#DeFiRegulation | Code or crime? Innovation or disguised intermediation?
In the latest SEC roundtable on crypto, the debate over the responsibility of DeFi developers shook the regulatory table:
📌 Pres. Atkins: Engineers should not be held responsible for how others use their code.
📌 Hester Peirce: Code is speech protected by the First Amendment.
📌 Erik Voorhees: Smart contracts functionally surpass human regulators.
📌 Others: Decentralization ≠ anarchy. It’s *user-driven transparency.
🎯 My vision as a trader, builder, and observer of the ecosystem:
💡 1. The code is neutral, but the context is not.
A smart contract can be a tool or a weapon. But blaming the builder would be like imprisoning the knife maker for someone else's crime.
💡 2. DeFi does not need to be lawless to be free.
True decentralization is auditable, predictable, and without privileges. Isn’t that what regulation *should* aim for?
💡 3. Regulators must evolve… or they will be obsolete code.
Regulating intermediaries is easy. But how do you regulate an autonomous contract that no one controls? The answer is not to prohibit — it is to collaborate with those who design it to make it safer, not more centralized.
⚖️ Should developers be treated as open source authors or as financial intermediaries?
👉 I vote to protect innovation and punish bad intent, not the existence of code.
💬 What do you think? Should regulation be rewritten in Solidity, or continue to be imposed from offices disconnected from the blockchain reality?
🔗 Your voice between code and law. Your broker with an empire vision.