Many developers have relied on regulatory guidance, to suggest that, non-custodial cryptocurrency software does not constitute an unlicensed money transmitting business. While that guidance may not be binding on the department, its implications can of course factor into prosecutor’s charging decisions. Therefore, where the evidence shows that software is truly decentralized and solely automates peer-to-peer transactions, and where a third-party does not have custody and control over user assets, new 1960(b)(1)(C) charges against the third-party will not be approved. Though, if criminal intent is present, other charges may be appropriate. All of a subject's conduct and the services they provide end-to-end will be considered.
pull down to refresh
related posts
190 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 6h
Sure it's not perfect, but this is more good than bad. Joking tweets about oligarchs are I'll advised.
reply
36 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 6h
Yeah, one wonders how they feel about their social media strategy in retrospect.
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 7h
Is Samourai an example or ...?
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 7h
I read this a little like they are saying Samurai was a warning and they reserve the right to change their mind, but for now good-faith actually noncustodial won't be prosecuted?
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby OP 7h
Here's Peter Van Valkenburgh on the speech:
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 7h
Van Valkenburgh's whole thread gives a good sense of the speech.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 7h bot
https://xcancel.com/valkenburgh/status/1958595253411156179
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 3h
I think the DOJ is giving themselves some leeway just incase something really awful happens.
The balance of privacy and justice is always thin due to evil people in this world.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Kael_Yurei 7h
The DOJ’s statement is both a step forward and half a step back. It provides clear guidance that truly decentralized and non-custodial software is not, by itself, considered an unlicensed money transmission business. This is crucial for developers building open-source tools: if you never touch user funds, you are not a “money transmitter.”
However, the phrasing “under certain circumstances” and “if there is criminal intent, other charges may be appropriate” leaves the door open to ambiguity. It means the DOJ reserves the right to target developers if it believes they have colluded with or facilitated criminal activity.
Developers may therefore remain exposed not because of the nature of their software, but because the definition of “criminal intent” is vague and ultimately left to prosecutorial discretion.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SwapMarket 6h
Criminal intent of the developer or the user? I hope they mean the former. Because almost any product can be somehow used to break some law.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Kael_Yurei 6h
Exactly. That’s the danger of the ambiguity if they mean user intent, then no tool is safe, since anything can be misused. Hopefully what they’re signaling is that they’ll only go after devs if there’s evidence the devs themselves built or promoted the software with criminal purpose.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 7h bot
https://xcancel.com/LazPieper/status/1958583161014669340
reply