I read the guidance a few times and understood it as meaning non-custodial mixers are not covered. I had not read the statute itself.
I also read through the DoJ argument here, but at minimum does not seem ridiculous. We'll have to see what a judge makes of it (or I guess a jury?).
Also best to improve the law to make it unambiguously privacy friendly ... good luck with that, then we wouldn't need cryptocurrency in the first place.
* but -> which
Sure, I don’t think we’ll get everything we want, but at a minimum we should push for improvements in what the regulations cover.
Sadly, despite what it should mean, guidance isn’t legally binding as far as I understand, though of course a judge will weigh it heavily.
I guess you read the CoinCenter bit but I was at least slightly confused on the state of things here, but Iiuc guidance is not binding. Anyway leaving this here in case anyone comes along this thread later https://www.coincenter.org/dojs-new-stance-on-crypto-wallets-is-a-threat-to-liberty-and-the-rule-of-law/
It seems the DoJ and CoinCenter disagree on what the guidance means AND the DoJ argues that the guidance may not apply to Tornado Cash AND even if it did, it's just guidance.
