#美国非农就业数据表现优于预期 $BTC $ETH

With the private key in hand, can the assets still be held down? Recently, the case of the Samurai wallet has exposed an embarrassing reality in the crypto world.

The situation itself is quite surreal. A non-custodial wallet that doesn't touch user funds or handle transactions has been forced by the U.S. Department of Justice to plead guilty. In simple terms, it means: you developed a "lock"; although the key is in the user's hands, you are guilty because this lock can protect privacy.

Does this logic hold up?

First, let's talk about the technical aspect. The original intention of the design of non-custodial wallets is to allow users to have complete control over their assets through private keys. The platform neither holds funds nor participates in transactions—this is essentially the purest embodiment of the "decentralization" concept of cryptocurrency. FinCEN clearly stated as early as 2019: such wallets do not fall under the category of money services business and do not need to apply for a money transmission license at all.

As for privacy tools like Ricochet and Whirlpool? They simply obfuscate transaction paths through algorithms to enhance anonymity. It's like when you buy something with cash and don't want to be tracked; that demand is reasonable, right? Moreover, transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain are inherently traceable; it's just that a little technical barrier has been added.

The truly outrageous part is the logic of law enforcement.

The Department of Justice's indictment recognizes that the Warrior Wallet has "unlicensed transmission of funds," but the problem is that FinCEN itself had previously issued an opinion to the prosecution—developers may not need an MSB license at all. What's even more troubling is that this regulatory opinion has been hidden for nearly a year, yet the lawsuit continues to move forward.

What does this mean? The regulatory authorities do not have a unified stance internally, yet the law enforcement agencies have already taken action.

Legally, a "money transmitter" must meet the condition of "receiving or transferring funds on behalf of others." Samurai Wallet only provides tools and does not touch assets, which theoretically does not meet this standard. However, the judge directly dismissed the precedent cited by the defense in the Falcone case, without even providing a written explanation—where is the procedural justice?

The signal behind this case is very clear: when innovation steps into the sensitive areas of power, compliance boundaries can be reinterpreted at any time. Users think that mastering the private key means mastering freedom, but the reality is that as long as the tools you use are targeted, your assets can still be "legally" frozen.

The free vision of cryptocurrency is being eroded bit by bit by selective law enforcement.