Daniel Barabander pfp

Daniel Barabander

@dbarabander

124 Following
1498 Followers
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
There is no law more existential for crypto projects than § 1960, which makes it a crime to operate an “unlicensed money transmitting business.” § 1960 is front and center in the Tornado Cash case, where a court held in September that Roman Storm could violate the statute even without control over user funds. Today, @atuminelli, @jchervinsky, and I published the most detailed analysis I’m aware of on how to interpret the statute in The International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators. Our core finding: § 1960 requires control, so the Tornado Cash court got it wrong. Check out the article here: https://edit.financialcrimelitigators.org/api/assets/cd682a1c-1cb0-4c99-a491-ac6155f4bdc2.pdf.
2 replies
10 recasts
36 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
Observation: putting 2048 on the blockchain does not make me suck at it any less.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
I’m biased but this is an excellent read, in tune to tech and law. My favorite :).
1 reply
4 recasts
4 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
This is the most fun I’ve had onchain in a long time. @chuckstock @blackstock crush it.
1 reply
2 recasts
12 reactions
Jesse Walden pfp
Jesse Walden
@jesse
Me and @paulframbot down by the schoolyard Please watch/share :) https://x.com/jessewldn/status/1869482665591931109?s=46&t=wQXqvpirzg313128L3-p1A
1 reply
19 recasts
114 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
DAOs 2.0 - put the "A" back in DAO.
0 reply
1 recast
6 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
For those working on agents in Farcaster - if your agent is built on a centralized stack, how autonomous is it? Check out Hyperbolic for decentralized inference: https://hyperbolic.xyz.
1 reply
0 recast
13 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
@jhackworth and I are hosting a dinner next week in nyc - if you’re building an onchain agent project please dc one of us.
0 reply
2 recasts
8 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
PSA: If you're a lawyer/firm deep on DUNA, I'd love to hear from you.
2 replies
3 recasts
15 reactions
alli pfp
alli
@alli
Missed the Mini App Hackathon by @variant + @worldcoin? Watch the talks from @lay2000lbs, Andy Wang + @john 🧵
1 reply
4 recasts
20 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
Cross posting my new paper on Section 1960 to /law-policy (should have done this to begin with).
0 reply
4 recasts
35 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
Indeed, we did not find a single circuit court case that engaged with a substantive analysis of the text of § 1960 that did not involve the receipt and transmission of funds. In our paper, we explain that the Tornado Cash court did not properly engage with these cases, which is concerning because Bah, Velastegui, and Banki are binding on the court. While the government attempted to distinguish some of these cases, we walked through its arguments and dismantled them piece by piece. The net of this is that we believe that an intermediary obtaining and relinquishing control is necessary to allege a § 1960 charge because, without control, there is no “money transmitting” at all. It follows that self-custodial protocols that never take control over user funds simply cannot be money transmitting businesses. Be sure to check out the piece: https://edit.financialcrimelitigators.org/api/assets/cd682a1c-1cb0-4c99-a491-ac6155f4bdc2.pdf.
0 reply
1 recast
6 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
Circuit courts have repeatedly applied this “receive” and “transmit” framing of “money transmitting” under § 1960(b)(2). For example, the Second Circuit in United States v. Velastegui defined a money transmitting business as one that "receives money from a customer and then, for a fee paid by the customer, transmits that money to a recipient in a place that the customer designates." Similarly, in United States v. Banki, the Second Circuit cited the Velastegui definition and held that it was "legally correct" that "[t]o be a ‘money transmitting business,’ the business must transmit money to a recipient in a place that the customer designates, for a fee paid by the customer." In United States v. Singh, the Ninth Circuit adopted Velastegui’s definition.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
The court rejected this argument. Why? Because the defendant never relinquished control over the funds when driving them from New York to New Jersey. As stated by the court: “So long as Bah (or his agents) maintained possession of any payments, the movement of the money across state lines would not itself violate the statute, because § 1960 prohibits the ‘transfer"’ of money, not the transportation of money by an individual.” Bah clarifies that to "transfer" funds under § 1960(b)(2), a party must relinquish control over the funds. Logically, for a party to relinquish control, it must first obtain control. This is what it means to "receive" funds: it is the process of a party first obtaining control over funds that might later be part of a transmission.
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
The Second Circuit case of Bah, which is binding on the Tornado Cash court, shows why. In that case, the defendant owned a restaurant in New York, would receive cash from customers there, drive it across the river to New Jersey, and send it from his business in New Jersey to recipients abroad. The defendant had a money transmitting license in New Jersey but not New York, so the government was in a bit of a bind because it was lawful to transmit the money in New Jersey. To try and get around this, the government argued that the defendant driving the funds from New Jersey to New York itself constituted a “transfer” under § 1960(b)(2).
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
So what constitutes a “money transmitting business” is the key question. Well, that’s unfortunately not defined in this statute (at least not as a whole term). But “money transmitting” is defined under § 1960(b)(2) as including “transferring funds on behalf of the public by any and all means.” Alright, we finally arrived at the heart of it: To be a “money transmitting business,” we need to figure out what it means to “transfer[] funds on behalf of the public.” To answer this question, we reviewed the case law (all of the circuit law on point!) and determined that “transferring funds on behalf of the public” requires an intermediary to obtain control over funds to receive them and relinquish control over the funds to transmit them.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
Let’s run through why § 1960 requires control. Because I’m going to be referring to the text a lot, here’s § 1960 in its entirety: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1960 § 1960(a) makes it a crime for a person to “conduct[], control[], manage[], supervise[], direct[], or own[] all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business.” OK, so the key term is “unlicensed money transmitting business.” What’s that? We must go to § 1960(b)(1) to find out. That provision says that an “unlicensed money transmitting business” is defined as an entity that is a “money transmitting business” AND does either (A), (B), or (C). Because of the AND, if we do not have a “money transmitting business,” then we do not need to go into (A), (B), or (C) because we definitionally do not have an “unlicensed money transmitting business” and therefore cannot violate § 1960(a).
1 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
Congrats on launching this @rev.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
My startup utilized the Quickbooks API. I think you can guess what the developer experience was like . . . .
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Daniel Barabander pfp
Daniel Barabander
@dbarabander
12/ We’re deep on agents here at @variant so if you’re building in this space, please reach out to me and @jhackworth. We want to hear from you.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction