Regarding the core views of the SEC's crypto roundtable and the regulatory challenges of DeFi, a comprehensive analysis is needed from three dimensions: technical essence, legal boundaries, and regulatory innovation.
---
### ⚖️ I. Analysis of the Rationality of Core Views from the Roundtable Meeting
1. **Atkins' 'developer liability exemption theory' has technological neutrality**
Atkins emphasizes that engineers should not be held responsible for others' misuse of code, drawing an analogy that 'autonomous vehicle developers cannot be sued if users rob a bank', pointing to the **neutral attributes** of technological tools. This aligns with the principle of 'responsibility division' in the open-source software field—Linux developers are not responsible for hacker attacks. If DeFi protocols are viewed as infrastructure, the role of developers is closer to that of tool creators rather than financial intermediaries.
2. **Peirce's 'code as speech' needs to limit its scope of application**
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but whether code equates to 'speech' is contentious. If code merely expresses technical logic (such as mathematical formulas), it may be protected; however, if it is directly designed as a **financial product** (such as a smart contract that automatically executes the issuance of securitized tokens), it may exceed the scope of speech. Judicial practice shows that the First Amendment **does not constrain private platform rules** (such as Twitter banning Trump's account), suggesting that the regulatory focus should be on the **functional use** of the code rather than its expressive form.
3. **Voorhees' 'smart contract advantages theory' reflects technical reality**
Smart contracts replace human intermediaries with on-chain transparent rules, reducing **abuse of discretionary power** (such as corruption or operational risks), and their 'predictability' is indeed an advancement. However, 'transparency' does not equate to 'compliance'—if contract designs violate anti-money laundering rules (such as Tornado Cash), the technical advantage can instead become a regulatory blind spot.
---
### 🧩 II. Developer Responsibility in DeFi: Protection or Accountability? A Layered Definition is Needed
The core of the controversy lies in whether **developer roles significantly participate in financial activities**, which can refer to the following layered framework:
| **Responsibility Levels** | **Developer Behavioral Characteristics** | **Should Accountability Apply** | **Case References** |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------|----------------------------------|
| **Pure Tool Developers** | Release a general code library (such as Solidity SDK) | No (analogous to open-source software) | Linux kernel developers |
| **Protocol Leaders** | Control keys, update contracts, market promised returns | Yes (quasi-financial intermediaries) | SEC sued the Stoner Cats NFT team |
| **DAO Governance Participants** | Vote to decide on protocol parameters or fund uses | Partial (depending on decision-making power) | Ooki DAO was ruled as a 'traditional enterprise' |
- **Current Regulatory Dilemma**: IOSCO advocates for 'broad accountability', requiring regulation of **developers, DAO participants, and even token holders**, but in practice faces **ambiguities in accountability subjects** (e.g., 'Are Telegram group members considered DAO participants?').
- **Compromise path**: Drawing on Atkins' proposal, if developers complete **decentralization of the protocol and exit control** (such as destroying management keys), they should be exempt from liability; conversely, if they retain **substantial influence**, they must bear intermediary responsibility.
---
### 🌐 III. Direction of Regulatory Evolution: From 'Institutional Regulation' to 'Logical Regulation'
Traditional financial regulation relies on **identifiable entities** (such as bank licenses), while DeFi needs to shift towards **verification of rules and results**:
1. **Embedding regulatory logic in the technical layer**
- Require smart contracts to preset **compliance modules** (such as triggering KYC checks based on transaction volume)
- Case: The SEC is considering setting 'non-securitization' exemption conditions for NFT issuance (such as not promising returns)
2. **Test the level of decentralization using a 'regulatory sandbox'**
- Allow projects to achieve **full decentralization** within three years (such as Peirce's Safe Harbor proposal), during which time securities laws are temporarily exempted
- Testing indicators: distribution of governance tokens, multi-signature mechanisms for contract upgrades, proportion of developer voting rights
3. **Global regulatory coordination to prevent arbitrage**
- IOSCO has promoted the principle of 'same risks, same regulatory outcomes', requiring DeFi to meet **equivalent standards for investor protection**
- Difficulty: Different countries have varying definitions of 'responsible entities' (e.g., the EU's MiCA focuses on operators, while the U.S. SEC focuses on the nature of securities)
---
### 💎 IV. Conclusion: A 'Responsibility Firewall' Model Balancing Innovation and Risk
1. **Prerequisite for Developer Protection**: When the code is open-source and does not embed active violation logic (such as evading sanctions), the 'technological neutrality principle' applies
2. **Red line for accountability**: Developers are considered financial intermediaries when involved in **fund custody**, **return promises**, or **protocol emergency control** (such as multi-signature pausing contracts)
3. **Upgrade the regulatory toolbox**:
- Conduct **on-chain compliance audits** for protocols (instead of traditional institutional checks)
- Utilize AI to monitor **abnormal fund flows** (e.g., DeFi protocol money laundering pattern recognition)
- Clarify the **responsibility attribution of algorithm governance** (e.g., whether an AI's automatic adjustment of interest rates requires a designated responsible person)
> The codification of finance is irreversible, but code does not exist in a legal vacuum. Regulation needs to penetrate the narrative of 'decentralization' to identify **actual control variables** (whether human or algorithmic), while also preserving breathing space for purely tool-based innovations. The SEC's shift towards 'dialogic governance' may be a key step in reconstructing regulatory philosophy.