pretty big publicly published document informing the world of their intent. It's called a contract, and they said "this will be the rules by which we abide."

                  It's a very hard battle to say "wow, I didn't intend to have my contract say that, despite writing that and publishing it." You'd have to have a lot of auxiliary material explicitly stating the opposite of what your contract actually said, or you'd have to convince others that what the contact actually says is so difficult to understand that there was no way to anticipate that the contract allows what it does. And even then, I don't know if that'd pass because "I didn't think of that at the time" is commonly not accepted as a way to get out of breach of contract.

                  • By tonyarkles 2025-04-163:52

                    I think you’re confusing “smart contracts” with “legal contracts”. They’re not entirely different but exploiting a loophole in a smart contract doesn’t necessarily meet the standard of a legal one.

                    > To form a contract, there must be: a) an offer and acceptance of said offer; b) consideration for the offer, or some value exchange; c) an intention to form legal relations; and, d) a certainty of the terms of the contract

                    https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2019CanLIIDocs4082

                    The people who made the smart contract almost certainly wouldn’t tick all four of those boxes definitively. It’d be an interesting civil case probably!

                  • By MadnessASAP 2025-04-166:14

                    It's actually pretty well established that a typo in a contract doesn't isn't enforceable, particularly if the party trying to enforce it is acting in bad faith.

        • By crote 2025-04-1415:491 reply

          The problem here is that those crypto contracts aren't designed to be security. They are intended to be contracts.

          It's like opening a bank account, and the contract says "You can only access your own money in the vault. Everything you can access is yours to use as you see fit." On your first visit the manager brings you into a vault with hundreds of cash-laden tables. He shows you to an empty table, and says "Here's your table. Enjoy!".

          Are you allowed to take money from the other tables? Clearly the contract says you can, but surely that can't be what they intended? Is it theft to "break their security" by walking over to another table, or is it just a hidden perk of the contract you signed?

          • By notahacker 2025-04-1521:00

            Moreover they're designed to be contracts with the explicit intention of enabling trustless exchange without third party oversight, under the belief that the code can replace a legal system

            unlike actual contracts, which are written with the expectation that disputes may occur and be resolved by arbitrators and a legal system (who will probably rule that a poorly drafted clause 2b doesn't in fact grant you the right to take all the other customers' money)

        • By dandanua 2025-04-1415:561 reply

          @crote

          > Are you allowed to take money from the other tables? Clearly the contract says you can, but surely that can't be what they intended?

          If their entire business model is based on giving a service that allows you to store your money in safety without any government dependency, while in reality they allow everyone else to take your money, then they deserve whatever happens to them.

          • By yifanl 2025-04-1520:08

            The fact that they deserve to be bankrupt doesn't mean the person responsible for their state of bankruptcy is innocent.

        • By pcthrowaway 2025-04-1610:08

          If you get into a cash poker game, and someone outplays you, then no, you can't run to the courts

      • By analog31 2025-04-1520:14

        Money is a technology. Its purpose is whatever use you want to put it to.

        Like any technology, a money system can be designed so that it works well enough for a small set of intended purposes, and poorly for all other purposes. Moreover, its uses can be constrained by laws.

        I think an open question is whether existing laws related to money or property apply to cryptocurrencies. For instance, "theft" and "fraud" cover a lot of things, without specifically listing all of them.

        If it's ambiguous whether such laws apply to crypto, then sure, someone could use the legal system to settle the matter. In fact, using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions could be as good a use of crypto as any, if "anything goes."

      • By vonneumannstan 2025-04-1415:08

        >you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended.

        I doubt that will hold up in court. The exact thing could be said about computer networks and hackers exploiting them.

      • By pchangr 2025-04-1419:38

        The point of bitcoin, in words of their creator is to “allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.” That’s it.

      • By Vegenoid 2025-04-161:27

        > If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

        Agreed, but there is already a very similar case where "code is law" was tested, and failed: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-c...

        It turns out that once a financial system becomes big enough, the US will apply its finance laws to it. Finance laws are designed to prevent sudden unexpected transfers of wealth from one (wealthy) unwilling party to another based on unanticipated loopholes.

      • By wnevets 2025-04-164:13

        > what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

        To funnel cash to regimes like North Korea

      • By gamblor956 2025-04-1523:242 reply

        "Code as law" was attempted as a defense in another token-related "hacking" case.

        It didn't work there, and it won't work here either.

        If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

        That is a philosophical argument completely unrelated to whether or not something is illegal. Cryptocurrencies aren't a replacement for the law, nor do they stand outside of it.

        • By 2muchcoffeeman 2025-04-160:21

          I feel like the current state of affairs is a consequence of mixing real money systems with crypto and then making it easy to invest in.

          Because it sure looks like they intended for “code is law” to be the case. Many of the oft cited use cases were to circumvent traditional systems.

        • By andy81 2025-04-169:50

          > That is a philosophical argument completely unrelated to whether or not something is illegal.

          Most comments saying that cryptocurrency holders should abide by "code is law", are not actually saying that we should abide by "code is law" and abandon the legal system.

          It's a classic argument to show that the purported benefits of cryptocurrency are a farce.

      • By Braxton1980 2025-04-1519:56

        >cryptocurrencies in the first place?

        To get 30mg oxy

      • By lupusreal 2025-04-1610:58

        > If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed

        Shouldn't, but can.

        Anyway, you're assuming most of these crypto people are true believers in the technical attributes of crypto currencies, but I think most of them don't understand or care about that and are just trying to get rich.

      • By don_neufeld 2025-04-1415:07

        > what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

        I think you’re answering your own question here

      • By -__---____-ZXyw 2025-04-1522:11

        This!? Which? What..? Why!?

      • By FireBeyond 2025-04-1520:53

        Yup. Exactly. "The code is law". Well, sometimes you learn you're not as good at code as you thought you were.

      • By nkrisc 2025-04-1523:58

        > If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

        In this case, to make money. These are not ideological purists, they're capitalists.

      • By CPLX 2025-04-1522:46

        I mean you can believe in cryptocurrency. But why do courts have to believe in it?

      • By timcobb 2025-04-1415:05

        > what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

        Not to be that guy but it seems like the point of cryptocurrencies is to scam vulnerable people...

      • By xattt 2025-04-1415:051 reply

        A wanting of having cake, but a desire to eat it too.

        • By hinkley 2025-04-1520:00

          Take the cake immediately to your left. Problem solved.

      • By tempfile 2025-04-1415:142 reply

        > If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended.

        Yes, indeed. And when people leave their home unlocked the thieves should get to keep their stuff. What kind of savagery is this?

