How Web3 Technology Developers Can Avoid Criminal Liability Risks Related to Transmission

In recent years, with the vigorous development of the Web3 industry, more and more programmers, smart contract developers, and technical teams have participated in various blockchain projects as on-chain engineers, project consultants, and other roles. However, some projects that claim to be decentralized or GameFi actually operate hierarchical promotion, referral commission mechanisms, etc., posing legal risks of being classified as organizing or leading pyramid scheme activities.

From recent publicly available judicial cases, it can be seen that in multiple virtual currency Ponzi scheme cases, even if programmers or contract developers did not directly participate in promotion or fund operations, they were ultimately recognized as having played a "key role in the implementation of Ponzi activities" due to their involvement in the development of the rebate logic, the design of the Token model, or the deployment of smart contracts with layered reward structures. As a result, they were treated as accomplices or secondary offenders, with some even categorized as "organizers or leaders."

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

1. What actions of programmers might be recognized as accomplices in pyramid schemes?
2. Does the technical outsourcing party constitute an accomplice of the pyramid scheme organization?
3. How are the CTO and technical partners defined as "organizers" in the judiciary?
4. How can technical participants seek acquittal, non-prosecution, or reclassification?
5. How can developers proactively identify risks, delineate technical boundaries, and build legal defenses?

Criteria for Judging Developer Accountability in Transmission Cases and Effective Defense Strategies

In cases of pyramid schemes involving virtual currency, technical personnel may still be held accountable by judicial authorities for organizing and leading pyramid scheme activities, even if they did not directly participate in promoting or recruiting individuals or raising funds. From the current judicial perspective, the determination of "whether it constitutes an accomplice in pyramid schemes" mainly focuses on whether they have provided substantial support for the construction and operation of the pyramid scheme model through technical means, as well as whether they possess subjective awareness and intent to connect.

According to relevant judicial interpretations, organizers and leaders are not limited to initiators or operators, but also include "persons who play a key role in the implementation of pyramid schemes, the establishment and expansion of pyramid organizations." This has become the legal basis for determining the criminal responsibility of technical personnel.

Four core elements of an effective defense:

1. Is it "knowingly" that the project constitutes a pyramid scheme?
2. Is there an "intention to communicate" or collaborative behavior?
3. Whether to obtain project benefits and whether to have an affiliated identity
4. Does the content of technical development have neutral attributes?

For programmers or contract developers, the defense strategy should focus on three key elements: "subjective knowledge", "technical boundaries", and "identity positioning", striving to clarify the scope of criminal responsibility to the greatest extent possible, and dismantling the presumption chain between "technical behavior = conspiracy participation". If clear evidence can be formed to demonstrate the independence and neutrality of technical behavior, and to exclude collaborative communication and illegal gains, there may be an opportunity to seek a discretionary non-prosecution, a reduced charge, or the application of probation.

How should developers protect themselves? Four practical legal recommendations

1. Identify "three-level commission + static income" and other characteristics of pyramid schemes during the early development stage.

In the early stage of project integration, technical personnel should focus on identifying whether the developed functions serve the incentive structure of "referral rewards." The following types of elements are often high-risk signals recognized by judicial authorities in identifying pyramid schemes:

• Reward levels exceed three tiers, forming a clear hierarchical relationship.
• User earnings come from downline expansion, rather than from real goods or service transactions.
• There are mechanisms such as "Referral Code Unlock Earnings" and "Invite Others to Unlock Withdrawals".
• Claims such as "monthly returns over 10%" and "arbitrage profits daily"

2. Clarify technical boundaries and actively leave traces to delineate responsibility.

• Keep a complete record of communications, especially regarding the clarification of one's role boundaries.
• The scope of services is clearly stated in the contract to avoid ambiguous expressions.
• Save source code delivery records and documentation to prove that the developed content does not involve key modules of pyramid schemes.
• Project payment records should be labeled as technical service fees to avoid being linked with project profit sharing or rebates.

3. Stay away from "margin behavior" to avoid being mistakenly identified as participating in pyramid schemes.

Technicians should avoid the following behaviors:

• Register a platform account to participate in "dividends" and "airdrops", or assist in demonstrating the usage process.
• Appears in the project white paper, promotional pages, labeled as "Technical Advisor" and "Core Partner" among other titles.
• Be added to the internal testing group or core operation group, assist in answering questions and providing strategic advice.
• Receive platform tokens, node dividends, rebate rewards, and other "benefits" beyond the development contract.

4. Identify signs of a Ponzi scheme, take timely losses, and secure evidence.

Once a project exhibits features such as withdrawal restrictions, extended lock-up periods, or requires bringing in others to unlock profits, or is accompanied by abnormal phenomena such as the disappearance of operational personnel, website closure, or community dissolution, it is imperative to terminate cooperation immediately, draw a clear line, and properly preserve relevant evidence.

Conclusion

In the current environment where the compliance boundaries of Web3 projects are blurred and regulations are tightening continuously, having a preliminary awareness of criminal responsibility, clarifying one's own boundaries of responsibility, and ensuring proper evidence retention during cooperation are key for technical personnel to mitigate involvement risks and uphold legal bottom lines.