A guilt verdict would lay a precedent pointing to open source developers.
The possibility of replicating the privacy of cash in the digital field is questioned.
Roman Storm, co -founder of Tornado Cash, surely it was not proposed to be a martyr of digital privacy. Probably, when he wrote the lines of code that would give life to the privacy protocol designed to protect transactions with cryptocurrencies, he felt more an architect building a useful tool than a conspirator. However, the US government sees it as the second, and in that reclassification, a key trial for the Bitcoin ecosystem (BTC) and other digital assets are carried out.
To understand The importance that the trial to Storm has For you and for everyone you can start answering the next question, would you be a criminal if you develop a tool that someone else uses to commit crimes? If your answer is “no”, then pay much attention to the trial of the Cash Tornado co -founder. Because the United States government is about to argue, with all the weight of the law, that the answer is “yes.”
For the community that revolves around cryptocurrencies, there are events that simply cannot go unnoticed. Storm’s trial is one of them. It is not just a high profile drama; It is the epicenter of a trend that will define the next decade of innovation.
The reason why the trial has become a forced conversation in forums, networks and conferences is because, in this episode of courts, It is decided whether the fundamental act of writing code for privacy is a legitimate service to society or a federal crime.
Storm, 36, was accused of conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to violate US sanctions and conspiracy to operate a money transfer business without a license. These charges, if declared guilty, carry a maximum combined penalty of 45 years in prison.
Software developer or conspirator
The Roman Storm trial started on Monday, July 14 at a Manhattan court, with the initial allegations presented on Tuesday afternoon, after the selection of a jury of 12 people that will supervise the process during the three weeks.
The verdict will seal its destination, and at the same time establish the precedent on whether Cryptocurrencies can fulfill their promise to be a sovereign financial alternative or if they will be completely domesticated under the yoke of state surveillance.
This case will be maintained as a trend because the technology itself transcends and attacks the ideological pillar on which Bitcoin was built and the entire ecosystem of decentralized finance (Defi). This is the ability to replicate the characteristics of cash in the digital world.
Storm trial is not just a legal case; It is a battle for the future of privacy in the digital world. Imagine receiving a 100 dollar ticket without knowing that, moments before, he was in the hands of a drug trafficker pursued by the DEA.
No one blames you for using it, because the cash does not keep memory of your past. That same freedom, that “amnesia” of physical money, is what tools like Tornado Cash have brought to the universe of cryptocurrencies, allowing anonymous transactions in public networks that are monitored.
However, this ability to replicate the privacy of cash in the digital field is under fire. US authorities accuse Storm of facilitating money laundering when creating cash tornado.
The impact of this idea extends far beyond the defi. If a developer can be considered criminally responsible for the use that third parties give to the development of open source, what future awaits innovation?
The domino effect would impact open source development
Storm’s defense compares it rightly with accusing WhatsApp creators or a VPN for criminal conversations that use their platforms.
The logic of the Prosecutor’s Office opens a pandora box that could discourage any programmer to create tools that protect the user’s identity, from encrypted messaging applications to anonymous navigation networks. This is because The tool would be criminalizing, not the criminal.
This trial also exposes the deep incompatibility of current regulatory frameworks with decentralized technology. As the cryptonotic cryptopedia, the laws against money laundering and the requirements of “know your client” (KYC) were designed for a world of centralized financial intermediaries.
Trying to apply these same rules to a protocol without custody, which does not control the funds of its users, is like trying to fit a square in a round hole. This approach in addition to curbing the development of an ecosystem defi more robust and private, also pushes innovators to hiding or more friendly jurisdictions.
Lazarus’s ghost appears in court
Of course, the Prosecutor’s Office agitates the ghost of malicious actors such as the North Korean group Lazarus to justify their offensive. It is undeniable that privacy tools can be used for illicit purposes, as well as cash, cars or the Internet itself.
But the central argument of the government stigmatizes a whole technology Already its millions of legitimate users – people who simply seek to protect their financial privacy from corporate or state surveillance – for the actions of a minority. Storm is not accused of collaborating with hackers, but having created the hammer with which others broke the window.
The verdict of the case of Roman Storm will resonate for years. If it is convicted, a cold message will have been sent to a whole generation of developers. This will be that Privacy innovation entails an unacceptable personal risk.
Then the regulatory framework that values surveillance above freedom will be strengthened and that prefers the convenience of centralized control to the challenges of a decentralized world.
This trial, in short, is not about money laundering. This is if in the digital age we will have the right to something similar to a private conversation or a pocket that the State cannot register at will.
Discharge of responsibility: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to its author and do not necessarily reflect those of cryptootics. The author’s opinion is informatively and under no circumstances constitutes an investment recommendation or financial advice.