        > If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

        Great question, we have been waiting for answers for nearly a decade now...

        • By InsideOutSanta 2025-04-1416:282 reply

          >And when people leave their home unlocked the thieves should get to keep their stuff.

          That's not what happened here. What happened is that the crypto company said, "Follow this contract," and their customer followed the contract and took their money, and then the crypto company was like, "But not like that!"

          Ostensibly, the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to decentralize financial control and not depend on governments for that service. If you then depend on governments the second you don't like what happens, there's no point to cryptocurrencies.

          • By danielmarkbruce 2025-04-1519:56

            It's like building a home on a land which has no system of law because you like anarchy, and then complaining when a fellow anarchist steals your stuff.

          • By tempfile 2025-04-1417:082 reply

            If you can't distinguish "not what I intended" from "not what I wanted" then there is probably no reasoning with you. Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer.

            • By InsideOutSanta 2025-04-1417:161 reply

              >Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer.

              I have to admit, that's pretty funny. But I will point out that you did not make an argument in support of your position; you merely insulted me.

              • By tempfile 2025-04-1420:223 reply

                I really didn't intend that as an insult! I just find it very easy to distinguish between a case where someone followed reasonable rules and got an outcome they didn't like, versus a case where someone found absurd rules - clearly not intended by anyone - and exploited them for an undeserved gain.

                If you see a case where someone exploits a badly-coded computer program to take a hundred million dollars from someone, refuses to return any of it (even when offered several million dollars for their trouble), refuses to co-operate with the judges and the rest of civilised society, and just see "waa waa baby doesn't like his medicine" then I don't see how to actually reason with you. That's just a value difference, not really an insult.

                • By InsideOutSanta 2025-04-157:281 reply

                  >I just find it very easy to distinguish between a case where someone followed reasonable rules and got an outcome they didn't like, versus a case where someone found absurd rules - clearly not intended by anyone - and exploited them for an undeserved gain

                  I think you overestimate how easy it is to distinguish between these two. A reasonable common example is people like Bernard Marantelli exploiting lotteries. The lottery does not intend for people to play as Marantelli does. You can (and people do) argue that he's stealing money, but should he go to jail for playing the lottery in a way "not intended by anyone"? I don't think so.

                  It's the same with card counters at a casino. The casino can throw card counters out because they can decide who plays at their establishment, but it would be unreasonable to jail card counters for playing blackjack in a way casinos don't intend.

                  >If you see a case where someone exploits a badly-coded computer program to take a hundred million dollars from someone

                  This phrasing removes relevant context to the point where it no longer represents what actually happened.

                  >refuses to return any of it (...)

                  I did not comment on any of this at all.

                  >I don't see how to actually reason with you

                  This is dismissive and denies my ability to be convinced by reasonable arguments. It is insulting, even if it's not intended that way.

                  • By tempfile 2025-04-1510:151 reply

                    I think both those cases are easy to decide, and are legitimate play. Even if they were not legitimate, I think the remedy is simple -- not jail, but at worst return the money that was taken. In this case, even if deciding the merit of the case is hard, there was a transparently reasonable remedy (return 90% of the funds, continue with your life) which Medjedovic rejected. More than just rejecting the offer, he then went on to launder the tokens through a mixer, fled the country, and has refused to put the funds in escrow while the case is decided in court. None of this is reasonable, in my opinion, and I am 100% ok with the legal system forcing him to comply.

                    > This phrasing removes relevant context to the point where it no longer represents what actually happened.

                    I don't think it does, but you don't explain why, so there is not much to argue. It is hard to get an objective description of what happened, but as far as I can tell, the liquidity pools operated by Indexed Finance are governed by a smart contract, the smart contract contained a mistake, and by exploiting that mistake, Medjedovic was able to drain them completely.

                    Can you explain to me in simple english how that is using the contract as intended? Note that "it's what the smart contract said" is not sufficient, for the same reason that "the web server allowed me to make that request" is not a defence against a charge of computer hacking. What the smart contract says is actually almost irrelevant. What is relevant is what it was intended to do.

                    Incidentally, why should I be rooting for this guy? It seems like literally the only argument in favour of what he did here is "everything that is possible is fair". His extraction of money is purely parasitic, and aside from merely identifying the bug, he hasn't done any useful work at all. I would grant that this applies to the lottery and card counting examples too. But why should I care that he's having his money taken away?

                    • By InsideOutSanta 2025-04-1510:531 reply

                      >I think both those cases are easy to decide

                      Many people disagree with you and describe what these people do as theft, so it's not as easy as you think.

                      >which Medjedovic rejected

                      I made no points at all about what he did afterward. This is all irrelevant to my point.

                      >I don't think it does, but you don't explain why

                      I did explain why further up in the thread. It's not just a badly coded computer program; it's a badly coded computer program that acts as a contract intended to circumvent government control of money. That's the context.

                      People agree to adhere to the smart contract instead of putting their money into a financial institution that uses contracts backed by laws enforced by governments. This guy adhered to the smart contract, and when the crypto company didn't like the outcome, they decided that none of the crypto stuff mattered and that the laws enforced by governments mattered after all.

                      But this makes cryptocurrencies entirely pointless. If you can use legal means to circumvent undesired smart contract outcomes, then you can just do that in the first place and not have the smart contract.

                      >Can you explain to me in simple english how that is using the contract as intended?

                      Yes, of course. Smart contracts are self-executing contracts. The agreement you make is written in the code of the contract. That is the intention behind a smart contract. It makes no sense to say that you did not adhere to the contract if it allowed you to do something. So by definition, anything you do that the contract enables you to do is using the contract as intended.

                      >Note that "it's what the smart contract said" is not sufficient, for the same reason that "the web server allowed me to make that request" is not a defence against a charge of computer hacking

                      Again, this argument ignores the context of smart contracts. Web servers don't claim that their code is a contract.

                      >why should I be rooting for this guy

                      It doesn't matter. I'm not rooting for this guy. I'm not arguing emotionally in favor of some guy who did something. In fact, I think he's a shithead.

                      • By tempfile 2025-04-1511:291 reply

                        > It makes no sense to say that you did not adhere to the contract if it allowed you to do something.

                        I think this is the point where I really disagree with you. I don't see how this is different for smart contracts, as opposed to, say legal contracts written in english. It is not true in general that just because a contract says something, that those exact terms are enforced. There is a whole body of law around what terms are enforceable, what to do in cases of mistakes, and so on.

