How can Web3 technology developers avoid the risks of being complicit in pyramid schemes?

In recent years, the Web3 industry has rapidly developed, attracting a large number of programmers, smart contract developers, and outsourcing teams to participate in project development. However, some projects that claim to be based on blockchain incentives, token rebates, and other such banners are actually operating pyramid schemes and referral commission mechanisms, which carry the legal risk of being classified as organizing and leading pyramid schemes.

Recent publicly available judicial cases indicate that in several virtual currency pyramid scheme cases, even if programmers and other technical personnel did not directly participate in promotion and financial operations, they were ultimately identified as key figures in the pyramid scheme activities due to their responsibilities in developing the rebate logic, designing the Token model, or deploying smart contracts with a tiered reward structure. They were treated as accomplices or accessories, and some were even categorized 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 answering the following questions:

1. What behaviors might lead to a programmer being recognized as an accomplice to pyramid schemes?
2. Does the technical outsourcing party constitute an accomplice in assisting pyramid schemes?
3. How are CTOs and technical partners defined as "organizers"?
4. How can technical participants seek acquittal or non-prosecution?
5. How can developers identify risks in advance and delineate technical boundaries?

Criteria for Accountability of Technical Personnel and Defense Strategies

In cases of virtual currency pyramid schemes, even if technical personnel do not directly participate in promotion, recruitment, and fundraising, they may still be held criminally responsible. Judicial authorities determine whether there is complicity in the pyramid scheme mainly by assessing whether they provide substantial support for the pyramid scheme model through technical means, as well as whether they have subjective knowledge and intent to connect.

According to relevant judicial interpretations, organizers and leaders include not only initiators or operators but also individuals who play a key role in the implementation, organization, establishment, and expansion of pyramid schemes. This serves as a legal basis for holding technical personnel criminally liable.

Four core elements of an effective defense:

1. Is it "knowingly" that the project constitutes a pyramid scheme? If the delivery is completed only according to the functional description without actual contact or understanding of the overall operation logic of the project, one can argue a lack of subjective intent.

2. Is there an "intentional communication" or joint cooperation? If there is no participation in the overall project design, system formulation, and no joint development or promotion activities, it can be claimed that no criminal intent communication has been formed.

3. Whether to obtain project benefits and whether there is an associated identity. If no tokens are held, no rebates received, and no special identity conferred, it indicates that no illegal gains have been obtained.

4. Does the content of the technical development have neutral attributes? If only a general system is developed and not a specifically designed rebate feature, it may be possible to strive for acquittal or non-prosecution.

The defense strategy should focus on the three key elements of "subjective knowledge," "technical boundaries," and "identity positioning," breaking down the presumption chain between technical actions and conspiratorial participation. If the independence and neutrality of technical actions can be proven, while excluding collaborative contacts and illegal profits, there is a chance to seek discretionary non-prosecution, reclassification, or probation.

How can developers protect themselves? Four practical legal suggestions

1. Identify "three-level commission + static income" and other pyramid scheme characteristics in the early stages of development.

Focus on identifying whether the developed functions serve the "referral rebate" structure, such as reward levels exceeding three tiers, income derived from the expansion of downlines, and the existence of mechanisms like referral codes for unlocking. These are commonly found in blockchain games and wallet platforms and can easily be classified as a pyramid scheme.

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

Retain complete communication records, and the contract should clearly define the scope of services to avoid ambiguous statements. Keep records of code delivery and documentation explanations to prove that key modules are not related to pyramid schemes. Payment records should be marked as technical service fees.

3. Stay away from "edge behavior" to avoid being mistaken for participating in pyramid schemes.

Avoid registering a platform account to participate in dividends, appearing in promotional materials, joining internal groups for Q&A, and other behaviors. These may be seen as "informed participation" or even "organizer". It is advisable to avoid entering sensitive areas such as project promotion, marketing, and settlement.

4. Detect signs of a Ponzi scheme, promptly cut losses and secure evidence.

In the event of withdrawal restrictions, such as needing to invite others to unlock earnings, cooperation should be immediately suspended, and relevant records of technical delivery, communication, payment, etc., should be preserved to provide evidence support for clarifying responsibilities later.

Conclusion

Against the backdrop of virtual currencies being included in the regulation of illegal financial activities, the legal risks faced by Web3 technology developers are increasingly coming under scrutiny. The assessment of responsibility for technical personnel is no longer limited to whether they promote recruitment, but returns to a dual standard of "whether substantial support is provided + whether there is subjective knowledge."

In the current regulatory environment, having a basic awareness of risk identification, clarifying responsibility boundaries, and ensuring evidence retention are key for technical personnel to reduce the risk of involvement in legal cases and uphold the legal bottom line.