I'd be curious for your thoughts in response to this:

Just caught @rstormsf outside the courtroom. I asked how he was feeling. In a quiet voice, but with a noticeable smile, he told me:

“It’s a big win. The ‘1960’ charge is bullshit and we’re going to fight it all the way. You know how President Trump said ‘fight, fight, fight’? We’ll do that too.”

He expressed relief at not being remanded to jail and mentioned his 5-year-old daughter as one of the reasons he plans to keep fighting the one charge he was convicted on.

He said he’s heading back to Seattle tomorrow.

Here's Coin Center's take:

Coin Center’s Seven Takeaways from the Storm Verdict:

▪️ 1. The sole conviction—unlicensed money transmission (18 U.S.C. § 1960)—turns mainly on legal/regulatory interpretation (“does this count as money transmission?”), not jury fact-finding.

▪️ 2. The court, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, discounted FinCEN’s stated guidance on what counts as “money transmission” in crypto and treated the category as broader than “control of customer funds.”

▪️ 3. With “money transmission” defined that broadly, the jury’s room to decide facts was narrow; the court’s interpretation largely dictated the outcome.

▪️ 4. DOJ’s prior “end regulation by prosecution” memo didn’t fully resolve §1960 issues left things open for continued prosecution; the DOJ dropped the failure-to-register theory but not the “knowingly transmitting criminal funds” theory. Coin Center’s view: both hinge on “transmitting” and are improper against developers excluded by FinCEN guidance.

▪️ 5. The BRCA (Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act), now attached to CLARITY and passed by the House, would confirm that non-controlling developers aren’t money transmitters. It can’t help Roman retroactively, but the Senate should pass it in upcoming market-structure debates.

▪️ 6. Coin Center fellow Michael Lewellen is suing DOJ for a declaration that publishing/maintaining his software isn’t unlicensed money transmission. Coin Center will continue supporting this effort to correct the legal interpretation.

▪️ 7. Coin Center is sorry Roman faces sentencing on a theory that contradicts the regulator’s guidance. He should appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss; Coin Center will assist however possible.

source

This is pretty bad. From my understanding of the legal theory (mostly by talking to ChatGPT), even apps like Stacker.News could be implicated despite never actually being in control of customer funds. Even if all you do is control the interface that people use to directly transmit funds to each other, you could be classified as a money transmitter.

These are the types of cases that we need some organized bitcoin-centric legal non-profit. Something we could donate sats to in order to fund the appeal.

It would do the entire industry good if these "money transmitter" laws are deemed not to apply to wallets

It's another conspiracy charge just like the Scamourai one, prosecution with their dick in hand yet again, the fact they can't make anything stick on the two most egregious products in the space is a massive W.

Hipsters that will use this to doom and virtue signal should be mocked until they cry and then mocked again for crying.

Some good news. Trump family is heavily invested in shitcoin defi. This decision would affect them. I hope he'll pressure DOJ and support the legislation.

https://decrypt.co/315093/trump-ethereum-defi-project-big-investment

So the Judge held the jury hostage until they unanimously convicted an innocent man.

A crypto dev is now an unlicensed money transmitter? Or any open source dev, if their code finds its way into a node? Black day for this community, but it was naïve to think that state won't fight its separation from money.

After a nearly 4-week proceeding, the jury in US v. Storm found the Tornado Cash co-founder guilty on one count, and could not reach a decision on two others.

After a nearly 4-week proceeding, the jury in US v. Roman Storm found the Tornado Cash co-founder guilty on one count of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business under 18 US Criminal Code Section 1960, but could not reach a decision on the charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering and violate U.S. sanctions, resulting in a mistrial on those counts.

After the trial, Storm and his defense counsel reiterated their commitment to appeal the single conviction.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla rejected the prosecution's motion to take Storm into custody, commenting that there were many possibilities for appeal on the 1960 count. The count was impacted by shifting stances from the Trump Department of Justice, in the form of the Blanche memo.

The 1960 count carries a maximum potential sentence of 5 years, of which Storm would be likely to serve only a portion, even if his appeals failed.

Storm co-created the Tornado Cash privacy protocol with Alexey Pertsev and Roman Semenov, who are also his co-founders in the blockchain security and consulting firm Peppersec.

https://www.therage.co/roman-storm-trial-split-verdict-tornado-cash/

A Manhattan jury found Tornado Cash co-founder and developer Roman Storm guilty of charges related to conspiracy to run an unlicensed money business.

The jury convicted Roman on conspiracy to run an unlicensed money transmittal business, which carries a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison. No unanimity was reached on charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering nor on conspiracy to violate North Korea sanctions.

I didn't see which charge listed in your OP

Lol

Exit the matrix. It's not easy, though.

Sigh

An appeal is not victory. Betting on it means you’re starting from a defensive stance.

Totally agree. When the "bright side" is that the appeal might work out, you're already deep in the hole. It’s hard to celebrate anything when the mere act of writing code, open source code, can land you in this kind of trouble. This sets a chilling precedent. Even if appeals win later, the damage to builders, privacy advocates, and the entire ethos of permissionless innovation is already being done.

I believe that there are 3 types of people you should avoid going to their offices...

1. police officer
2. judge/lawyer
3. doctor :P