                        I am now really unclear on what your position is. I thought originally that you were in favour of smart contracts, and that it was somehow unfair or unethical for e.g. a court to rule whether a smart contract was intended to do something different than what it did. So I am trying to understand why you think it is unethical. In this case I think it is unethical to obey the smart contract, and that what this kid did is unethical and should be illegal. Are you saying what he did is wrong, but he should be allowed to do it anyway? If so, why?

                        • By InsideOutSanta 2025-04-1514:031 reply

                          >I don't see how this is different for smart contracts, as opposed to, say legal contracts written in english

                          It's different because the whole purpose of smart contracts is to circumvent governmental power structures. Otherwise, people would use regular contracts.

                          Technologically, it's much easier to set up a payment system using a centralized database in a specific jurisdiction and have people sign normal contracts to use the system. People create cryptocurrency systems to avoid that. They put much effort into creating payment systems independent of existing power structures. If this system does not work without backup from the legal system and governmental power, then all that effort is pointless.

                          >I thought originally that you were in favour of smart contracts

                          I think they're interesting.

                          >Are you saying what he did is wrong, but he should be allowed to do it anyway?

                          Yes.

                          >If so, why?

                          Using existing governmental power structures to punish people who adhere to smart contracts in ways some system members don't like invalidates the whole system. If cryptosystems don't work purely technologically without judicial support, they don't work, period.

                          • By tempfile 2025-04-1518:331 reply

                            I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It seems like an obvious advantage to have systems that decide the outcome automatically and correctly 99% of the time, despite requiring occasional corrections from outside. That's not the same as a regular contract, so it doesn't follow people would always either choose smart contracts or traditional ones.

                            What you're hoping for is, taken literally, impossible. Smart contracts can't protect people from fraud, or coercion. Since the law does protect them from these things, smart contracts cannot be totally isolated from the legal system (even if everyone wanted this, which they don't).

                            > Using existing governmental power structures to punish people who adhere to smart contracts in ways some system members don't like

                            Fine, but what about in ways that the rest of society don't like?

                            • By InsideOutSanta 2025-04-1518:43

                              >It seems like an obvious advantage to have systems that decide the outcome automatically and correctly 99% of the time

                              That's what traditional systems already do.

                              >Fine, but what about in ways that the rest of society don't like?

                              They don't participate in crypto.

                • By protocolture 2025-04-162:291 reply

                  The problem is that Smart Contracts aren't sold as "Computer Program" they are sold as binding agreements forged in code. The code was agreed to by all parties.

                  I absolutely get your position, and possibly hypocritically supported the main branch when ethereum had a big fork over exactly this issue. But its also not hard to see where the "code is law" guys are coming from.

                  • By tempfile 2025-04-166:471 reply

                    I don't think this matters. It's equally true of natural language contracts, which are litigated constantly.

                    • By protocolture 2025-04-170:45

                      With a legacy contract, both parties typically choose which legal jurisdiction the contract is executed in.

                      With a smart contract, you have the option to bake in a third parties keys to sort dispute resolution. If you choose not to, I dont see why it should be litigated instead.

                      To my mind, the choice not to have a mediation or dispute resolution option is just as much the "Intent" as not being hacked and drained of funds.

            • By FireBeyond 2025-04-1520:57

              > Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer.

              Actually, in many parts of the US, you do not have to have any law education to become a judge in district courts.

        • By DangitBobby 2025-04-1415:37

          The entire point of a home is not to escape traditional finance. It's by design not compatible with a simple "thief breaks into house" comparison, otherwise the entire enterprise is a scam and they should be criminally prosecuted for fraud the second they ask for legal dispute resolution on transactions that happened on ledger.

    • By Aurornis 2025-04-1415:224 reply

      > He did not steal anything. He beat the fund (Indexed Finance) at their own game.

      As popular as this idea is online, it doesn’t work that way in the courts.

      Intent matters in issues of the law. The “finders keepers” rules don’t apply in legal matters in the real world.

      If someone logs into their bank and notices that changing the account number in the URL lets them withdraw from other people’s accounts, no court is going to shrug it off and say that it’s the bank’s fault for not being more secure. Likewise, finding a vulnerability in a smart contract doesn’t automatically give someone the right to any funds they collect from exploiting it.

      We all know the “code is law” arguments about smart contracts are just marketing bluster. The lawyers do, too.

      • By Hizonner 2025-04-1418:093 reply

        The intent of the whole underlying system is that the intent of all the parties be described by code of the smart contracts. Which are intended to be composable, intended to be used in unanticipated ways, and intended to operate independent of any human oversight. The system is also intended to avoid all ambiguity by enforcing the contracts exactly as described by the code... and to provide certainty of transactions and prevent them from being undone after the fact.

        Everybody involved knows all of that, and claims it as a positive feature of the system. At least until they find out that it's actually hard to write bug-free code.

        There may indeed not be a legal "meeting of minds" (although there very well also may)... but from an ethical point of view, everybody involved knowingly signed up for exactly that kind of risk. And honestly it would be good public policy if the law held them to it. Otherwise you get people trying to opt out of the regular legal system up until it's inconvenient.

        There'd be more of a case if he'd exploited the underlying EVM implementation. But he didn't. He just relied on the "letter" of a contract, in an environment that everybody had sought out because of unambiguous to-the-letter enforcement.

        • By golol 2025-04-167:18

          Exactly this. If what is written on the blockchain is not the law in the context of anything involving blockchains and DeFi, then the whole idea of blockchains and decentralized finance is pointless.

        • By ryanjshaw 2025-04-166:391 reply

          You’re assigning a set of beliefs to an entity that doesn’t hold them. The authors of the code are pursuing the matter in court i.e. they see smart contracts as an efficient decentralised solution to a complex problem within the existing legal framework.

          • By sfn42 2025-04-1622:15

            Nah, they just want to make money. They fucked up and now they're trying to get the legal system to save them.

        • By paulcole 2025-04-161:151 reply

          > intended to be used in unanticipated ways

          Am I an idiot or is it unclear why this is the intention?

          • By DavidPiper 2025-04-161:30

            I assume OP means it in the sense that the system intends novel uses that the designers didn't necessarily consider. Same with programming languages (or language in general), for example.

      • By ipsento606 2025-04-1521:541 reply

        > If someone logs into their bank and notices that changing the account number in the URL lets them withdraw from other people’s accounts, no court is going to shrug it off and say that it’s the bank’s fault for not being more secure

        When you open a bank account, there is an actual contract and regulatory framework that governs how you use the account. A URL parameter is an implementation detail that no more alters the contract than a broken lock on a vault would alter the contract.

        But when you interact with a smart contract, the smart contract is the contract. What you are allowed to do is defined by what the smart contract lets you do. You don't need to open an account, agree to T&Cs or sign any other sort of contract to interact with the smart contract.

