> Consumer protection is a relatively new idea in finance; it has caught on because it is a good idea.
I agree. However, it is to counterbalamce a system that previously protected those taking advantage of consumers and less sophisticated organizations. While this is true in perpetuity, and will be true for alt-exchanges, the difference is that arbitration is well documented and fully known.
A consumer will need protection from a large institution with considerable control of the market and considerable resources and influence behind it. There does need to be a way to handle disputes and arbitration, but that is irrespective of the actual granular question of should the DAO get to keep the money?
I say no, in that it will serve a great lesson in recklessly launching contracts before having them fully vetted, and also because it would invalidate the entire purpose of the organizatons existance.
I agree. However, it is to counterbalamce a system that previously protected those taking advantage of consumers and less sophisticated organizations. While this is true in perpetuity, and will be true for alt-exchanges, the difference is that arbitration is well documented and fully known.
A consumer will need protection from a large institution with considerable control of the market and considerable resources and influence behind it. There does need to be a way to handle disputes and arbitration, but that is irrespective of the actual granular question of should the DAO get to keep the money?
I say no, in that it will serve a great lesson in recklessly launching contracts before having them fully vetted, and also because it would invalidate the entire purpose of the organizatons existance.