📢 Gate廣場 #MBG任务挑战# 發帖贏大獎活動火熱開啓!
想要瓜分1,000枚MBG?現在就來參與,展示你的洞察與實操,成爲MBG推廣達人!
💰️ 本期將評選出20位優質發帖用戶,每人可輕鬆獲得50枚MBG!
如何參與:
1️⃣ 調研MBG項目
對MBG的基本面、社區治理、發展目標、代幣經濟模型等方面進行研究,分享你對項目的深度研究。
2️⃣ 參與並分享真實體驗
參與MBG相關活動(包括CandyDrop、Launchpool或現貨交易),並曬出你的參與截圖、收益圖或實用教程。可以是收益展示、簡明易懂的新手攻略、小竅門,也可以是現貨行情點位分析,內容詳實優先。
3️⃣ 鼓勵帶新互動
如果你的帖子吸引到他人參與活動,或者有好友評論“已參與/已交易”,將大幅提升你的獲獎概率!
MBG熱門活動(帖文需附下列活動連結):
Gate第287期Launchpool:MBG — 質押ETH、MBG即可免費瓜分112,500 MBG,每小時領取獎勵!參與攻略見公告:https://www.gate.com/announcements/article/46230
Gate CandyDrop第55期:CandyDrop x MBG — 通過首次交易、交易MBG、邀請好友註冊交易即可分187,500 MBG!參與攻略見公告:https://www.gate.com/announcements
Programmable regulation is the missing key to DeFi’s legal future
Opinion by: Raks Sondhi, chief operating officer of Freedx
Governing composable, borderless and programmable ecosystems with rules made for simple, static financial systems presents a fundamental challenge.
In the past year alone, decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms held over $60 billion worth of crypto assets locked in their protocols. Yet most jurisdictions still lack a clear definition of a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). This confusion is slowing innovation and undermining the credibility of regulatory institutions.
Lawmakers still assume there is a centralized actor to license, audit or subpoena. However, DAOs are intentionally decentralized, smart contracts operate autonomously and onchain assets can move without permission.
Although US regulators have started targeting protocols under existing securities laws, courts struggle to determine if autonomous software can be held liable. Legacy regulatory tools were not designed to oversee systems that evolve in real-time. These challenges have led regulators worldwide to attempt new crypto regulation approaches
On a global scale, the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) is attempting to provide a unified framework for regulation in the EU, going as far as restricting the use of tokens like Tether’s USDt (USDT) that do not comply with its standards. In the US, the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission have brought legal action against DAO participants and DeFi protocols. Some US states, like Wyoming, have even passed laws to give DAOs a kind of corporate status
Yet these efforts seem deeply limited and rely heavily on retroactive enforcement, which results in a chilling effect where builders hesitate to move forward, capital sits idle, and regulations are in a cat-and-mouse chase that benefits no one or doesn’t solve the actual problem. They are slowly patching holes in a highly dynamic and evolving space.
Governing software through embedded compliance
How do we stop chasing? The answer lies in some sort of policy-as-code solution. Instead of trying to fit decentralized technologies into traditional legal systems, we need a new policy infrastructure that is as composable and programmable as the technologies it needs to oversee. We must build compliance layers directly into the code and embed regulatory logic inside the DeFi protocols’ infrastructure.
Related: FCA-registered BCP launches British pound stablecoin
Just as financial instruments onchain are now composed of interoperable modules, a lending protocol should be able to plug in specific compliance modules to fit their jurisdictional needs. A DAO treasury should be able to self-report tax events as they occur. A stablecoin protocol should be able to enforce sanctions lists through zero-knowledge proofs or onchain attestations, and so on
Some projects are already developing components for privacy-preserving and onchain compliance. Other projects are building permissioned architectures to align with regulatory demands. Even centralized exchanges are exploring onchain compliance rails that could apply to decentralized protocols
Legal clarity is the key to DeFi’s full potential
From a market standpoint, embedded compliance has the potential to de-risk DeFi, attracting new investors and users alike. Legal clarity from embedding policy directly into the infrastructure would reduce the enforcement gap and enhance consumer protections.
For developers, it unlocks the composability of regulatory regimes, allowing them to select from jurisdictional templates like they do UI components, adapting their codebase in real time to meet evolving policy. No more guessing whether your DAO token is a security, no more wondering if a protocol is subject to reporting requirements, and less reliance on costly legal interpretation
Although policy-as-code sounds very advantageous, the programmable policy has its own risks. As with any other connected environment, code can be exploited. We must wonder what would happen when a compliance module is compromised, malfunctions or becomes outdated. Governance, security and upgradability remain essential, but democratic oversight is a pillar of blockchain technology. Embedding regulation in code must not mean removing it from public accountability, as that will decrease trust and transparency, further pushing the Web3 space from mainstream adoption
We are at a crossroads, either reimagining the intersection between DeFi and law or allowing the gap between regulation and permissionless innovation to widen. One path leads to inclusive, efficient, transparent finance governed by rules everyone can see and understand
The other path leads to gray markets, enforcement chaos and capital flight.
Policy must modularly evolve and adapt to new structures, logic and ecosystems. The key to unlocking that is to govern software with software.
Opinion by: Raks Sondhi, chief operating officer of Freedx.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.