The disparity in accountability here is striking. One founder's poor judgment ended in conviction, while another's calculated misconduct left them untouched by law enforcement. The crypto community shouldn't ignore this contradiction—whether it's a gap in jurisdiction, enforcement capability, or something else entirely, it raises serious questions about consistency in how we hold industry figures responsible when things go catastrophically wrong. This kind of inconsistency erodes trust in the entire ecosystem.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
11 Likes
Reward
11
2
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasFeeVictim
· 12-13 11:48
A wrong judgment led to a penalty, but intentionally causing trouble ends up with no consequences? Is this what they call fairness in the crypto world? Haha, laugh out loud.
View OriginalReply0
ZkSnarker
· 12-13 11:33
ngl this is giving "prosecution roulette" vibes... one guy gets the hammer for being incompetent while the other just... walks? actually, here's the thing about enforcement asymmetry in crypto—it's basically a proof sketch that nobody's actually reviewing the code equally, if you know what i mean
The disparity in accountability here is striking. One founder's poor judgment ended in conviction, while another's calculated misconduct left them untouched by law enforcement. The crypto community shouldn't ignore this contradiction—whether it's a gap in jurisdiction, enforcement capability, or something else entirely, it raises serious questions about consistency in how we hold industry figures responsible when things go catastrophically wrong. This kind of inconsistency erodes trust in the entire ecosystem.