>This splits an exceedingly fine hair: it requires the Treasury to accept that the Tornado Cash Entity, despite being the prime mover for the Tornado Cash Appli

>This splits an exceedingly fine hair: it requires the Treasury to accept that the Tornado Cash Entity, despite being the prime mover for the Tornado Cash Application, is somehow not responsible for the thing it wrought. In other words, the "brick on the accelerator" argument. This is completely thrown out in reality, because Courts've already handled this. If you create a thing that does harm (booby trap), you are still liable for damages incurred as a result of it's fundamental operation as you created the danger. Also see the case withregards to Alfred Anaya to dissuade yourself of the notion that they'd never go after someone for bringing into existence an instance of a tool key in facilitating known criminal activity. Besides which, Tornado.Cash screwed up as far as I'm aware, because they were financial beneficiaries of the operation of the mechanism. This is also something Courts are quite adept at being able to see through in spite of obfuscatory application of tech. So there is a tangible link there to anchor on both in the sense that the Entity's assets get sanctioned, and any addresses involved in the technical implementation get sanctioned. Anyone spinning up anything recognizably similar, (and I assure you, a recognizer that runs over the chain to find similar patterns of behavior is well within technical capabilities), will find themselves needing to resort to more and more elaborate constructs as more examples of the underlying implementation pattern of activity become known. This'll converge to becoming Yet Another Form of Financial Engineering Arms Race (tm). It is very difficult to outpace Nation states. Especially when you consider they are attractive pass times to those who like dealing with large distributed problems once one gets beyond a certain level of financial independence.