Sony tried to draft ISPs to do its copyright infringement bullying and then sued Cox for not doing enough. In 2019, a jury awarded Sony $1 billion in damages from Cox.
However, Cox took it to the supreme court, which found:
The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement, which can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement; Cox neither induced its users’ infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement; accordingly, Cox is not contributorily liable for the infringement of Sony’s copyrights
The Court has repeatedly made clear—see Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U. S. 55, Sony, and Grokster—that mere knowledge that a service will be used to infringe is insufficient to establish the required intent to infringe.
One wonders how much this logic transfers to open source wallet and privacy service developers...
For things like mixers, it could probably be argued that the service was tailored for infringement - or at least, that's what prosecutors would claim.
For more general wallets with privacy features, I think it would depend on whether this case was framed narrowly as applying to only the regulations governing copyright and ISPs, or if it was a more broad constitutional question of whether service providers can be held liable for users' actions.