Roman Storm Accuses Google and OpenAI in Connection with U.S. Department of Justice Ruling on Cryptocurrency Case

cryptonews.ruОпубліковано о 2026-08-16Востаннє оновлено о 2026-08-16

Анотація

Roman Storm, founder of the cryptocurrency anonymization protocol Tornado Cash, convicted in August 2025 for conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business, has accused Google and OpenAI of facilitating North Korea's nuclear program. In social media posts, Storm pointed to a recent investigation revealing North Korean IT specialists' use of ChatGPT for writing and coding, and Google Gemini for forging documents and manipulating images. He argued that, under the same legal logic the U.S. Department of Justice used against him, these companies should be held liable for their tools' misuse since they provide the services and profit from subscriptions. Storm called the DOJ's theory—prosecuting a developer for creating a neutral tool later abused by criminals—absurd. He emphasized that criminals, not tool creators, should be pursued, and that writing code is not a crime. The Tornado Cash verdict sets a negative U.S. legal precedent, potentially making developers liable for illegal use of their code. Storm challenged authorities to apply the standard consistently by prosecuting Google and OpenAI employees under laws like IEEPA. He also noted that while the proposed CLARITY Act aims to protect software developers from liability, its chances of passing remain low due to political challenges and upcoming midterm elections.

Roman Storm, the founder of the anonymity-focused cryptocurrency protocol Tornado Cash, has accused Google and OpenAI of assisting North Korea's nuclear program.

Storm, who was found guilty in August 2025 of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business, pointed out the flawed logic in the case brought against him by the U.S. Department of Justice.

On social media, Storm noted that a recent investigation into North Korean IT professionals revealed their continued use of ChatGPT for writing text and programming, as well as Google Gemini for forging documents and altering images.

Storm suggested that, following the same logic the Department of Justice applied against him, these two companies should be held responsible for the actions of these malicious actors, as they provide these services and profit from their subscriptions.

"This is precisely the theory behind the 'United States v. Roman Storm' case: you create a neutral tool, malicious actors misuse it, and the developer faces prosecution instead of the criminals," he stated on social media.

"If this logic is absurd when applied to Google and OpenAI—it is also absurd when applied to Roman Storm.
You should prosecute the criminal, not the tool's creator. Writing code is not a crime," he emphasized.

The verdict in the Storm and Tornado Cash case has set a negative legal precedent in the United States, where software developers can be held liable for code used for illegal purposes. He believes large companies should face similar consequences for the use of their products.

"So let's be consistent: subpoena every Google and OpenAI employee. Scour their text messages for the slightest indication they knew their tools were being used by the DPRK. Charge them under IEEPA and sentence them to 20 years in prison," Storm concluded.

The Digital Asset Market Transparency Act, known as the CLARITY Act, introduces safeguards for software developers to shield them from potential illegal use of their protocols; however, even though a vote is scheduled on a motion to proceed to final consideration of the bill, its chances of passage remain low due to current challenges and the approaching midterm elections.

end-content

Пов'язані питання

QWhat did Roman Storm, founder of Tornado Cash, accuse Google and OpenAI of in relation to North Korea?

AHe accused Google and OpenAI of assisting North Korea's nuclear program. He pointed out that an investigation revealed North Korean IT specialists were using ChatGPT for writing and coding, and Google Gemini for forging documents and altering images.

QAccording to Roman Storm, what is the flawed logic the U.S. Department of Justice applied in his case?

AHe stated the flawed logic is that if you create a neutral tool and malicious actors abuse it, the developer, rather than the criminals, faces prosecution. He argues this logic would absurdly hold tech companies like Google and OpenAI responsible for the misuse of their services by North Korean operatives.

QWhat precedent did the verdict against Storm and Tornado Cash set in the United States?

AThe verdict set a negative legal precedent where software developers can be held liable for code that is used for illegal purposes.

QWhat specific legislative proposal is mentioned that aims to protect software developers, and what is its current status?

AThe legislative proposal mentioned is the CLARITY Act (Digital Asset Market Transparency Act). It introduces safeguards for software developers against potential illegal use of their protocols. However, its chances of passing are still considered low due to current challenges and the approaching midterm elections, even though a vote to advance it is planned.

QWhat did Roman Storm sarcastically suggest as a consistent application of the DOJ's logic against him?

AHe sarcastically suggested that for consistency, every employee of Google and OpenAI should be subpoenaed, their text messages reviewed for any sign they knew their tools were used by North Korea, and charged under the IEEPA law with a 20-year prison sentence.

