In einem neuen Forenbeitrag schlagen wir vor, die Anforderungen der Stufe 1 zu aktualisieren, indem wir einen neuen "Security Council Walkaway-Test" einführen, der versucht, die Frage zu beantworten: Können Benutzer, in Anwesenheit böswilliger Betreiber, aussteigen, selbst wenn der Security Council verschwindet?

I'm in the minority on the Axelar / $AXL "tokenholder's have no rights" debate, but I don't think this is a big deal. Companies finance themselves with different parts of the capital stack, and some are more senior than others. Secured debt > unsecured senior debt > sub debt > preferred shares > equity > tokens There are hundreds of examples of one class of investors getting harmed at the expense of others. In bankruptcy, debt holders win at expense of equities. In LBOs, equity holders win at expense of debt holders In take-unders, debt wins at expense of equity holders In strategic acquisitions, usually both debt and equity holders do well (but not always). Tokens are often bottom of the cap stack. It doesn't mean they aren't valuable, and it doesn't mean you need "protections" per se. We are simply learning that when you acquire a semi-worthless company with a mostly worthless token, you don't get a magic payout as a token holder. The equity wins at the expense of the token. We've yet to see an acquisition of a good company where token holders get nothing. I'd imagine if an acquisition happened of a good, growing, successful business with a token that has proven valuable, then there would be some compensation for token holders. There are lots of assets that do well in good times, but not in bad times. Stocks are great investments when a company is doing well, but they are awful investments when a company is not doing well. Tokens have little to no value in M&A... ok. Adjust accordingly. Just like equities have little to no value in bankruptcy even if the company was funded via equity. On the flip side, an equity value can literally go to $0 as dictated by a judge in a bankruptcy, whereas tokens can retain some magical "hopium" social value even if the underlying company goes away (i.e. $FTT still trades) because you can't actually legally kill a token. So we're leaning that tokens can have tremendous value in a company that is growing and using cash flows to pay down the tokens (i.e. $BNB, $HYPE, $LEO, $OKB, $PUMP), and do horribly when a company struggles and becomes a forced seller to another entity. You don't need rules and regulations to recognize that. Back good management teams and good projects and this isn't an issue.