        If the smart contract is not the contract, how would you propose we can determine what the real contract is?

        • By ryanjshaw 2025-04-166:41

          > when you interact with a smart contract, the smart contract is the contract

          This is one viewpoint but certainly not the only viewpoint and definitely not the viewpoint of the authors of the contracts in question.

          Smart contracts are a novel method of executing contracts, but like all contracts the parties involved and the contract itself is subject to legal oversight in the relevant jurisdictions.

      • By mjr00 2025-04-1415:321 reply

        The big difference is that those are centralized systems owned by corporations, and accessing them in a way which you're not supposed to, such as by changing a bank account number or exploiting a zero day, is a crime.

        With DeFi it's different; the code is public and decentralized. There was no unauthorized access to anything here. From my reading of what was done, it was essentially taking advantage of the poor trading strategy of Indexed Finance.

        I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer, but I don't see a lot of parallels between this and e.g. using SQL injection to obtain unauthorized access to a system.

        • By ajb 2025-04-1521:471 reply

          I'm not a lawyer either, but I suspect the technical structure is not determinative. Contract law has certain features. These technical constructs purport to enable contracts to be written and executed such that subsequently the courts cannot but find that what the code did is final and there is no possible legal reconsideration. Clearly, this is the prior expectation of the parties, but whether it is the case under all circumstances is a function of contract law (and other applicable law) not the technical constructs. The code is not what will finally be determinative.

          To give an analogy, it's like writing code in a high level language and saying that it will prevent side channels such as spectre. But such side channels are a function of the hardware, not the high level language. The hardware in defi is ultimately the law, not the servers.

          • By ryanjshaw 2025-04-166:451 reply

            > I suspect the technical structure is not determinative

            Correct. The courts care about intent, structure is secondary.

            This is the classic “you don’t get to walk into my house just because you found an unlocked door” that HN users struggle to understand when the digital equivalent is under discussion e.g. an unsecured API.

            • By mjr00 2025-04-167:062 reply

              > This is the classic “you don’t get to walk into my house just because you found an unlocked door” that HN users struggle to understand when the digital equivalent is under discussion e.g. an unsecured API.

              Except this is not how DeFi and dApps work. The network is decentralized. At no point was any unauthorized access to a system performed. This is not the same as entering private property through an unlocked door, or using SQL injection to gain unauthorized access to a system.

              This is not to say Medjedovic is innocent; he made extortionist threats, and gleefully admitted he stole money from people, so wire fraud charges seem obvious. As you say, the courts care about intent, and his intent was clear. But you can't apply the normal charges of accessing a computer without authorization here.

              • By ryanjshaw 2025-04-169:57

                My example was an meta comment about how HN users confuse means vs motive.

                In this particular case, however, we’re talking about fraud not unauthorised access, see a very similar case here which resulted in a conviction: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-c...

              • By stef25 2025-04-167:492 reply

                > his intent was clear

                Would it be fair to say his intent was to enrich himself by using this platform's features ? And bonus points: "is that a crime" ?

                • By mjr00 2025-04-1613:501 reply

                  You can look through the indictment yourself - https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/media/1388036/dl?inline

                  Among other bits:

                  > MEDJEDOVIC understood that his conduct circumvented the intended functioning [...] MEDJEDOVIC discussed a plan to "steal crypto," referred to the exploit as involving "glitch" and "fake" liquidity, and described the code for the exploit as a "rape."

                  > MEDJEDOVIC also prepared a "POST-EXPLOITATION" plan for himself, which included, among other things, "KEEP the configs Burn the evidence, including the histfile" and "Book flight to: Pack Bags," as well as another file labeled "Decisions and Mistakes," in which he wrote, "Going On the run / Yes / Chance of getting caught<Payoff for not getting caught"

                  > Immediately after obtaining the flash loan, MEDJEDOVIC wrote "Raping Now" in the public event long for the transaction.

                  There's extremely strong evidence that he believes he's committing a crime, and specifically "steal[ing] crypto" in his own words, so yes. And when you have records effectively saying "I believe I am committing a crime", it becomes a lot easier to convince a jury you committed a crime.

                  • By ryanjshaw 2025-04-1614:001 reply

                    Thanks for this; so we have: wire fraud, money laundering, and an interesting charge “unauthorized damage to a protected computer“ that sees the Ethereum EVM as a distributed computer…

                    • By mjr00 2025-04-1614:17

                      Yeah, this one is very interesting; the charge is for "intentionally caus[ing] damage without authorization to one or more protected computers, including the Ethereum Virual Machine (EVM), which was implemented through, among other nodes, a full Ethereum node running in the Eastern District of New York."

                      This seems ambitious. The implications seem quite dire; if I'm running a full Ethereum node do I have the ability to say which smart contracts are "authorized" to execute on my implementation of the EVM? If I see a smart contract do a trade I don't like, is someone committing a crime against me? I don't think this will stick if Medjedovic ever goes to court.

                • By ryanjshaw 2025-04-169:59

                  His intention was to defraud the DAO; similar case that resulted in conviction: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-c...

      • By stouset 2025-04-1520:081 reply

        The entire point of cryptocurrency contracts is supposedly that “code is law”. Running to the courts as soon as someone does something you didn’t intend only highlights that people don’t actually believe this.

        • By ceejayoz 2025-04-1520:161 reply

          We've known this since Ethereum forked in the DAO debacle.

          • By stouset 2025-04-1520:30

            We have, it’s just yet another counterexample that tanks the arguments of True Believers.

    • By darepublic 2025-04-1521:552 reply

      The code is law thing is a grey area. But I am open to the idea that this young man did not break any rules, just found flaws in the system. In the same way that card counting should not be against the law just because it resulted in the house being disadvantaged. These things should be addressed with patches to the rules, not legal action.

      • By Calwestjobs 2025-04-1523:101 reply

        be careful with card counting, most casinos do "business" in such way that there is NO advantage for player. no matter what player does.

        so all american youtube sagas about doing card counting in PRESENT time are fraud to dupe people into thinking that it is possible to card count. NOW TODAY.

        • By StanislavPetrov 2025-04-1523:241 reply

          Card counting is still possible (albeit a bit harder) in the present day - the mathematics are the same. Most casinos use more decks and don't deal as deeply into the shoe, but it is still entirely possible to gain a statistical edge over the house, which is why casinos will still ban you from playing blackjack if you are playing with an advantage(counting, varying your best sizes greatly based on the count, sitting out and watching until the deck gets deeper, ect). They will never ban you from games like Roulette, where you there truly is no way to gain an advantage over the house regardless of what strategy you use.

