Crypto Advocacy Group Defi Education Fund has urged the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to reconsider his approach to hold Defi protocol developers responsible for users’ actions.
In a blog post published on February 4 by Andreessen Horowitz (A16Z), co-author Miller Whitehouse-Levine and Amanda Tuminelli of the Defi Education Fund argued that developers should not be liable for how their software is used, using them with car manufacturers Not being responsible for the actions of drivers.
According to them:
“The same intuitive principle that controls our understanding of the car manufacturer and the liability of the director must form the basis for sensible policy -making in the context of decentralized networks and protocols.”
The authors warned that focusing on developers under laws such as Section 1960 could create harmful precedents, which may possibly be extended legal risks in the crypto industry.
They wrote:
“Holding people responsible for systems and activities on which they do not exercise an agency or control leads to perverse results. ‘
They further emphasized that policy makers should distinguish between those who create technology and those who actively control it. Misplaced liability, they argued, could hinder technological progress and discourage innovation in the Defi sector.
Regular clarity
In order to illustrate their point, the authors outlined how the broad interpretation of the DOJ of the “money -shipping permit” influences the industry negatively by comparing transactions on centralized exchanges with Defi protocols.
This law regulates money that companies transfer and bears serious fines, including fines of a maximum of $ 250,000 and five years in prison for not registering. The authorities are currently entangled in a legal confrontation with Tornado Cash’s Developer, Roman Storm, for alleged violation of this provision.
According to them, when users act on a centralized exchange, they transfer funds to the platform, so that control over their assets. This scheme makes centralized stock markets subject to financial regulations.
In Defi, however, users retain full control over their funds, where transactions are carried out directly via blockchain -based protocols. This distinction is crucial for the clarity of the regulations.
The authors argued that the correct interpretation of money transfer laws should take custody and control into account. A centralized exchange moves user funds on behalf of customers, making it a financial intermediary. A Defi protocol, on the other hand, is simply a tool with which users handle their own conditions, without any supervision of third parties.
As a result, the authors called for clearer legal guidelines, especially when defining control within financial regulations. They noted that a well -defined legal framework will reduce uncertainty and support responsible innovation.
They concluded:
“Industry and legislators must come together in 2025 to ensure that the law correctly reflects accurate concepts of detention and control and the responsibilities that arise from it – whether in the context of a market structure, broker reports or in the 1960 section. “