Thread by @RanierGrant

The reason im weary and uneasy on early victory laps with the 5th circuit ruling is based on a couple phenomena in this industry, 1) hot potato liability, and 2) "felonize the alternative". Right, courts and normoids and boomercon ghouls have no first principles here,

they're systematically hopskipping to which part of the stack and which programming language on chain or offchain they want to felonize through regulation by enforcement, even if the language in the 5th circuit is good,

it doesn't offer any constitutional protections to middleware or frontends. This is a perverse incentive for Silicon Valley to continue to build deeply stupid uncomposable rent seeking centrally hosted frontends, and for the public

and federal courts and Trump administration to fully misunderstand the technology, where simply because the people who know an immutable composable middleware of sequencers and indexers and depin, and frontends can be built,

they aren't heard, and the courts don't here it. This is actually another point where there is a huge discrepancy in Tornado's court protections for the actual contracts versus the language of the Treasury's 6050 and 6045 claims, The Treasury never led this argument

based on smart contracts alone, they've been very vocal about targeting and assigning extreme unrealistic liability to frontend and middleware with no regard for constitutional protections, namely though outdated notions of

expressive conduct vs expressive speech. This blind side means that there are very little elaborated or legislated protections in congress or the courts for applications which are offchain but free and open source, as has been the case in most of

Samurai's case, and it means any potential github repository is at risk, and any potential available app that interacts with smart contracts is at risk, because of accusations about principle relations and expressive conduct that simply

are not true. If Chatgpt writes a frontend and you put the download link on pirate bay to the text file, and someone runs it in bash, that is not a hosted application, that is an offchain tool that certainly meets the criteria of the smart contracts

on Tornado itself, nothing that an a.i LLM can generate to interact with a smart contract in 30 seconds through bash, should be afforded any less protection than the Smart Contracts themselves, especially if it's domained on IPFS and ENS and seeded and mirrored with IPFS

and BlakeS3 or some variation of DePin nodes, and this is particularly legally insidious for the legal protections of distintermediated Sequencers and Indexers using Zero Knowledge Proofs to make peer to peer sequencing, so that there aren't corporate servers.

Which brings us to the next point, the feds want to find a place to assign blame because the if the entire stack is technically immutable, they are going to freak the fuck out, this creates an immense national pressure to pick part of

the stack and part of the developers whom which you want to fuck over, and then license and felonize the alternative, because you want to play hot potato felony liability, rather than force the courts to understand BlakeS3 and

RiscZero and IPFS and what actual javascript communicating with the Tornado contracts is doing in practice on the client side.

unroll @threadreaderapp