          • By reaperman 2025-04-161:061 reply

            > Roulette, no way to gain an advantage over the house regardless of what strategy you use.

            These days that’s probably true but it has been done: https://www.roulettestar.com/people/joseph-jagger/

            • By selcuka 2025-04-161:53

              He was a smart man:

              > After the second day, Jagger kept a clear head and decided that enough was enough, and left Monte Carlo to head home to Yorkshire with his winnings.

              > When he got home, he retired from the Mill and invested some of his winnings into property.

      • By KoolKat23 2025-04-167:40

        It's not really a grey area, there is a tacit contract with a mutually understanding that they will use the code to fulfil certain items in the contract, it doesn't take away the need to fulfil the rest of the parties obligations.

    • By PaywallBuster 2025-04-165:40

      https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/04/18/mango-markets-exp...

      Avi Einsenberg did the same with Mango Markets,

      got away with 110M and is now looking at 20 year sentence

      And Mango was being sued by the SEC too https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-154

      > SEC Charges Entities Operating Crypto Asset Trading Platform Mango Markets for Unregistered Offers and Sales of the Platform’s “MNGO” Governance Tokens

      > Pair of affiliated entities separately charged for acting as unregistered brokers

    • By Cthulhu_ 2025-04-1414:541 reply

      The company and its customers knew what they were getting into; to get protections from the law and guarantees, financial institutions need to get licensed and comply with all the rules, regulations and law. Of course, this includes providing transaction data to the relevant parties to help them detect tax evasion and money laundering.

      • By Aurornis 2025-04-1415:241 reply

        > to get protections from the law and guarantees, financial institutions need to get licensed and comply with all the rules, regulations and law.

        That’s not how the law works.

        If someone breaks the law or doesn’t comply with regulations, that’s a separate issue. It doesn’t entitle a third party to steal their funds.

        If you were to rob a drug dealer, you couldn’t argue that they weren’t complying with the law and therefore you were free to take it. You would both have broken laws.

        • By archontes 2025-04-1416:081 reply

          Define theft.

          If you write a contract and give it to a lawyer with the instruction, "Anyone who satisfies this contract gets this money." And someone satisfies the contract to the lawyer's -but not your- satisfaction, and the lawyer sends the money, did the third party steal from you?

          • By danielvf 2025-04-1416:24

            There's a very relevant XKCD on this, where someone discovers a clever "bug" in an insurance contract, and is then disappointed.

            https://xkcd.com/1494/

    • By echoangle 2025-04-1415:051 reply

      Is that how it works legally? If you hack into computers using a zero day, did you also just access the computer according to the way it was programmed? Just because you can do it technically doesn’t mean it’s not fraud/something else.

      • By cherryteastain 2025-04-1415:153 reply

        If that's not how it works, where's the line for what is fraud and what is not? Once you move away from the "code is law" principle, companies have the perverse incentive to define fraud as "any transaction that results in negative PnL for me", which is exactly what happened here.

        • By echoangle 2025-04-1415:424 reply

          „Code is law“ isn’t a thing. Go tell a judge that your hacking is legal because the code allowed it. That’s not something that’s allowed by law.

          • By cherryteastain 2025-04-1415:583 reply

            I am well aware that "code is law" has no weight in actual law. The point I tried to raise was, given the following sequence of events:

            1. You deploy a smart contract to the ethereum blockchain

            2. I interact with your smart contract in some manner

            how do we define whether the manner of interaction in step 2 is fradulent or not?

            "Code is law" is one interpretation by crypto enthusiasts to define under what conditions interacting with the blockchain is fraud; in their definition, it's never fradulent.

            Let's assume "code is law" is nonsense, as many comments here say. Then, under what conditions do we define interacting with the blockchain as fradulent? What is fraud and what is not fraud?

            Edit: In the blockchain we can even formalize this. The ethereum blockchain at block K has a certain state S_K. I submit a certain transaction/set of instructions T to the blockchain which is mined as block K+1. How do we define a function isIllegal(S_K, T)? (Assuming block K+1 contains EVM instructions from my transaction T only)

            • By mschuster91 2025-04-1520:23

              > Let's assume "code is law" is nonsense, as many comments here say. Then, under what conditions do we define interacting with the blockchain as fradulent? What is fraud and what is not fraud?

              The thing is, laws can have issues and bugs as well, just like code! And we have courts to judge not just when someone outright breaks a law but also when someone is skirting on the edges of the law.

              Take Germany's "cum ex" scandal for example. Billions of euros were effectively defrauded from the state and on paper the scheme appeared legally sound, but in the end it was all shot down many years later because the actions of the "cum ex" thieves obviously violated the spirit of the law.

              The only difference is that blockchains are distributed worldwide and there is no single entity that can be held accountable and forced to execute or reverse any given transaction.

            • By echoangle 2025-04-1416:332 reply

              You’re never going to find a binary function that tells you if something is legal or not, in the end it’s up to a human judge to decide. But imagine setting up a search engine and I enter “ Robert'); DROP TABLE INDEX; --” as a search term. Would you say that’s a crime? That’s a perfectly fine thing to search for, right?

              • By Hizonner 2025-04-1418:352 reply

                > You’re never going to find a binary function that tells you if something is legal or not, in the end it’s up to a human judge to decide.

                ... but the whole point of cryptocurrency, or at least of smart contracts and "DeFi", is to reject that and try to build a parallel system. That's presumably based on a belief that you can write code that behaves the way you intend, regardless of whether you really can do that or not.

                So perhaps the judge should decide "Well, you signed up for that when you tried to opt out of having human judgement govern your deals. Have a nice day.".

                And in fact perhaps there should be formal statutory law that makes it clear that's what the judge is supposed to decide in any case that isn't itself "borderline" somehow. Which the case at hand shouldn't be.

                • By IanCal 2025-04-1520:492 reply

                  > ... but the whole point of cryptocurrency, or at least of smart contracts and "DeFi", is to reject that and try to build a parallel system.

                  No, it isn't. It might be some peoples desire around it, but by no means all (or even most).

                  • By Xelynega 2025-04-160:041 reply

                    That's neat, but the bitcoin whitepaper opens with:

                    > Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.

                    Why do you think you can dismiss the obvious claim that cryptocurrencies are a form of decentralized finance with a "no, it isn't"?

                    • By IanCal 2025-04-170:561 reply

                      > Why do you think you can dismiss the obvious claim that cryptocurrencies are a form of decentralized finance with a "no, it isn't"?

                      They are or can be a form of decentralised finance. That doesn't mean a system that is totally parallel to the legal system. And, again, different people intend different things with it. It's definitely not all "code is law" people.

                      • By Xelynega 2025-04-1717:30

                        What "intended uses" are there for it other than being an unregulated options market with constant scams and a "code is law" tool?

                        I would imagine any other legitimate use would be served better by traditional database/finance systems.

                  • By Hizonner 2025-04-1521:33

                    It doesn't add any other value whatsoever, so I'm having trouble with that assertion.

                • By echoangle 2025-04-150:001 reply

                  If I put up a sign „trespassers will be enslaved“ on my property and then force people who trespass to work for me, would that be fine because they knew what they were getting into? You can’t just create your own justice system which contradicts the real one by making contracts.

                  • By Hizonner 2025-04-150:45

                    You can give away your money by making contracts.

              • By cherryteastain 2025-04-1417:06

                Yes, perfectly fine, and the fact that you can paste that string into this website without being put in prison is testament to that!

            • By danielvf 2025-04-1416:241 reply

              The physical universe advances from state to state, but we define still can call certain behaviors illegal.

              https://xkcd.com/1494/

              • By cherryteastain 2025-04-1417:041 reply

                Alright, please go ahead and define under what legal pretext this guy's behavior might be illegal.

                There are other cases where interacting the blockchain is illegal in a very clear manner. Example: if I know an Iranian or North Korean entity has the keys to an Ethereum wallet, and if I send USDT to that wallet as a Western citizen, that is very illegal due to sanctions.

          • By TimPC 2025-04-1520:24

            The context is completely different though. Building a normal computer app is not an attempt to do anything without government or legal structures so it makes sense that normal computer apps would be protected by government or legal structures.

            It doesn't really make sense for people to build smart contracts that are intended to be an extra-judical agreement where the code enforces the rules and then run to government whenever something they don't like happens. What is the purpose of smart contracts at all if you still need the entire legal apparatus around them?

            What does agreeing to a contract that inherently implies trying to work around the need for government in contracts means? What does it say about intent?

            If for example, the firm that lost money had been saying "Code is Law" in their previous pro-crypto statements and had explicitly talked about smart contracts being extra-judical it seeems there intent would be to avoid legal intervention entirely and it would require a fairly high bar to argue that any bug could result in a lawsuit.

          • By cellis 2025-04-1520:53

            It may not pass muster with a judge in some backwater, but with one in the Northern District of California or a jury of their HN peers, it might. Laws are what we make them.

          • By archontes 2025-04-1415:531 reply

            Imagine I write a contract and empower an AI to execute it. I put $10,000 in a bank account and write, "I'd like a nice car."

            I do this of my own free will, at my own hazard. I know I'm playing this game. I have intentionally elected to use a system that will execute without any further intervention or oversight on my part. Verbally, I state that I am confident enough in the writing of my instruction that I feel secure in whatever outcome it may bring.

            The system automatically executes and someone has sold me a very nice remote control car.

            I sue that person.

            Why should I have standing?

        • By dan-robertson 2025-04-1415:23

          Isn’t, in the US system, the definition of fraud built up through a combination of legislation and case law from previous ‘grey area’ cases? I think most laws tend to have some balance between what is easy to define/understand and what is desirable to allow/disallow.

        • By freejazz 2025-04-1415:211 reply

          What does one have to do with the other? Fraud is "intentional deception to gain an unfair or illegal advantage, often resulting in financial or legal harm" what does that have to do with code? What could code even do about fraud?

          • By cherryteastain 2025-04-1416:111 reply

            If fraud is "intentional deception", who did this guy deceive? Everything was out in the open.

            • By freejazz 2025-04-1416:58

              What does that have to do with my question?

    • By moralestapia 2025-04-1516:25

      Indexed Finance's mistake was not being Vitalik Buterin and then putting on a sad face and ask for the shitcoin to fork to a version where they didn't screw up.

    • By sksxihve 2025-04-1521:383 reply

      Code is law went out the door with the ethereum hardfork after the dao hack.

      • By aqme28 2025-04-1612:47

        This makes no sense. I agree with you that code is not law, but the incident you're talking about wasn't law but community-driven consensus.

      • By Calwestjobs 2025-04-1523:15

        (realizing that im so old. if this is what i totally forgot, what else of this magnitude of signifince i do not remember anymore. that i was part of/ was involved/ it affected me.)

      • By stefan_ 2025-04-1521:52

        Funny, because it would never have happened if it was court ordered.

    • By KoolKat23 2025-04-167:28

      It depends if acted in accordance with the terms of the contract then it's fine but if he did something not covered by the contract it's theft.

      If I run an unmanned lemonade stand out front and leave a pile of money on the table, and say take your change, if you take more than what you're owed that's theft regardless of how easy it was.

    • By crispyambulance 2025-04-1415:141 reply

      He should have taken the significant and generous 10% bounty the first time around. He now has to face law suits by well-funded finance firms.

      • By DangitBobby 2025-04-1415:401 reply

        It seems like he simply faces a very wealthy existence in countries that don't give a shit about US laws.

        • By knodi123 2025-04-1522:46

          Assuming he can get his hands on the tokens and then convert them to local currency. Not impossible, but it's worth noting that he still hasn't managed.

    • By programjames 2025-04-1523:36

      Next we're going to learn that winning Poker Bots with an "all in" strategy is defrauding the competition.

    • By cvoss 2025-04-161:25

      This is a tiresome argument. Stealing is a moral concept first, and a legal concept second. You can steal without breaking any laws, the same way you can be a bad person without breaking any laws.

    • By gamblor956 2025-04-1523:212 reply

      In the real world, code is not law. Computers are not a magical gateway to another reality where existing laws and rules no longer apply.

      What matters is if Medjedovic engaged in activities that would be illegal in the process of acquiring the funds from Indexed Finance. A theft is theft whether it is physical or digital; victims aren't required to have perfect security and criminals are not allowed to exploit weaknesses to just take something that belongs to someone else.

      Medjedovic is accused of exploiting "glitches." From a legal perspective, that would be no different from a thief exploiting a "low" wall or an unsecured window. Glitches aren't invitations any more than an open window. In other words...not a defense. (And in the U.S., specifically see the Avraham Eisenberg case, which is basically the same fact pattern. Eisenberg lost. His sentencing was postponed to last week but appears to have been postponed again.)

      Then he skipped town after he was ordered by a court to put his tokens into escrow. If he truly believed that "code is law" and that the tokens were rightfully his, he wouldn't have skipped town. At that point...his own actions demonstrated that he didn't believe that what he did to acquire the tokens were legit. (The Fugitive notwithstanding, innocent people don't run.)

