Federations holding custody & miners engaged in a #drivechain ecosystem can potentially draw regulatory scrutiny by being classified as 'money transmitters’.

For federations overseeing custody, the regulatory assessment hinges on the geographic location of each federation member. The legality & regulatory status of these federations are contingent upon the jurisdiction within which each individual member operates. This jurisdictional variance introduces a multifaceted legal landscape where the regulatory treatment of federations significantly depends on their geographical dispersion.

Similarly, in the scenario of miners participating in a #drivechain system, regulatory obligations akin to those of money transmitters can surface. These miners, while being integral to the drivechain's functionality, may be subject to regulatory classification as money transmitters based on their role in facilitating currency transfers between secondary & primary chains. both the federation custody model & the involvement of miners in drivechains introduce potential regulatory considerations, particularly in relation to money transmission activities. These nuances underscore the need for careful evaluation & adherence to regulatory frameworks that vary based on geographic jurisdiction & specific operational roles. nostr:note1pevzc2v9teflqedqchr6fp0kaup96wnnwknfef47pk5czkd3d8vql9shwx