This sets a precedent for anyone working on Nostr. Especially when you account for the Dutch ruling that making something decentralized is itself a crime.
Discussion
Telegram is a service, not just software.
Nostr's problem here is that it too is pretty close to a service, a fairly centralized one...
Wasn't the Dutch ruling partly depending on the fact that the developer is gaining financially from the decentralized system? It feels very unjust if building something decentralized that could hypothetically be used to break the law, is a crime in itself.
The (in)direct profiting argument was used by the prosecutor, but the judge didn't need it. Being ideologically motivated was also sufficient to be held responsible.
Is that something new as a result of the TornadoCash case, or was this already in place?