      Then he "exploited glitches" for another DeFi. See above.

      Then he attempted to launder the tokens...with some guy he found on the internet. Someone who legitimately believed that they legally owned the tokens would have hired lawyers, not money launderers, to gain access to their property. (Aside: any money launderer willing to launder money for a stranger is almost certainly undercover law enforcement...)

      Then he moved to a country without an extradition treaty, and in the past few months has been spouting racist far-right nonsense in the hopes of getting pardoned.

      Is he guilty? His own actions say that even he thinks he is.

      • By poochkoishi728 2025-04-167:49

        He can believe the tokens are rightfully his, and still believe that authorities don't see it his way. Like if you're in Salem and know you're not a witch, you'd want to take off too and chill in no-extradition treaty countries, so you don't get boiled alive by people with different outlooks.

        I like the analogy of an unsecured window. It doesn't seem to apply to a hypothetical (idk specifics of this company) purely private company in some crypto-friendly country that doesn't have any ties to the rule of law.

      • By garfield_light 2025-04-163:28

        Irrelevant, his thoughts in the matter or him being a shithead don't make the unintended use of a smart contract illegal or not. This is just usual case of Wilhoit’s Law by shitcoin peddlers.

        > There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

        They are outside of regulatory scrutiny but god-forbid someone uses the same excuses to take their funny money.

    • By InDubioProRubio 2025-04-1414:55

      But wont somebody think of the Incompetence Finance Inc. - we cant have fraudsters defrauded, with legal means. The upper caste taketh the lower giveth that is tardition since the dawn of time.

    • By Yizahi 2025-04-1415:54

      Code is lol. Oh, sorry, meant to say Code is Law. :)

    • By TacticalCoder 2025-04-1523:32

      https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-security-enginee...

      From that link:

      "U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Today, Shakeeb Ahmed was sentenced to prison in the first ever conviction for the hack of a smart contract and ordered to forfeit all of the stolen crypto. No matter how novel or sophisticated the hack, this Office and our law enforcement partners are committed to following the money and bringing hackers to justice. And as today’s sentence shows, time in prison — and forfeiture of all the stolen crypto — is the inevitable consequence of such destructive hacks.”

      The undisputable matter of fact is this: there have already been several cases of people who thought they could invoke the "(smart contract) code is law" argument to outsmart judges and the legal system.

      But that's fantasy. In practice these people, when caught, go to prison.

      > Indexed Finance is an unlicensed investment firm. The promoters knew the risk ( decentralized finance) and now they want to blame someone who outsmarted them at their own game.

      And DeFi exchanges are "unlicensed brokers". And yet I posted a case where the hacker who "outsmarted" them is now in prison: how smart one has to be to end up in prison right?

      Post me a case where an "unlicensed investement firm" sued a thief who "outsmarted them" and where the judge decided to let the thief walk free.

      For I posted a case from justice.gov to prove my point.

    • By danielvf 2025-04-1415:252 reply

      The camera shows night in the Wild West.

      A masked man creeps through the shadows of a sleeping town.

      He looks both ways, then uses a knife to unlatch a door from the outside. He slips into near pitch blackness. He moves confidently in the darkness - he's worked for this bank before, checking on their security from theft.

      Out comes his lock picking tools - the bank president's office door opens with a quick rake. Cheap lock.

      Inside, with no windows to betray him, he lights a candle. There in the corner stands the safe. He knows it inside and out, and has been practicing. Five minutes later, the lock is picked, and he loads up the gold, cash, and bonds inside.

      He puts the candle out, slips back outside, and returns to his room at the lodging house, climbing in through the window.

      The next morning, with the discovery of missing gold, the town looks like someone kicked over a fire ants nest. It only takes 30 minutes before people start wondering about "bank security expert" who had just been in the bank every day.

      A crowd heads over the boarding house, growing in size as it goes.

      "Did you steal our money?", they ask?

      "ABSOLUTELY NOT," he replies, "I merely used my immense mental powers to out hink several flawed physical security measures, breaking no laws of physics, in such a way that the gold, cash, and bonds previously belong to you are now in my possession, and now belong to me. No theft has taken place, only the movement of certain levers, of which anyone who knew how could move, and the movement of afterwords of certain goods."

      "So you stole our money!!", the town shouted.

      "No, no, I just interacted with the universe according to its very own publicly available rules. No theft has occurred!"

      An old cowhand, covering him with double barrel, spoke up, "Walll, guess he's right. We deserved to lose all that money. He did nothing wrong at all."

      Everyone left, impressed with his genius.

      • By DangitBobby 2025-04-1415:421 reply

        Yes, running transactions for asymmetric benefit allowed by code on a platform underpinned by a technology whose proponents espouse "code is law" is at all comparable to a man picking a lock on a bank safe. Very astute.

        • By danielvf 2025-04-1416:291 reply

          In this case the only person espousing the idea of "code is law" is the hacker. Neither the blockchain's builders, nor the hacked protocol, nor the users are saying that.

          "code is law" is a meme that primarily lives on hacker news. Only a tiny fraction of crypto people believe it or say it.

          • By ceejayoz 2025-04-1520:311 reply

            This is revisionist history.

            https://www.bitget.com/news/detail/12560604358718

            > In April 2016, in Switzerland, the Slock.it team was introducing their ambitious plan: The DAO, a decentralized investment fund governed entirely by code. "Imagine a fund with no board, no CEO," founder Christoph Jentzsch explained, "all decisions are made by token holders through smart contract-based voting. This is the ultimate realization of 'Code is Law'."

            https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/1188511660387889153

            • By olddustytrail 2025-04-1521:231 reply

              Is the "Slock.it team" not a tiny fraction of crypto people?

              I find it difficult to believe they're a large majority.

              • By ceejayoz 2025-04-1521:31

                The DAO was not some small, fringe project in the crypto world.

                Per Wiki:

                > As of May 2016, The DAO had attracted nearly 14% of all Ether tokens issued to date.

                Vitalik Buterin is, uh, pretty notable, too.

      • By meepmorp 2025-04-1415:441 reply

        > The camera shows night in the Wild West.

        > A masked man creeps through the shadows of a sleeping town.

        > He looks both ways, then

        ... walks into a casino, realizes there's a flaw in how they shuffle and deal cards, and then makes a shit ton of money exploiting this weakness.

        After losing a shit ton of money because they didn't plan for someone to play the game in an unexpected way, the owners of the casino demanded the money back.

        "Did you steal our money?", they ask?

