Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Zack Shapiro
3.2K posts
Zack Shapiro
@zackbshapiro
Managing Partner @rainsllp. AI-Enabled Corporate Lawyer, Head of Policy @bitcoinpolicy, ex-@DavisPolk, @YaleLawSch, @WilliamsCollege
Brooklyn, NY Katılım Nisan 2021
466 Takip Edilen23.8K Takipçiler
I’m collecting a list of crypto policy advocates that are drawing a hard line on not weakening the BRCA. If that’s you, reply to this thread.
English
Why stop there? 🚀🚀🚀
According to @brian_a_burns's math:
Q2 2028: 133% of the V100
Mid-2030: 200% of the V100
Mide-2033: 300% of the V100
You heard that right.
By 2033, 300 out of the 100 firms ranked in terms of how "prestigious" associates perceive them to be (yes, that's really what the Vault rankings are based on) will be using Harvey.
Brian Burns@brian_a_burns
At this pace: - 75% by end of Q3 - 100% in ~12 months
English
Zack Shapiro retweetledi
AI-first law firms are not trying to make lawyers obsolete. They are trying to make “we’ll get back to you next week” obsolete.
English
Must-read on foreign interference in the US data center infa buildout from BPI’s Head of Research, @SamLyman33
Bitcoin Policy Institute@bitcoinpolicy
NEW RESEARCH from @SamLyman33: China is interfering with US data center development in a campaign to slow the American AI buildout. In this groundbreaking report, we document 3 vectors of foreign influence: Chinese state media, the Singham network, and foreign billionaires.
English
My AI agent is actually a pretty great negotiator.
Michael Morgenstern@M___Morgenstern
Your AI agent is a bad negotiator
English
This is true. But it also means you need to be extremely careful about the veto rights/protective provisions you sign in your Series A.
The NVCA standard term that requires founders to ask permission from their lead investor to sell their company for life changing money (which might not be a big enough multiple for the VC) is the single largest divergence in interest between founders and investors that regularly plays out with startups.
Paul Graham@paulg
No investor has any right to push you to get acquired if you don't want to. The company is your project, not theirs.
English
Lmao not even remotely
CyrilXBT@cyrilXBT
The legal industry just hit its "open source" era. Anthropic just dropped Claude for Legal - a GitHub repo that essentially automates 99% of routine legal tasks. It’s not just a chatbot; it’s a marketplace of specialized AI agents. The Toolkit: NDA Agents: Instant drafting and redlining. Policy Drafters: Ironclad compliance in seconds. Review Agents: Automated risk detection for complex contracts. The catch? There isn't one. It’s public, it’s free to access, and it’s better than most $500/hr junior associates. Work that used to take days now takes seconds. The barrier to entry for high-level legal work just hit zero. 🔗 github.com/anthropics/cla…
English
Pro tip: make sure that your C-corp has an appropriate number of shares so you don’t end up with a random $200k bill from Delaware.
David J Phillips@davj
He finally incorporated his startup. Send him a random $200,000 bill from the state of Delaware.
English
Friendly reminder to would-be SaaS investors that this is not necessarily a bullish metric. It could be that monthly users are converting into daily users (as Winston seems to imply), but this metric could just as easily mean that non-daily users are dropping the tool altogether.
(Or, more likely, could be some of both)
Winston Weinberg@winstonweinberg
Update: Harvey has crossed 50% DAU/MAU. More than half of our customers use Harvey every day.
English
Zack Shapiro retweetledi
"Anthropic is very good and we are also very good too."
~ every legaltech founder on LinkedIn right now
English
Unfortunately very underwhelming release from Anthropic. Build your own skills, folks (or rather, have Claude do it for you)!
Polymarket@Polymarket
JUST IN: Anthropic rolls out new Claude tools aimed at automating legal work for lawyers & law firms.
English
@maxtannahill It means there is plenty of opportunity for other courts to reach different conclusions.
English
@zackbshapiro Assuming this goes to an eventual Second Circuit appeal, this would be enough to set precedent.
“Literally one case” is not any kind of mitigating factor unless I’m missing something?
English
The BRCA edit looks benign to me. The new carve out requires “specific intent” to “transfer” funds you “know” are criminal. This should not capture devs who build neutral privacy tech that gets misused by criminals without evidence of actual intent to aid those criminals.
Eleanor Terrett@EleanorTerrett
🚨JUST IN: The Senate Banking Committee has released the new 309-page draft of the Clarity Act it’s been working on since January. Committee members now have until close of business tomorrow to file amendments ahead of Thursday’s markup.
English
@Farrell1969 @theblockprof Agreed, and I wish they would go further to clarify what "transfer" means. But the current language is a step in the right direction.
English
@zackbshapiro @theblockprof If the courts and DOJ were wrong in how the law was being interpreted, then it becomes Congress' job to clarify. By not clarifying here, they are endorsing the current interpretation as consistent with its intent.
English
@maxtannahill There is literally one case on this topic so far (Tornado Cash).
English
@zackbshapiro It’s already very clear that “transfer” is so broad as to be meaningless when the U.S. DoJ decides who it wishes to prosecute.
English
@Farrell1969 @theblockprof Maybe not fully "surplusage," but it is, by its own terms, "clarification" and not some new rule.
English
@zackbshapiro @theblockprof So your view is that the BRCA is utter surplusage for 1960(b)(1)(C)?
English
@Farrell1969 @theblockprof "Not changing existing law" is neutral on this point.
English
@zackbshapiro @theblockprof I understand it is your opinion, but it has been rejected by DOJ, Blanche and courts as inconsistent with Congressional intent. And Congress is rejecting it again here by saying that this does not change existing law in 1960(b)(1)(C). This makes that argument even harder.
English
@Farrell1969 @theblockprof It may be an attempt to do that, but I do not think this language actually codifies that logic.
English
@zackbshapiro @theblockprof Again - this is codifying the interpretation by DOJ in the Storm/SW cases, the Failla decision and the Blanche memo & court letters authorizing the continuance of Storm & SW - custody/control not an element of 1960(b)(1)(C).
English
@Farrell1969 @theblockprof Yes, and my view is that 1960(b)(1)(C) still requires custody or control, or else it is the users--and not the dev--who is "transmitting" the funds in question. That is an independent point from the necessity of custody or control for licensure.
English
@zackbshapiro @theblockprof You are now reading back "transfer" requires the "independent custody/control" from section (c) into section (d).
Section (d) specifically says that is not correct -
"Subsection (c) shall not modify the application of section 1960(b)(1)(C)"
English
@Farrell1969 @theblockprof Proving mens rea with regard to "design for use by criminals" beyond a reasonable doubt is not trivial, and not something the government accomplished in either the Tornado Cash or Samourai case.
English
@zackbshapiro @theblockprof The "specific intent" (that transmission of crim funds is a natural & probably effect) where you know that your business is designed for use by criminals (n part) & you are willfully blind that criminals are using it, is not a hard sell.
English
Read the excerpt above. It's short and not that complicated.
(1) It requires specific intent by the "initial person" to "transfer" (IMO requiring custody or control) third-party funds; and
(2) It requires specific intent to transfer funds that are derived from crime or to be used in crime, not just a specific intent to "transfer" funds in general.
That creates two very meaningful lines of protection for privacy devs.
English
@zackbshapiro @theblockprof If the point of (b)(1)(C) (as reiterated here in Clarity) is that you do not need independent custody/control to have a biz that "involves the transportation or transmission of funds," the obfuscation/privacy tools are designed for a single purpose - transmission of funds.
English