Tornado Cash Founder Raises Red Flag Over DOJ’s DeFi Crackdown

bitcoinistPublished on 2025-10-19Last updated on 2025-10-19

Abstract

Roman Storm, founder of the Tornado Cash privacy tool, has warned that open-source developers may face retroactive criminal risk from...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Roman Storm, founder of the Tornado Cash privacy tool, has warned that open-source developers may face retroactive criminal risk from US prosecutors for building non-custodial finance software.

His message has echoed through the crypto community as his own legal fight moves forward. Reports have disclosed a mixed jury outcome in Manhattan and a high-stakes debate over whether publishing code can amount to running a money-transmitting business.

Storm asked DeFi developers: “How can you be so sure you will not be charged by the Justice department as a money service business for building a non-custodial protocol?”

Image: NDTV/X

Developers Warned Of Retroactive Risk

According to court filings and public statements, Storm argued that US law gives little protection to people who publish software that others use to move funds. Based on reports, prosecutors called Tornado Cash a system that had been used to launder more than $1 billion.

Storm’s team pushed back, saying the protocol was non-custodial — the software does not hold user funds — and that blaming builders for users’ crimes would chill honest open-source work.

Tornado: A Jury Split Over Charges In Manhattan

The jury could not reach agreement on other, more serious counts. The US Attorney’s Office had described broad illicit use of the tool, while the defense has focused on the technical facts: no single person controlled the protocol in the way a bank controls accounts.

Defense lawyers have filed motions seeking acquittal and asked judges to weigh whether code creators can be punished for how third parties use their work.

Total crypto market cap currently at $3.64 trillion. Chart: TradingView

Legal Community Raises Alarm

Based on reports, lawyers and commentators, including noted crypto legal experts, warn that the case could set a wide precedent if prosecutors’ theory holds.

Some in the community have organized fundraising to help with the Tornado Cash founder’s legal costs. Others say the matter touches free speech, since publishing code can be a form of expression, and holding authors criminally liable would change how many people write and share software.

Defense Moves And Technical Arguments

Storm’s team points to decentralization and noncustodial design. They argue that the protocol’s code runs on public blockchains and that no person was operating a service that took custody of funds in the ordinary sense.

Recent court filings press these themes and ask the judge to overturn the guilty verdict. Prosecutors counter that when tools are built and promoted in ways that foresee illicit use, legal responsibility can follow.

Featured image from TechCentral, chart from TradingView

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Christian, a journalist and editor with leadership roles in Philippine and Canadian media, is fueled by his love for writing and cryptocurrency. Off-screen, he's a cook and cinephile who's constantly intrigued by the size of the universe.

Related Reads

Large Language Models Ace All Exams, Yet Move Farther from AGI: What Does This Paper Reveal?

The article discusses the ongoing challenge of defining and achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). It notes that industry leaders have set vague, often profit- or time-based benchmarks for AGI, while the concept itself lacks a consensus definition—a situation the article compares to a "Rorschach test." It highlights a recent 2025 paper by researcher Michael Timothy Bennett, who proposes a new, measurable definition. Bennett frames AGI not as mimicking human performance on tests, which current large language models (LLMs) have already mastered, but as an "artificial scientist." A true AGI, according to this view, should be able to widely and efficiently adapt to new environments and tasks within real-world constraints (like computational and energy limits), focusing on the *discovery of new knowledge* rather than the replication of existing data. The author contrasts this with the current dominant approach of "scale-maxing"—massively scaling up data, parameters, and compute. While powerful, this method leads to models that fail on out-of-distribution problems and lack core intelligent abilities: they are passive learners, cannot reason causally, and cannot actively experiment or balance exploration with exploitation. The article argues that Bennett's framework offers a crucial shift. It makes AGI a quantifiable engineering problem and proposes new evaluation "adaptation benchmarks" that test an AI's ability to actively learn in novel scenarios. The conclusion is that achieving AGI will require a fundamental reset—a fusion of multiple methodologies beyond simple scaling, moving AI from mimicking patterns to embodying the scientific spirit of inquiry and discovery.

marsbit1h ago

Large Language Models Ace All Exams, Yet Move Farther from AGI: What Does This Paper Reveal?

marsbit1h ago

Pope Issues First AI Encyclical: 40,000 Words, 10 Key Points, Clarifying AI Anxiety

Pope Leo XIV's historic encyclical "Magnifica Humanitas," released in May 2026, marks the Catholic Church's first major document addressing artificial intelligence. The 40,000-word text moves beyond theological abstraction to confront practical AI anxieties affecting society. It argues that AI is no longer a mere tool but an embedded environment influencing daily decisions in areas like employment, healthcare, justice, and information, often without users' awareness. The encyclical presents ten core concerns. It highlights that the central issue isn't just regulation, but who holds the underlying *power*—control over data, compute, and platforms—often concentrated in private entities. It warns that even developers cannot fully explain AI systems, creating accountability gaps. While AI can simulate human interaction and creativity, it cautions against treating it as a moral agent capable of bearing true responsibility or forming genuine relationships. Key risks identified include AI's role in opaque decision-making for jobs or welfare, the amplification of persuasive disinformation, and the potential for education to focus on tool use over critical thinking. The document stresses that work has value beyond efficiency, and AI should enhance human capabilities, not merely replace roles. It firmly states that irreversible decisions, especially involving life and death, must remain under human judgment. Ultimately, the encyclical frames AI's challenge as anthropological, not just technological. As AI simulates uniquely human capacities like judgment and creation, it forces a re-examination of what makes human action meaningful: our capacity for responsibility, vulnerability, and bearing real consequences. The Pope concludes that technology is never neutral; its development and deployment are shaped by human values and choices, making an inclusive, ethically grounded dialogue essential for its future.

marsbit1h ago

Pope Issues First AI Encyclical: 40,000 Words, 10 Key Points, Clarifying AI Anxiety

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片