3 ms·

The scope of the original order was quite broad. While Treasury asserts Tornado Cash has been used by North Koreans, they have now narrowed what they are banni

The scope of the original order was quite broad. While Treasury asserts Tornado Cash has been used by North Koreans, they have now narrowed what they are banning to interacting with the sanctioned smart contract addresses by US persons and entities. The interesting argument at play is if they even have the authority to do that. Encrypted communications are also used by North Koreans, but we do not ban that for US people because, 1) it's math, and 2) there are valid reasons for privacy even if it assists North Korea. It is an open question for the courts if this is within the authority of Treasury to ban interacting with self-executing smart contracts.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Treasury asserts Tornado Cash has been used by North Koreans, they have now narrowed what they are banning This is false. The scope of the sanctions was untouched by the re-designation. Justification was broadened.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  > As part of the SDN List entry for Tornado Cash, OFAC included as identifiers certain virtual currency wallet addresses associated with Tornado Cash, as well as the URL address for Tornado Cash’s website. Treasury says that originally the website itself was OFAC sanctioned. With the redesignation: > Similarly, U.S. persons would not be prohibited by U.S. sanctions regulations from visiting the Internet archives for the Tornado Cash historical website, nor would they be prohibited from visiting the Tornado Cash website if it again becomes active on the Internet. Now, it is not illegal to access the website. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/added/2022-09-13 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... The scope was narrowed in overt ways as clearly stated above, and for those of us closely following this story, there was a lot of worry that various people involved in Tornado Cash would have serious legal liability. That has been radically reduced.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > originally the website itself was OFAC sanctioned Sure, the website was originally sanctioned [1] and now isn't [2]. That wasn't part of the re-designation. It also wasn't the part of the sanctions anyone objected to, OFAC's authority to sanction websites being long established. [1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions/20220808 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... [2] https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=39796 https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=39796

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Treasury asserts Tornado Cash has been used by North Koreans, they have now narrowed what they are banning This is false. The scope of the sanctions was untouched by the re-designation. Justification was broadened.

monero-xmr 4y ago
> As part of the SDN List entry for Tornado Cash, OFAC included as identifiers certain virtual currency wallet addresses associated with Tornado Cash, as well as the URL address for Tornado Cash’s website. Treasury says that originally the website itself was OFAC sanctioned. With the redesignation: > Similarly, U.S. persons would not be prohibited by U.S. sanctions regulations from visiting the Internet archives for the Tornado Cash historical website, nor would they be prohibited from visiting the Tornado Cash website if it again becomes active on the Internet. Now, it is not illegal to access the website. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/added/2022-09-13 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... The scope was narrowed in overt ways as clearly stated above, and for those of us closely following this story, there was a lot of worry that various people involved in Tornado Cash would have serious legal liability. That has been radically reduced.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > originally the website itself was OFAC sanctioned Sure, the website was originally sanctioned [1] and now isn't [2]. That wasn't part of the re-designation. It also wasn't the part of the sanctions anyone objected to, OFAC's authority to sanction websites being long established. [1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions/20220808 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... [2] https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=39796 https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=39796