#中心化与去中心化交易所

Are DeFi's smart contracts progress or evasion of regulation?

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

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

Transparency: Anyone can audit the execution logic;

Composability: Seamless interaction between open protocols;

Trustlessness: No reliance on third-party arbitration.

But the question is:

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

Most users cannot truly audit the code, leading to the risk of "false decentralization."

Therefore, smart contracts are not a shield against liability, but rather a tool for redistributing responsibility.

🧭 Direction of Regulation: Focus on behavior, not technology

A guest pointed out: "Decentralization is not lawlessness; it is transparent, predictable, and user-driven."

This statement highlights the key point—Decentralization ≠ No regulation, but rather another form of order.

The evolution of regulation should focus on the following directions:

Old Regulatory Thinking New Regulatory Thinking

Review issuers Review behaviors (such as fraud, market manipulation)

Rely on third-party reports Use on-chain data auditing

Physical geographical jurisdiction Smart contract behavioral norms + DAO contract liability attribution

Heavy penalties Encourage self-regulation and pre-compliance frameworks

✅ Conclusion: DeFi developers should enjoy "limited liability + reasonable regulation"

1. Protect their creativity and freedom of speech like open-source developers.

2. They should bear corresponding responsibilities when aware of illegal use or involvement in control.

3. Regulation should shift from "identity regulation" to "behavior and outcome regulation."

4. A clear legal framework should be established to distinguish the boundaries between "tool developers" and "financial intermediaries."