#加密圆桌讨论 : The Balancing Act of DeFi, Code, and Regulation
The recent crypto roundtable hosted by the SEC brought to light a pressing issue in the DeFi space: when open-source code clashes with financial regulation, should developers be held accountable for users' reckless behaviors?
Supporters waved the banner of 'technical neutrality': code is like a kitchen knife; developers are only responsible for making knives and shouldn't be blamed if someone uses a knife to commit robbery. This perspective emphasizes the decentralized nature of DeFi and argues that regulatory intervention stifles innovation. However, opponents immediately countered: with users locking up assets worth billions of dollars in DeFi, if everything were left unchecked, wouldn't scammers thrive?
Behind this debate lies the three major characteristics of DeFi at play: anonymity allows bad actors to hide, the open-source nature makes code accessible to everyone, but traditional regulatory frameworks resemble trying to eat hotpot with a knife and fork—completely incompatible. SEC Chairman Atkins put it plainly: 'Engineers shouldn't be responsible for what others do with code.' But Commissioner Peirce was sharper: 'Code is a form of free speech; the government shouldn't play digital police.'
However, reality is more complicated than slogans. Last year, a certain DeFi project was hacked for tens of millions of dollars due to a vulnerability; should the developers compensate? Smart contracts execute automatically, but what if there’s a 'backdoor' hidden in the code? It's like a self-driving car hitting someone—should the programmer or the passenger be held liable?
Regulators are currently in a bind: they should learn from the EU's MiCA regulations, which would put a 'compliance vest' on code—requiring developers to disclose algorithmic logic while maintaining a position of technical neutrality. At the same time, they could introduce 'formal verification' technology to conduct thorough scans of the code, ensuring no hidden issues.
Ultimately, the tug-of-war between DeFi and regulation is fundamentally a battle between innovation and risk. In the future, it may be necessary to establish 'digital liability insurance': developers could purchase insurance for code vulnerabilities, regulators could allow compliant projects through sandbox mechanisms, and users could understand risk ratings in their wallets. After all, in an era where code is law, what we need more is a 'digital referee,' not a 'code police.'
In the next layout direction, I plan to guide everyone in searching for those lucrative opportunities in altcoins, expecting returns to multiply tenfold is quite feasible. Like and leave a message, and I will take you all through the entire bull market!
