> Contracts that include illegal activities, such as theft, are unenforceable. If the hacked funds get released the whole of the DAO would be legally invalid.
> As a lawyer I have called the DAO snake oil[1] from the beginning, but mostly because it sold itself as something new legally...which it is not (of course I was downvoted).
I'm very curious as to the grounds for your assertion that the DAO's terms and conditions would be considered a 'legal' contract, rather than say the equivalent of a software license - in the case of the later it is common (and legally valid) practice for the terms of the license to indemnify the creators (and in this case probably other users) from any consequences stemming from the use of said software.
> As a lawyer I have called the DAO snake oil[1] from the beginning, but mostly because it sold itself as something new legally...which it is not (of course I was downvoted).
I'm very curious as to the grounds for your assertion that the DAO's terms and conditions would be considered a 'legal' contract, rather than say the equivalent of a software license - in the case of the later it is common (and legally valid) practice for the terms of the license to indemnify the creators (and in this case probably other users) from any consequences stemming from the use of said software.