Quote from: ranochigo on Today at 03:30:56 PM

Quote from: buwaytress on Today at 03:01:35 PM

~

Really? I've got a few lawyer friends working for DeFi firms (specifically with regards to IP), NDA so I can't discuss too much about them. Seems like they were quite well-versed with the Crypto scene and had quite a good understanding of how the scenarios that we've mentioned would pan out. Granted that it is quite niche, but a good lawyer with some degree of knowledge in FinTech would have a very good knowledge about your rights in this issue. Again, don't think it would be wise to engage a lawyer who doesn't have any experience with whatever you're doing with.

Interestingly, from what I understand, cases involving Bitcoin are often heavily overlapped with the traditional money laundering cases and that historically prosecutor has had a harder time to build a solid case to prove malicious intent when using mixers. Regardless, if you're not doing anything illegal, then there is no case to build for anyways.

Yes, really. I have also come into contact with crypto-niche lawyers even before "defi" but we're really not talking about the average legal career guy here. Even then, these niche lawyers deal with issues very specific to the company hiring them, and have the experience related.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me the starting point is legal clarity on crypto itself. How a jurisdiction views it then determines which activities trigger specific aspects of the law and there is where national law (or lack of) comes into play. It's usually precedent that helps. One firm does it well and legally in one jurisdiction, others follow in their footsteps. So what you get are lawyers who're experts with one template of business entity, one jurisdiction, one way of conducting taxes, etc.

Precedent is important. Expertise follows quite easily, so the average on precedent is low at the moment.

Establishing intent doesn't always play a role, either. If mixers are determined to be illegal, as I suspect one day they will, in the usual-suspect jurisdictions, then intent no longer comes into play (let's say, for example, when US Treasury sanctioned mixers like Blender, making it automatically illegal for US citizens). The next step then, would be to qualify what makes a mixer or what qualifies as mixing.