Dapper by Design: GS DAP Tests The Limits of Reality
GS DAP claims to automate and program assets. But it forgot one thing about Blockchain and how it works,
Goldman. I don’t think I have written about their dapper tokenization model: GS DAP®. Since they had awesome press releases with BNY for something token-esque in the future maybe, I decided to focus on what matters. Dapper.
See the ‘R’ is there in GS DAP®, it sort of means GS owns the word GS DAP. I say they can have it.
dapper adjective UK /ˈdæp.ər/
dapper man is dressed in a fashionable and tidy way: Hercule Poirot is the dapper detective of the Agatha Christie novels.
Women are typically considered ineligible to qualify for ‘dapperness’.
GS DAP(pe)-® for the modern male tokenization enthusiast.
I already hear the soundtrack: Ini Kamoze's "Here Comes the Hotstepper" (1994) becomes: Here Comes the Big G’s Dapper Developer (2025). Hmm?
“GS DAP® automates and programs assets by using smart contracts to streamline the velocity at which transactions occur.”
This sentence expressed various claims that are all impossible and if they were possible it would make it undesirable if the possibility became fact.
Streamline velocity of transactions. We make the speed at which transactions occur go faster. That’s more or less what they claim. The issue is the term velocity. A transaction does’t have velocity and they don’t appear in a structure we could measure and describe as velocity.
"Velocity" comes from Latin velōcitās, derived from velōx (“swift”).
But velōcitās itself is late Latin and proabably a medieval creation but not found in classical use with the meaning of speed as a measurable phenomenon. In classical Latin, you’ll find celeritas for swiftness or speed, and velox as an adjective — but not the abstract noun velocitas in a mechanical or mathematical sense.
17th-century mathematicians (e.g. Newton, Galileo, Leibniz) needed new terms to formalize rates of change. They looked to Latin and Velox was re-coined as velocitas, reengineered to mean “speed.” This was then flattened into “velocity” in English.
You get a speeding ticket and not a velocity ticket if you drive your car at DAP’s promised speed. And we also have the term velocity (V) of money. In classical economics, the "quantity theory of money" (MV=PQ) defines V as the average number of times each unit of currency is used in a transaction during a given time period.
V seems to become how often and not how speedy something is.
But we use the term to measures how many times a unit is used to enable nominal economic activity within a period. This is a dimensionless ratio, a normalized recurrence rate. So it is not per se wrong to say then that “10×” velocity of money is faster than “5×” because GDP is a kind of nominal flow-based proxy tied to economic balances and V is a function of that framework.
GDP is derived form a ledger and that means direction is a vectorial concept. That is exactly when the term velocity can be used.
A transaction can have speed — measurable as latency, duration, or throughput —
but it cannot have velocity, because it has no direction in space and no vectorial continuity.
A transaction is a discrete event, not continuous in motion. It has:
Source and target
Timestamps
But no spatial path, trajectory, or force field
It exists in ledger state, and is not continuous. It has no velocity. That makes GS’s claim about velocity wrong. A priori wrong.
“Faster processing”- you could use that if you want.
The other wrong claim is that they have an ability to program or automate the asset. We don’t program the asset. We program a logic container that governs access or transformation of the asset and asset record is not a data object but a logical construct. The asset itself is real under the law. But we have no real record of it but we can logically test for it.
Treating the asset as programmable implies:
It executes behavior
It has autonomy
It carries embedded logic
That may be true in object-oriented representations (e.g. “agent tokens”), but it is not true in current DLT asset models, where:
The asset is passive
The contract is active
State changes are triggered by validated inputs.
Since GS DAP is permissioned, GS is causing whatever the asset does. It’s not autonomous. The logic (smart contract) and the asset record are not separable. This has a big legal consequence: the asset is not transferable by relying on the asset record (alone).
And for the moment, such arrangements thus have a fatal flaw: If the asset record (and thereby the asset) is inseparable from its logic, it ceases to be definable as a financial asset. Goldman as the operator can fix that by overriding system records but the technology is no longer able to operate as a distributed or decentralised system no matter how one deploys blockchain software.
If the asset is logic, then:
You can’t separate asset from platform
You can’t value it independently
You can’t abstract or reassign rights
You lose fungibility and universality
That’s not a financial asset. That’s an object-bound permission system — more like Digital Rights Management than in rem property.
Goldman’s website terms talk extensively about that (website terms)
“DMCA Notice - How to Provide Notice of Alleged Copyright Infringement:
You may not use the Web site for any purpose or in any manner that infringes the rights of any third party. In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the “DMCA“), we have a designated agent for receiving notices of alleged copyright infringement and we follow the notice and take down procedures of the DMCA. We may terminate your access to the Web site in the event of repeated violations.
[..] Please direct copyright infringement notifications to our DMCA agent at gs-copyrights@gs.com (please include “Notice of Infringement” in the subject line) or by mail to Copyright Manager, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, 200 West Street, New York, NY 10282. Our DMCA agent’s phone number is 212-902-1000.”
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows platform providers (e.g., YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) to avoid liability for copyright infringement if:
They are intermediaries (not content producers)
They don’t control the content beforehand
They remove infringing material after notice (the “notice-and-takedown” procedure)
Goldman is not a content host. Users cannot post videos, music, text, or media and they are not eligible for safe harbor as a result. Maybe there is private wealth social media thing they run and I am not aware of. Facebook by Goldman?!
