Coin Center’s Seven Takeaways from the Storm Verdict: ▪️ 1. The sole conviction—unlicensed money transmission (18 U.S.C. § 1960)—turns mainly on legal/regulatory interpretation (“does this count as money transmission?”), not jury fact-finding. ▪️ 2. The court, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, discounted FinCEN’s stated guidance on what counts as “money transmission” in crypto and treated the category as broader than “control of customer funds.” ▪️ 3. With “money transmission” defined that broadly, the jury’s room to decide facts was narrow; the court’s interpretation largely dictated the outcome. ▪️ 4. DOJ’s prior “end regulation by prosecution” memo didn’t fully resolve §1960 issues left things open for continued prosecution; the DOJ dropped the failure-to-register theory but not the “knowingly transmitting criminal funds” theory. Coin Center’s view: both hinge on “transmitting” and are improper against developers excluded by FinCEN guidance. ▪️ 5. The BRCA (Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act), now attached to CLARITY and passed by the House, would confirm that non-controlling developers aren’t money transmitters. It can’t help Roman retroactively, but the Senate should pass it in upcoming market-structure debates. ▪️ 6. Coin Center fellow Michael Lewellen is suing DOJ for a declaration that publishing/maintaining his software isn’t unlicensed money transmission. Coin Center will continue supporting this effort to correct the legal interpretation. ▪️ 7. Coin Center is sorry Roman faces sentencing on a theory that contradicts the regulator’s guidance. He should appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss; Coin Center will assist however possible.

So it sounds like no verdict on money laundering (gov't could possibly re-prosecute). Guilty on conspiracy to transmit money, and not guilty on conspiracy to evade sanctions. Happy about 1 and 3. The money transmission charge was inappropriate from the start and the way the legal rulings went down last winter may have doomed the outcome with a jury that can only find facts. This needs to be appealed, and Coin Center will do everything to make sure the judge gets the law right the next time around.

1/ Yesterday, we at @coincenter submitted comments to the Senate Banking Committee on their digital asset market structure draft. Our message is simple: protect developers, protect speech, and regulate trusted intermediaries - not software.

Today the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets released their long awaited report, framing the administration’s goals for crypto policy. Here’s a quick reaction thread focused on Coin Center’s top issues, individual liberty, privacy, and commonsense taxation. 1/

Good news: The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act language is in the Senate Market Structure draft. This will protect open source devs from unfit licensure requirements. Getting it into the bills has been Coin Center's top priority in Congress.

They should have invited @NeerajKA to the White House as a representative for crypto twitter. Man of the people.

Yesterday, I testified before Congress on the need to address bad IRS guidance on block rewards. Today, I published the blog below on why Trump's EO on digital assets offers the opportunity to do just that.

Witness Frayer casually likened wrapping ETH on chain to investing in a trust-managed fund. Thankfully, @jasonsomensatto clarified they're nothing alike-and reminded everyone to focus on economic substance in regulation, not surface analogies that can prejudice new technologies.

I will be testifying before Ways & Means tomorrow on the tax treatment of crypto. Some are saying it will be the highlight of Crypto Week. But it’s also @swimNVSL divisionals week and @TheOpen week so I understand if attention is divided. Bit of a scheduling war.🏊‍♂️⛳

Today in the MIT Technology Review, I explain why the Bank Secrecy Act, a Nixon-era law, is no longer fit for a modern era where nearly every financial transaction is trackable without a warrant. Our financial data is among the most sensitive personal information we produce. Indiscriminate financial surveillance such as what we have today is fundamentally at odds with the Fourth Amendment in the digital age.