I agree with you, the result has to go the way of the US Gov given where we are in the collapse - suffering the approval of the ETFs is one thing, allowing lawyers in an open court to hash out the definition of “money” and where Bitcoin fits is something else entirely and not a risk the DOJ will want to take.

There is a problem here though; it’s an obvious question for the defence to ask, so unless the DOJ can somehow get that nixed up front (def possible), they’ll want to ask it.

DOJ are obviously pursuing this because of the regime’s hardon for “crypto” so they will want to make examples here, especially in an election year.

So I can’t see how they make a plea deal to avoid litigating this question that these guys are going to accept. Say DOJ feels “generous” and thinks they have a win that Biden, Warren et al would accept if they give them what, 10 years? Why would they take that? They didn’t control user funds and Bitcoin supposedly isn’t money - go roll the dice.

If the alternative is 20+ years then why wouldn’t you - who is going to disagree with Bitcoin being money between now and the end of that sentence? DOJ have to get that Q off the table if they want to make examples.

Obviously IANAL but i can think through the situation and incentives enough to see this is a potential curly one.