This is 1 of 2 replys 🫂

For me: Ross was the canary in the coal mine. 99% are slaves to ultra wealth. Most of us just don’t SCREAM like I do. 😂

But I wrote this earlier but still working on best practices since I haven’t read recent Presidents …

Let me know what you think

I. CONGRESS-READY BILL (FULL FORMAT)

H.R. ____ — Money Transmission Clarification Act

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the “Money Transmission Clarification Act.”

⸻

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

(a) Custody

The term custody means the ability to hold, possess, or retain funds, assets, or private cryptographic keys belonging to another person.

(b) Control

The term control means the ability to unilaterally direct, freeze, redirect, or prevent the transfer of funds belonging to another person.

⸻

SECTION 3. CLARIFICATION OF MONEY TRANSMISSION

Amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 1960

Add the following subsection:

(d) Custody or Control Requirement

A person or entity shall be deemed to operate a money transmitting business only if such person or entity accepts custody or exercises control over funds belonging to another person.

The provision of software, protocols, or technical services that do not involve custody or control of funds shall not, by itself, constitute money transmission.

⸻

SECTION 4. NON-CUSTODIAL SOFTWARE SAFE HARBOR

(e) Safe Harbor

The development, publication, or maintenance of non-custodial software, including open-source software, that allows users to independently control their own funds shall not constitute money transmission, provided the developer does not take custody or exercise control over such funds.

⸻

SECTION 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to:

1. limit enforcement against custodial financial institutions;

2. legalize money laundering, fraud, or sanctions evasion;

3. exempt any person who knowingly takes custody or control of illicit funds.

⸻

II. MOCK JUDICIAL OPINION (HOW A COURT WOULD APPLY IT)

United States District Court

Opinion

The statute draws a clear and administrable line: liability follows custody or control.

Defendants who neither held private keys nor possessed unilateral authority to direct or block transactions cannot be said to have “accepted and transmitted” funds within the meaning of the statute.

The Court declines to extend criminal liability to the publication or maintenance of non-custodial software absent evidence of custody, control, or direct transaction execution.

To hold otherwise would collapse the distinction between tools and actors, a result inconsistent with due process and fair notice.

Holding:

Non-custodial developers are not money transmitters.

⸻

III. WHO OPPOSES THIS — AND WHY (POWER MAP)

1. Regulators (quiet resistance)

Why:

• Bright lines reduce discretionary power

• Enforcement becomes narrower and harder

What they’ll say:

“This could create loopholes.”

What it really means:

“We lose interpretive leverage.”

⸻

2. Law Enforcement (mixed)

Why:

• Easier cases disappear

• Harder investigations remain

Split:

• Investigators prefer clarity

• Prosecutors prefer flexibility

⸻

3. Large Compliance-Heavy Institutions

Why:

• Smaller builders get legal certainty

• Competitive moat shrinks

Translation:

“If everyone can build safely, we lose advantage.”

⸻

4. Surveillance-First Policy Advocates

Why:

• Privacy tech becomes explicitly protected

• Financial visibility decreases

Translation:

“We don’t like systems we can’t see into.”

⸻

IV. ONE-PAGE VISUAL EXPLAINER (TEXT VERSION)

You could turn this directly into a poster, slide, or quilt panel.

⸻

BITCOIN & THE LAW: ONE SIMPLE RULE

🔑 THE RULE

If you don’t hold the keys and you can’t move the money, you’re not a money transmitter.

⸻

🟢 LAWFUL & PROTECTED

• Holding your own Bitcoin

• Writing wallet software

• Running a node

• Mining

• Publishing open-source code

⸻

🔴 REGULATED & LICENSED

• Exchanges

• Custodial wallets

• Brokers

• Payment processors

• Custodial mixers

⸻

⚠️ CRIMINAL (UNCHANGED)

• Money laundering

• Fraud

• Sanctions evasion

• Custodial obfuscation

⸻

🧠 WHY THIS WORKS

• Aligns law with actual power

• Protects builders without shielding criminals

• Ends regulation by prosecution

• Preserves innovation and enforcement

⸻

V. HOW THIS LINES UP WITH REAL CASES

Ross Ulbricht

• Controlled platform

• Took commissions

• Directed transactions

✅ Still fully prosecutable

⸻

Samourai-type developers

• No custody

• No key control

• No transaction approval

❌ No money transmission liability

⸻

Custodial mixers

• Control funds

• Obfuscate custody

✅ Still prosecutable

⸻

VI. ONE-SENTENCE CLOSE (THE GENIUS OF IT)

This law doesn’t protect Bitcoin.

It protects the difference between tools and power.

That distinction is what modern society is struggling to articulate — and what this bill finally names.