How Web3 Technology Developers Can Avoid Legal Risks Related to Pyramid Schemes

In recent years, the Web3 industry has been thriving, with more and more technical personnel participating in the development of related projects. However, some projects that claim to be related to blockchain, GameFi, and so on, are actually operating pyramid schemes such as hierarchical promotion and referral commissions, which pose significant legal risks.

From recent public judicial cases, even programmers and contract developers who do not directly participate in promotion and publicity may be identified as accomplices or accessories to pyramid schemes as long as they provide key technical support in areas such as commission logic and Token model design, and may even be classified as organizers or leaders.

This article will systematically analyze the criminal risk points and judicial qualification logic in Web3 positions from the perspective of technical developers, focusing on the following issues:

1. What technical actions may be deemed as accomplices to pyramid schemes?
2. Does the technical outsourcing party constitute an accomplice in assisting pyramid schemes?
3. How are the CTO and technical partners defined as "organizers"?
4. How can technical participants seek acquittal or reduce the level of conviction?
5. How can developers identify risks in advance and build legal defenses?

Criteria for Accountability of Technical Personnel

In virtual currency pyramid scheme cases, technical personnel may be held accountable even if they did not directly participate in promoting or recruiting people, because they provided technical support for the pyramid scheme model. The key lies in whether they were aware of the nature of the project and whether they had any intentional contact with the mastermind.

When judicial authorities identify "organizers and leaders", it not only includes initiators or operators but also "personnel who play a key role in the implementation of pyramid schemes, the establishment and expansion of pyramid organizations". This has become the main basis for holding technical personnel criminally responsible.

Four Core Elements of an Effective Defense

1. Are you aware that the project constitutes a pyramid scheme? If you have only completed a one-time delivery based on the functional description without actually engaging with or understanding the overall operational logic of the project, you may argue "lack of subjective intent".

2. Is there any communication of intent or joint collaboration? If there has been no participation in the overall design of the project, formulation of systems, or joint development or promotion activities, one can claim that no meeting of intent has occurred.

3. Whether to obtain project benefits, whether there is an associated identity. If you do not hold coins, have not received rebates, and have not enjoyed special identity, it indicates that you have not profited from the pyramid scheme.

4. Does the content of the technical development have neutral attributes? For example, if a general system is developed rather than a specifically designed hierarchical rebate function, it may be possible to seek a not guilty or non-prosecution outcome.

How Developers Can Protect Themselves

1. Identify the characteristics of pyramid schemes in the early stages of the project, such as commissions over three levels, static income, etc.

2. Clarify the technical boundaries, retain communication records, contracts, code delivery, and other evidence to delineate responsibilities.

3. Avoid participating in operational "borderline behaviors", such as registering account demonstrations, appearing in promotional materials, etc.

4. Identify signs of a Ponzi scheme and stop losses in time, preserving relevant evidence.

In summary, Web3 technicians should enhance their risk awareness, clarify role positioning during the collaboration process, and properly retain evidence. This is key to reducing the risk involved and maintaining the legal bottom line.