#加密圆桌讨论

🔍 1. Should engineers be responsible for the outcomes of their code usage?

SEC Chair Atkins stated: “Engineers should not be held accountable for how others use their code.”

This statement reflects a principle of “tool neutrality” — the code itself is neutral, and the responsibility lies with the user. This aligns with the traditional view in the open-source community, just like developers who write encryption functions should not be held responsible for ransomware.

However, in the financial sector, the situation is more complex:

If developers hold governance rights (such as DAO multi-signature) or control permissions, then they are no longer just tool providers.

The key variable is: is it truly decentralized? If the code can be “modified” or “halted” by someone, then the boundaries of responsibility become blurred.

---

🗣 2. Is code = freedom of speech?

Hester Peirce noted: “Code is protected by the First Amendment and falls under the scope of free speech.”

This perspective stems from past case law in the U.S. legal system (such as the PGP encryption case), emphasizing that “code is a form of expression.” From this angle, punishing developers is akin to punishing publishers.

However, this protection is not absolute:

If the code is designed for criminal purposes (such as money laundering), the court may regard it as “conduct” rather than mere speech.

Especially in financial regulation, “issuing financial products,” even in the form of code, may trigger legal liability.

---

⚙ 3. Are DeFi smart contracts an advancement or an evasion of regulation?

Erik Voorhees said: “Smart contracts represent a leap forward compared to human regulators.”

This is a positive affirmation of the technology. Smart contracts possess:

Transparency: Anyone can audit the execution logic;

Composability: Open protocols can interact seamlessly;

Trustlessness: No reliance on third-party arbitration.

But the question is:

Technology does not self-regulate. Who is responsible when things go wrong? For example, the issues behind Terra or FTX involved centralized factors and design flaws.

Users generally cannot truly audit the code, creating the risk of “pseudo-decentralization.”

Therefore, smart contracts are not a shield of immunity, but a tool for redistributing responsibility.