“GS does not endorse or control User Content, so we have to ask that you follow a few rules: GS may and expressly reserve the right (but have no obligation) to monitor, scan, intercept, review, analyze, record, store, evaluate, alter or remove User Content (and any messages, information, content or other materials sent to you, or received by you, in connection with the Web site or its features or functionalities), at any time, including while it is in transit, and before and after it is stored or made available through the Web site, and to monitor, review, analyze or evaluate your access to or use of the Web site (including any Web site features or functionalities), in each case by manual, automated or other means, and in each case for any purpose (including analytics, advertising (including sharing with ad brokers), marketing and any purposes as may be described in our Privacy Policy)”
and
“You further irrevocably waive any other rights with respect to attribution of authorship or integrity of materials regarding User Content you may have under any applicable law under any legal theory. “
Goldman’s Terms Exhibit:
One-sided exploitation of user IP rights with zero accountability
It’s absurd granting themselves control over user content on a platform that has no such content structure
Deceptive invocation of regulatory supervision — by ECB, BaFin, Bundesbank — in a document that operates outside the defined scope of regulated financial services
This creates a surface appearance of regulatory conformity — but in substance, the terms:
Bypass user protections under German contract and consumer law
Lack mutuality of obligation
Contain surprise clauses that a reasonable user could not expect — especially from a financial institution
By stating that Goldman Sachs Bank Europe SE (“GSBE”) is supervised by BaFin and the ECB, GS implicitly subjects these terms to German and European financial conduct rules, including:
EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC)
German Civil Code (BGB §§ 305–310)
§ 138 BGB — the principle that contracts or contractual terms are “sittenwidrig” (contrary to gute Sitten, i.e., good morals / public policy) if they grossly violate accepted standards of fairness, or exploit asymmetry in power, or bypass statutory protections through hidden or blanket waivers.
I would say these Terms & Conditions were made for § 138 BGB.
“This web site is issued or approved by Goldman Sachs International (“GSI”) which is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.”
An assertion of UK financial regulatory approval, in the context of a document that contains no financial product offer, suitability evaluation, or risk disclosure, feels wrong to me. I am quite certain the FCA can find something in statutory law to make Goldman understand how wrong this is — and how irresponsible. And hopefully, find a way to ensure that they remember it will hurt when they forget again.
How can a legal team and business leadership at Goldman Sachs think this is a good idea?
The terms are based on irresponsible ideas:
Default to total asset control disguised as participatory logic
Treat users as data subjects, not financial principals
Use contracts as extractive pre-consent tools, not negotiated instrument.
Goldman’s Statement on Human Rights
“As a global financial institution, Goldman Sachs recognizes and takes seriously its responsibility to help protect, preserve and promote human rights around the world. Examples of such rights are articulated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [..]
Our respect for human rights is fundamental to and informs our business; it guides us in how we treat and train our employees, and how we work with our clients and our vendors.”
Here is a reminder about human rights (UN) that are impacted by the Terms and Conditions
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
This leads us here.
This is the actual summary of Goldman Sachs’ Terms for using their website. What they have is not a legal contract or statement. Judge for yourself.
Oh hey, I am Goldman.
Would you like to subscribe to our signature newsletter with insights and analysis from across the firm? Great!
By submitting this information, you agree that the information you are providing is subject to Goldman Sachs’ privacy policy and Terms of Use. You consent to receive our newletter via email.
You consent to the terms — not just to receive our ‘newletter’. [spelling mistake on their website but it’s quite fitting]
From now on, we leave the law behind and follow something better: newsletter. So here’s how it works.
And even if you don’t subscribe, you’ve used my website.
And that means: my rules for anything you do on my website.
Seems only fair, don’t you think?
Just so you know — I’ll write something in the voice of law.
But don’t get confused. It lacks the logic of law:
I cite regulatory bodies (FCA, BaFin), but there is no regulated product that I offer.
Third parties might — but that doesn’t concern me.
That would be the law. And we have ‘newletter’.
Did you already forget?
I give you the style of legality, but not more.
I have ownership without responsibility, extraction without reciprocity, and punishment without notice.
I rule.
You are not my subject.
You don’t exist to me.
But I’d like to get my hands on anything you’ve got that might be worth a nickel.
You are required to read and abide by any additional terms that may be posted on this website.
I make no warranties as to content.
I have no responsibilities to update.
GS makes no warranty, express or implied, concerning this service.
The website may not even be technically available — that’s your responsibility.
Third parties may offer services via my website.
But I am not responsible for their conduct.
I have no responsibility to inform you of any difficulties they experience.
You, however, are responsible to me.
We monitor any info you add, see, or receive.
This may be used by GS for internal business purposes.
Any info you add must be accurate and truthful.
And it must be yours — or you must have secured a license so that we can rely on your ability to let us exclusively commercialize it.
Even if it concerns third parties, including their names or likenesses.
You irrevocably waive any other rights with respect to authorship or integrity of materials.
Goldman created it — and that’s what we’ll both say if anyone asks.
Any accurate content you add must not include personally identifiable information.
But sometimes I will need personal info.
I’ll ask for it. You must comply.
I won’t give you the right to break these terms,
but I’ll look the other way. Because it suits me.
When it doesn’t — don’t act surprised.
I can see everything you create, receive or send..
And you volunteer everything to me so that I can use it for my needs.
We monitor, scan, intercept, review, analyze, record, store, evaluate, alter, or remove User Content — and any other materials sent or received — at any time, in transit, in storage, or on display.
Your private data — like an ID — I cannot use.
So I don’t want to see it.
I do not offer a service.
And I do not protect your private data.
It is your responsibility to ensure I am not made aware of it.
Don’t post content that’s obscene, promotes illegal activity, or defames, abuses, harasses, or threatens others. It’s difficult to know what I mean don’t you think.
Truthful content — even without personal info — must be cleansed further.
Don’t do anything that might raise concerns.
There will always be others. So be careful.
There is no privacy to thinking. I apply judgment regardless of your intent. Why would I care — even while you’re still thinking and in the process of creating your content.