        "ABSOLUTELY NOT," he replies, "I didn't get any non-public information, I didn't manipulate the deck, and you have yet to point to a single hand that was not played entirely within the stated rules of the game. You're just mad because I noticed that you fucked up and bet accordingly."

        • By olddustytrail 2025-04-1521:281 reply

          They all beat the shit out of the asshole and took their money back.

          "There's always another moron tries that one", they laughed as they walked away.

          • By meepmorp 2025-04-1822:20

            the long arm of the law is just substituting for the long leg of kicking his ass

  • By nikhizzle 2025-04-1414:308 reply

    So which one is it? Code is contract and he should get to keep the money. Or crypto is governed by laws outside of crypto and so he violated the “spirit” of the code and hence is a criminal?

    It seems like right now the crypto industry makes the decision to their convenience on a daily basis.

    • By intrasight 2025-04-1414:553 reply

      Purity goes out the window when there's real money involved. And means that in cryptocurrency, you only own what the government grants that you own.

      It'll be interesting how this gets resolved by Canadian courts.

      And this is rich: “A bad actor not brought to justice and held to account for one act of fraud will surely commit another”

      • By jiveturkey 2025-04-164:04

        > It'll be interesting how this gets resolved by Canadian courts.

        He's being prosecuted by the US DOJ, EDNY. Not Canada.

      • By Obscurity4340 2025-04-1610:491 reply

        [flagged]

        • By notyourwork 2025-04-1613:59

          This comment adds no value to the discussion and tries to politicize the conversation.

    • By criddell 2025-04-1415:122 reply

      Code is contract and disputes are handled by the courts. There's no such thing as a purely extrajudicial contract, is there?

      • By Spivak 2025-04-168:08

        I think the name smart contract is misleading because if you believe that the code is law then there is no actual contract in the smart contract. There is no meeting of the minds, no agreement on what the contract means or what is considered customary. Just a machine floating in the ETHer you can interact with. You owe the machine nothing and it owes you nothing.

    • By hiAndrewQuinn 2025-04-161:543 reply

      There is a third way: Private adjudication. I see no reason why the crypto community couldn't run its own private court system, similar to what e.g. Randy Barnett describes in chapter 5 of Anarchy and the Law.

      (Obligatory, I don't work in crypto or have any special connection to it, I just think people forget this third option even exists when it's really the most common way most private industries actually resolve disputes most of the time.)

      • By notnullorvoid 2025-04-162:481 reply

        It already does run its own private court system, it's the consensus process that is used to upgrade the protocol. If there was enough consensus there could be a fork that returned the funds, but that will never happen.

        • By hiAndrewQuinn 2025-04-166:531 reply

          Sure, but suppose people decide that's not good enough.

          • By vincnetas 2025-04-1610:211 reply

            what "people"?

            • By ausbah 2025-04-1614:17

              simple, those who lose to the system they’ve supported until it bleed up in their face

      • By dkarras 2025-04-167:321 reply

        Private court system? How does it work? Regular court system works because the government has the threat of violence, has the muscle and rights to hunt, capture and detain. if "private court" rules against me and I refuse to obey, how will they make me obey? There is no "or else" embedded in it so it will be useless.

        • By theurerjohn3 2025-04-168:55

          its a cryptocurrency, the courts legitimacy would likely come from the community forking as necessary to resolve issues as identified by the court, in the same way the us judicial branch gets its legitimacy from the us executive branch employing force as necessary to resolve issues as identified by that court.

          its a broader group to convince, sure, but there is a clear 'or else' from which the court can get that legitimacy. 'return the money or else we will return it for you' is a meaningful or else

      • By TimJRobinson 2025-04-174:37

        There's a service called Kleros that does exactly this

    • By Gunax 2025-04-1521:59

      There definitely some hypocrisy, but it might work differently in the law.

      As devs, we might claim that 'code is the law' but my guess is that the law does not care. That is, one cannot overwrite property laws by a few lines of code.

      Consider how disclaimers work--we are increasingly putting limitations on what rights you can contractually forfeit.

      This will be interting to watch.

    • By programjames 2025-04-1523:431 reply

      It seems absolutely bonkers to me that someone would write a smart contract that lets them bleed $50m without automatically stopping after they lose the first $1/10/100k.

      • By poochkoishi728 2025-04-167:59

        That seems hard to implement. Presumably the move was all based on regular transactions. You can't just say, "If we're losing money, stop it", you have to concretely specify the conditions.

    • By hinkley 2025-04-1520:03

      In the real world locks are meant to keep honest people honest and slow down the dishonest people until someone notices and stops them.

      There’s a world where crypto could be sold the same way, but the sycophants drowned that out for long enough that we aren’t in the Trough Disillusionment now so much as the Trough of Open Mockery.

    • By jxjnskkzxxhx 2025-04-158:591 reply

      We have laws, yes.

      • By eadmund 2025-04-1610:55

        Yes, we have laws. When should the law intrude on the private transaction of two parties? Typically, the law holds both parties to their contractual agreement. If those two parties have contracted to abide by the output of an algorithm, can the law distinguish good faith manipulation of algorithmic inputs to benefit oneself from bad faith manipulation of algorithmic inputs to benefit oneself? Given that the whole point of a smart contract is to encode the terms of the agreement as code, when is it appropriate to step in and alter that agreement?

    • By gosub100 2025-04-1523:06

      See also: tether.

  • By cherryteastain 2025-04-1414:553 reply

    My personal belief is that this was not fraud and "Code is Law" works. Yet, this guy is a perfect example of how intelligence and wisdom are not the same. He was clearly smart and dedicated enough to pull off this sort of trade successfully multiple times in a row, and probably all he had to do to get away with it was keeping his mouth shut. Or at the very least not get convicted by default on contempt of court charges by ignoring a court summons.

    • By neuroelectron 2025-04-1415:121 reply

      Court was outside its jurisdiction here. The fact that the case went forward shows that he was about to be railroaded by corrupt authorities.

      • By cherryteastain 2025-04-1415:191 reply

        Agree, but the wisdom here is in recognising that once you made $65m in seconds at someone else's expense they will try to recoup that amount by any means necessary.

        • By neuroelectron 2025-04-1415:32

          He isn't working completely alone. He was able to borrow some "wisdom" and skedaddle.

    • By hinkley 2025-04-1520:08

      That German general who talked about keeping stupid industrious people away from your armed forces never met a clever enough fool.

      Clever fools are how you get Jurassic Park.

    • By steve_adams_86 2025-04-1415:17

      It is a good example. Unfortunately most 18 year olds don’t possess a whole lot of wisdom yet. This guy was basically a kid when he did this.

HackerNews