This post originally started off as a comment to one, however it grew to a size long enough to be published as a semi-standalone text. I suggest reading the informative and well-written piece that elicited this my small comment first (or instead). Perhaps introducing a 'reply with a blogpost' feature would really benefit publish0x? For those who might want to press on without context I provide some rudimentary intro: Compound finance messed up some code and sent almost 90 million USD worth of COMP to random addresses. Then one of their CEOs asked anyone who got funds that way to return them, keeping 10% if they wish, or face a doxxing attempt. I think users should have kept the funds for two reasons:
1. Clearing the market. Is is in the interest of customers to allow a bank that messed up to continue operating as if it did not? Sure, mistakes do happen and Compound might put in the effort to double check its own code before it makes it live, but then what about all the projects that executed this due diligence beforehand and prevented such mistakes? I think punishing Compound (or rather, acting on their mistake in the most obvious way) would have a market-clearing effect, weakening and perhaps even threatening the whole project and allowing other, more robust players to come to the fore. Don't return the finds and don't bail out the banks, even if the consequences might be catastrophic. This is a stance derived from self-interest (personal net-gain), reason (a highly competitive market where mistakes are punished is in everyone's interest in the long run) and principle (never cover for institutions that make mistakes, let them pay the price) and as such is as justifiable as the conscientious and honest position (returning the money).
2. The threat of doxxing. Some people just don't get what the 'crypto' in crypto really means. The 'crypto' in cryptocurrency is the same 'crypto' as in cryptography. Leshner's tweet sounds a bit like: "we fucked up, help us unfuck ourselves or we will un-crypto your crypto". If I wanted to lock my money for 0.5% APY under my own name and address I could just walk into any bank. While cryptocurrency as a whole is heading towards self-doxxing with all the KYC happening, those who would accelerate the process are deliberately anti-crypto. Not to mention doxxing is borderline criminal activity and, perhaps most importantly, would not effect everyone equally, so the threat of mass doxxing would only apply to some, but not all of those who would choose to keep the funds. Since one side of the agreement violates the implicit terms (respect for privacy), the other party is not bound by them also and may likewise act malevolently.
So there, here is my case for what many would consider dishonesty.
