This is very wrong. The distinction between legal/immutable guarantees and unenforceable promises very much matters and is fundamental for protecting economics. If a token depends on revenue that flows through a company then the interests of tokenholders are in direct conflict with the sharehold
The author argues that conflating legal guarantees and unenforceable promises endangers tokenholders when token revenue depends on a company, because shareholders have a senior claim.
This is very wrong. The distinction between legal/immutable guarantees and unenforceable promises very much matters and is fundamental for protecting economics. If a token depends on revenue that flows through a company then the interests of tokenholders are in direct conflict with the sharehold
This is very wrong. The distinction between legal/immutable guarantees and unenforceable promises very much matters and is fundamental for protecting economics. If a token depends on revenue that flows through a company then the interests of tokenholders are in direct conflict with the sharehold
I think we somewhat agree. Ultimately, tokenholders are trusting the insiders of a company, even though the economic incentives of those insiders might favor cutting off value flow to the token, which they have unilateral authority to do, and which tokenholders have no recourse for. Where value