They do not have control. They hold one of the three keys needed to unlock the funds. The buyer and the seller hold the other two, so the only time they have any say in what happens to the funds is in the case of an arbitration. By themselves, they can exert no control over the trade. They need another party who is unrelated to them.
The term legal is subjective prior to charges, as it's on the opinion of the lawyers based on past cases.
By offering Zelle banking and Paypal, they become subject to US law, as Zelle only serves US residents. From my understanding of US law, one can't operate an exchange to facilitate money transmission, if they have custody and control. Uniswap got off their court case, by demonstrating non-control through an algorithm that acted autonomously. Because Reto isn't working off autonomous smart contracts, and because they offer Monero to Zelle (where the end-product is clearly US dollars without KYC), I believe IF a court were to rule on this, then it very likely would be considered a violation of current money transmission laws. And to clarify, I believe Bisq is illegal also.
On the other hand, XMRBazaar very clearly is legal, because the end-product isn't money itself, it's random products that are owned prior to the buyer giving XMR, and the funds can go directly to the seller's wallet. Further by being hosted in Iceland, it's not even clear what law applies to XMRBazaar for digital services.
nostr:npub1ge0tzdqy6useekgu9d9g5l3s3t2wpx7p9xxuprz7ajzjaxl4mgyssejcs3 nostr:npub1arhp6h8w2mc2jnrfrzt6fl92tasx5m5qtmw7837ffhs887fuqwfq92zhzj nostr:npub1ah3aj4mhfew4c7txfdd4paf3wr5syntkeyxenl9fxf9rejte2wpqwcl76e
Discussion
They are running the server the user connects to when they start it up. This alone is enough to define control and operation based on many past court cases. Please look into uniswap and tornado cash
I don't see how you're going to say there is no difference between an autonomous smart contract that runs on it's own, and a guy running a seedbox who picks arbitrators.
Anyone anywhere can run a seed node if they ask and commit to keeping it running. It takes all of about 10 minutes to set one up if you can follow like 10 instructions.
Even if you set one up on your own, and tell your instance to connect to it, and it's not in the public directory, you can still connect to the network, even without the public nodes.
Every public seed could be taken down and a user could still build the seed on their own and connect.
You've morphed the conversation away from legality, and into trying to argue if it's decentralized.
The question is NOT if it's decentralized, it's if it's autonomous. Acting on it's own.
And it's NOT decentralized, it's centralized with the haveno dev operating the seed box and picking arbitrators. Entire convo is a waste of time
Also, any client can let any other client connect to the network through it, so as long as there's at least one client on the network that you know the onion address of, you can connect to the rest of the network, even without the public seeds at all. Each client acts as a seed as well, just not published publicly.
dude, I can't believe you're taking time out of your day to debate with me if haveno is legal, when the original devs fled working on it, it's anon on tor, doing USD fiat, and even if you convince me, who cares? I am not a legal authority