The smart contracts are immutable nobody can change them including the devs. When prosecution says "did nothing" they should probably mention that it was not technically possible to do anything productive.
You seem to think this matters, but the charges are conspiracy, so it in fact, does not. Their part of the conspiracy was already complete, whether they could do anything or not.
If you create parts for a bomb and hand them to someone else, knowing they are likely to use it as a bomb, and they in fact do, you are as guilty of conspiracy as the actual bomber.
Your crime was complete when you gave them the parts, which is an overt act (some act in furtherance of the conspiracy).
(Unlike the typical gun analogies that get brought up in response, i'm choosing something that does not have a legitimate purpose and is in fact illegal to create as-is)
If you create a thing in the US that is required to comply with KYC/AML and don't, and someone users it to launder, and you know they use it to launder, you are still guilty even if you couldn't stop them from using it.
Again, your crime is complete at the point you complete an overt act .
You have to withdraw from the conspiracy before then.
Here, the government is charging them for the website, mainly, not the smart contracts
Looks like people mostly praise him for those ramps, his bar, his awards, and how cool he is in general. It's still not clear what he got done at his job.
A guy builds a company from scratch, has a successful exit, does extensive extra curricular philanthropy, stays on and somehow your takeaway is that he probably doesn't do anything
> I now work at Twitter where I led an innovation team that among others spearheaded Communities on the platform as well as the long awaited (and finally launched) edit button. I also tweet a lot on there.
Can't find it for some reason, can you provide a link? Did they summarize with GPTSimpleVectorIndex or GPTListIndex? GPTSimpleVectorIndex is in get-started examples and is cheaper, but it provides worse results.
That's quite an evasion of the question. Yet more evidence that there's approximately no legitimate use.
But I'm on record as being in favor of full financial transparency for everybody. Every charge, every bank statement. Money, after all, is inherently social. And full transparency, while causing some problems, would eliminate a ton of others. So if you can get a legislator to submit a bill, I'll happy call them up to back it.
