There
are
hard
truths
in
life,
and
then
there
are
the
things
we
want
to
believe.
The
sentencing
of
Tornado
Cash
developer
Alexey
Pertsev
to
64
months
in
prison
in
the
Netherlands
shows
how
these
two
things
are
often
at
odds.
On
both
sides
of
the
debate
over
the
sanctioned
crypto
mixer,
there
are
bad
arguments
and
even
worse
conclusions.
Note:
The
views
expressed
in
this
column
are
those
of
the
author
and
do
not
necessarily
reflect
those
of
CoinDesk,
Inc.
or
its
owners
and
affiliates.
This
is
an
excerpt
from
The
Node
newsletter,
a
daily
roundup
of
the
most
pivotal
crypto
news
on
CoinDesk
and
beyond.
You
can
subscribe
to
get
the
full
newsletter
here.
First,
it
was
always
painfully
obvious
that
the
now
sanctioned
crypto
mixer
Tornado
Cash
was
designed
to
shield
people’s
identities,
thereby
facilitating
crime.
If
it
wasn’t,
then
it
wouldn’t
be
very
useful
for
protecting
people
like
peace
activists
or
political
dissidents
who
need
privacy
–
like
Vitalik
Buterin
sending
funds
to
Ukraine
activists
with
a
pitstop
through
Tornado
Cash.
Moreover,
it
was
always
the
case
that
jostling
together
funds
from
a
variety
of
sources,
licit
and
illicit,
was
likely
to
be
construed
as
a
form
of
money
laundering.
Sure,
Tornado
Cash’s
developers
never
took
custody
of
the
funds
and
therefore
never
directly,
personally
facilitated
money
laundering,
but
they
did
build
an
unstoppable
smart
contract
without
any
of
the
types
of
controls
that
money
transmitters
are
usually
subject
to
like
collecting
and
verifying
identifying
information
from
users
to
aid
investigations.
That
was
essentially
the
argument
of
the
Dutch
prosecutors
who
tried
Pertsev:
that
the
31-year-old
Russian
national
living
in
the
Netherlands,
and
his
colleagues
Roman
Storm
and
Roman
Semenov
(who
face
similar
charges
in
the
U.S.),
made
a
series
of
choices
about
how
to
design,
upkeep
and
market
their
mixer.
See
also:
Tornado
Cash
Devs
Are
Caught
in
a
U.S.
Dragnet
|
Opinion
“The
decision
of
the
Dutch
courts
to
condemn
and
impose
a
heavy
prison
sentence
on
Alexey
Pertsev
seems
unjust
and
disproportionate,
given
the
novelty
of
the
technology
and
the
numerous
legitimate
uses
of
Tornado
Cash,”
crypto
lawyer
Fatemeh
Fannizadeh
told
CoinDesk.
“The
decentralized,
disintermediated,
and
censorship-resistant
nature
of
blockchain
does
not
align
perfectly
with
traditional
patterns
of
regulated
behavior
and
should
therefore
be
treated
with
a
more
nuanced
legal
approach.”
Indeed,
part
of
Pertsev’s
defense
was
acknowledging
that,
even
if
money
laundering
was
happening,
because
the
protocol
operated
like
a
robot
on
a
blockchain
and
users
always
maintained
“exclusive
control”
over
their
funds,
if
anyone
is
to
blame
it
is
the
users
themselves.
This
is
to
say
nothing
that
Tornado’s
devs
did
maintain
a
frontend,
through
which
90+%
of
users
went
through.
This
has
somewhat
dangerous
implications.
As
money
blogger
J.P.
Koning
points
out,
if
people
could
simply
absolve
themselves
of
the
responsibility
of
building
and
deploying
a
machine
they
know
could
and
likely
would
be
used
by
criminals,
then
“anyone
who
wants
to
facilitate
illegal
activities
would
have
a
strong
incentive
to
copy
Tornado
Cash.”
“In
a
world
in
which
the
Tornado
Cash
defense
prevails
and
payments
companies
adopt
it
as
a
techno-legal
shield
against
money
laundering
charges,”
attempts
to
stymie
crime
become
less
effective,
“and
not
because
we
decided
to
soften
them
via
a
democratic
process,
but
because
financial
institutions
found
sneaky
ways
to
get
around
the
rules,”
he
continued.
See
also:
Cloning
Tornado
Cash
Would
Be
Easy,
but
Risky
|
Opinion
Still,
at
the
same
time,
there
are
many
worrying
aspects
of
the
case
against
Pertsev.
Perhaps
most
significantly
was
the
judge’s
ruling
from
the
bench
that
there
was
“no
legitimate
use”
of
Tornado
Cash
–
as
if
privacy
itself
is
a
crime.
Even
though
there
were
many
legitimate
uses
of
anonymizing
one’s
blockchain
history,
according
to
authorities
every
dollar
that
passed
through
was
suspect.
Then
there
is
the
stultifying
conclusion
that,
apparently,
developers
are
somehow
responsible
for
how
people
use
their
programs.
This
is
not
just
a
fundamental
misunderstanding
of
how
immutable
smart
contract
protocols
work,
but
there
is
seemingly
no
end
to
the
liability
this
could
cause
for
anyone
who
builds
anything,
and
not
just
software.
Are
gun
manufacturers
held
liable
for
shootings?
Is
the
U.S.
government
responsible
if
physical
cash
is
used
for
crime?
The
double
standard
in
Pertsev’s
case
is
troubling.
As
the
DeFi
Education
Fund
put
it
in
an
amicus
brief:
“With
no
limiting
principle
in
place,
nearly
all
developers
who
create
open-source
software
would
be
exposed
to
criminal
liability
for
activity
outside
of
their
control
years
or
decades
later.”
Does
this
mean
governments
will
actually
begin
to
pursue
cases
against
disadvantaged
developers,
perhaps
working
in
politically
unfavorable
industries?
That
remains
to
be
seen.
But
whether
or
not
you
agree
with
the
interpretation
of
the
law,
the
hard
truth
here
is
that
mixers
aren’t
just
about
privacy
and
human
rights
–
and
to
the
extent
that
they
facilitate
crime,
authorities
will
want
to
shut
them
down.
And
if
they
can’t,
someone
is
going
to
be
held
responsible.
See
also:
Stop
Attacking
DeFi
Founders
for
Complying
With
Sanctions
|
Opinion