Пов'язані матеріали

Google and Meta Called Out for Benchmark Gaming

Recently, analysis firm SemiAnalysis accused tech giants Google and Meta of "benchmark gaming" with their AI models Gemini 3.8 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3. The accusation stems from a dramatic performance drop between two versions of the Terminal-Bench evaluation for AI agents. On the older, public Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash scored 89.4, ranking second and beating GPT-6 Astra, while Muse Spark 1.3 scored 88.8. However, on the newly released, more secure Terminal-Bench 4.0, their scores plummeted to 19.1 and approximately 33.3 respectively, far behind competitors. SemiAnalysis argues this indicates "benchmark contamination," where companies train models not on the public test questions themselves, but on expensive, privately purchased training data specifically designed to mimic the benchmark's style. This has evolved into a lucrative industry, with specialized firms selling tailored training tasks for thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The article specifically points to Datacurve, a company that both sells expert coding data and runs its own benchmark (DeepSWE), where the accused models also performed well. Meta's Chief AI Officer, Alexandr Wang, dismissed the claims as a "silly argument," pointing out similar performance drops for other models like GPT-5.6 Sol. He stated Meta never claimed Muse Spark 1.3 was as powerful as top-tier models, only that it offered better value. The report concludes that this is the inevitable fate of all high-quality public benchmarks—they become "gamed" over time. The proposed solution of private, high-quality benchmarks comes with a significant downside: it would erode public transparency, turning open rankings into marketing tools and leaving developers without a common, fair measure to compare AI models.

marsbit2 год тому

Google and Meta Called Out for Benchmark Gaming

marsbit2 год тому

Crypto's Nouveau Riche Strikes Gold in the Real World: Coinbase Co-founder's Venezuelan Oil Field Adventure

Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam is venturing into the oil fields of Venezuela, a surprising shift for a prominent figure in the digital asset space. Through his company Primavera Infinita, he recently secured a production contract for the Budare-Elotes block with Venezuela's state oil firm PDVSA. This move into a politically volatile, sanction-scarred country highlights a bet on high returns from its reopening under new leadership and shifting U.S. foreign policy. Ehrsam’s investment reflects a venture capital-style appetite for risk, targeting assets deeply discounted by political uncertainty. He is not alone; smaller, politically connected U.S. firms like Aspect Holdings and Hunt Oil are also entering, while established giants like ExxonMobil remain cautious due to past expropriations. To manage the complex, capital-intensive nature of oil, Ehrsam is assembling a professional team. This trend extends beyond Ehrsam. Other crypto wealth, like BitMEX's Arthur Hayes and Tether, is diversifying into traditional hard assets—energy, metals, and agriculture—seeking physical scarcity as a long-term anchor. Tether, for instance, took a controlling stake in agricultural giant Adecoagro. These moves signify crypto capital's evolving interest: not just tokenizing real-world assets (RWA), but directly acquiring and operating them. Ultimately, Ehrsam's gamble is less on oil geology and more on the duration of Venezuela's current political window. It underscores a broader narrative where digital-era wealth seeks stability and scale in the physical world's most traditional, immovable resources.

marsbit3 год тому

Crypto's Nouveau Riche Strikes Gold in the Real World: Coinbase Co-founder's Venezuelan Oil Field Adventure

marsbit3 год тому

Refuting the Ethereum 'Abandoning' ETH Narrative: What Does It Really Mean to Pay Gas Without ETH?

Title: Refuting the "Ethereum Abandoning ETH" Argument: What Does Paying Gas Without ETH Really Mean? The debate sparked by Vitalik Buterin's discussion of EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions), which suggests users could pay transaction fees without holding ETH, has led to extreme claims that ETH will lose its value. However, this perspective misunderstands the proposal. Currently, an Ethereum user initiating a transaction must also pay the network's Gas fee in ETH. EIP-8141 aims to decouple these actions. It allows a transaction to be split into separate "frames." A user could sign a transaction to, for example, send USDC, while a separate Paymaster account pays the required ETH Gas fee on their behalf. The user would then settle the cost with the Paymaster using USDC or another token. From the user's perspective, they pay in a stablecoin without interacting with ETH. Crucially, from the Ethereum protocol's perspective, the Gas is still paid in ETH; only the settlement layer between the user and Paymaster changes. This concept isn't entirely new; ERC-4337's Account Abstraction already allows similar Gas sponsorship. EIP-8141 seeks to integrate this capability more natively. The core goal is to drastically improve user experience by abstracting away the complexity of Gas, similar to how one pays with a credit card abroad without handling the local currency. It also enables atomic operations, like bundling token approval with a swap, which would revert together if the swap fails. Regarding ETH's value, the argument that "no ETH is needed" is incorrect. While users may not hold ETH, Paymasters and services must still acquire and spend ETH to pay network fees on the backend. The demand for ETH shifts from being distributed across millions of user wallets to being concentrated in the balances of these service providers. The key variable is whether this improved usability attracts significant new users and increases overall network activity. If it does, total ETH burned in fees could rise substantially. If it doesn't, the change merely reshuffles who holds the ETH needed for Gas. In summary, EIP-8141 aims to lower the entry barrier by hiding Gas complexity, betting that this will drive broader adoption and increase the fundamental utility—and thus demand—for the Ethereum network and ETH itself.

marsbit3 год тому

Refuting the Ethereum 'Abandoning' ETH Narrative: What Does It Really Mean to Pay Gas Without ETH?

marsbit3 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片