One of the major conflict points in this space is that US based VCs & HFs are investing in quasi-legal(to put it lightly) projects & attempting to extract an ROI. That alone makes the project vulnerable. It means there are known actors which the US gov can go after.
Key characteristics that make a protocol or app more censorship resistant (anonymous/global devs, open source. lack of central control) go directly against the idea of US based VCs & founders being able to extract an ROI. They themselves are one of the main vulnerabilities.
So they really only have one option:
(1) Deny that they & their biz model are an attack vector.
(2) Move forward without permission & hope US gov doesn't crackdown.
(3) Lobby gov for a favorable result.
(4) Comply if forced.
(5) Hope to compete against distributed alternatives.
(1) Deny that they & their biz model are an attack vector.
(2) Move forward without permission & hope US gov doesn't crackdown.
(3) Lobby gov for a favorable result.
(4) Comply if forced.
(5) Hope to compete against distributed alternatives.
I'm not saying the laws in question are fair or just, but they exist and will most likely be enforced.
If you're going to break US regs, you should have a plan in place that isn't just begging regulators to spare you. It's impossible for that plan to include an ROI for VCs.
If you're going to break US regs, you should have a plan in place that isn't just begging regulators to spare you. It's impossible for that plan to include an ROI for VCs.
