The Department of Justice (DOJ) has initiated legal actions against decentralized finance (DeFi) developers, sparking significant debate within the crypto industry. This move has raised questions about the proper allocation of responsibility and control within decentralized systems, according to a report by a16z crypto. The DOJ’s actions have drawn criticism for potentially misattributing control and liability in the blockchain sector, particularly concerning the prosecution of software developers under Section 1960.

Understanding Control in Decentralized Systems

The central issue revolves around identifying the level of control exercised by different entities within a decentralized system. In traditional contexts, such as automobile manufacturing, liability is typically assigned to the driver rather than the carmaker when an accident occurs. This analogy is used to argue that software developers, like car manufacturers, create neutral tools and should not be held accountable for how third parties use these tools.

In recent cases, such as United States v. Storm and United States v. Rodriguez, the DOJ has prosecuted blockchain developers, likening their role to that of unlicensed money transmitters. Critics argue this approach misinterprets the nature of control in decentralized systems, where developers often do not have direct control over the software post-deployment.

Legal Definitions and Industry Implications

Central to the controversy is the definition of a “money transmitting” business under Section 1960 of the U.S. Code. This definition traditionally includes entities that accept and transmit currency or its equivalents on behalf of the public. However, in decentralized finance, users typically retain control over their assets, using protocols that developers no longer control once deployed.

The lack of clarity in these legal definitions poses a threat to the industry, as the DOJ’s broad interpretation could lead to further prosecutions of developers who create non-custodial software. This has prompted calls for a reevaluation of the legal framework to better reflect the realities of control and custody in decentralized networks.

Potential Policy Reforms

Industry leaders and policymakers are urged to collaborate in 2025 to refine legal definitions and ensure they align with the technological nuances of decentralized systems. Such reforms are deemed essential to foster innovation while protecting developers from undue liability. The analogy to the automobile industry highlights the potential stifling effect overbroad liability could have on technological advancement.

The need for clear and consistent interpretations of custody and control in the context of digital assets is emphasized as a critical issue for the future of the crypto industry in the United States. A failure to address these concerns could hinder the growth and development of innovative financial technologies.

For additional insights into the implications of the DOJ’s actions, visit the full article by a16z crypto here.

Image source: Shutterstock