TriangleHead

[Roman Storm 🇺🇸 🌪️ @rstormsf]

My Rule 29 motion to acquit hasn't even been ruled on yet.

(Rule 29 = I'm asking the judge to throw out all the counts - including the one I was convicted on - because the evidence wasn't enough to convict. If granted, there's nothing left to retry.)

But SDNY already filed to lock in a schedule for a second trial - new expert witnesses and all. After failing to convict me once, they're not backing down. They're doubling down.

I want to be clear about one thing: I am not giving up. Not now, not after a second trial, not ever.

But I can't do this alone. If you believe in this fight, I'd be grateful for your support - please donate if you can.

https://t.co/lx9E4ILDrn

Yesterday’s SDNY filing: https://t.co/V7RoHkCizl

[Roman Storm 🇺🇸 🌪️ @rstormsf]

@mert FreeRogerNow platform has added Unified ZEC address support for donations:

[Roman Storm 🇺🇸 🌪️ @rstormsf]

I hate asking for money. But that’s how the system works.

Legal defense isn’t free, and I need the community’s help to keep fighting.

Please donate, share, or retweet → https://t.co/lx9E4ILDrn

Until this case is dismissed, building DeFi - protocols, UIs, tooling carries real legal risk for everyone in this space. The outcome here affects all of us.

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@imgislost @rstormsf I believe Vitalik donated 100 ETH to Roman Storms defense.

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@katexbt @hexonaut @maraoz One reason why it matters is that it means you can choose to use a DeFi protocol that does not have centralized components, so opsec is a non-issue, and you can choose to avoid "DeFi" that has centralized components.

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@Walter_Su11ivan @_Enoch @ethereum @Morpho BUSL = business source license, I think. Basically many people are not happy with the use of non-open source licenses in crypto. https://t.co/SZjgtQz6LV

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@Walter_Su11ivan @_Enoch @ethereum @Morpho CROPS = censorship resistant, open source, private, and secure. https://t.co/8VvMKXT3cG

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@defolioxyz @LiquityProtocol @yearnfi @Uniswap @CurveFinance Even if BOLD adoption would go down and liquidity disappeared, you could still redeem it for $1 worth of ETH. Worst case a little bit less than $1 if many users are redeeming at that time and you don't want to wait.

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@airway1963 @LiquityProtocol Would that not be incredibly short term thinking? They could instead try to grow the revenue of the protocol by voting for liquidity pools, reducing slippage/price impact, therefore making the protocol more attractive to use. More usage = more revenue = LQTY more valuable.

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@Citrullin @lex_node Ohm is still around and you could say it has been somewhat successful in it's goal.

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@Citrullin @lex_node DeFi 2.0 was mostly about projects having protocol owned liquidity (PIL), which was considered an innovation compared the previous trend of emitting protocol tokens into Univ2 pools. It was another hype cycle that attracted users with speculation and insane APRs.

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@LeaT_Design @LiquityProtocol @MKjrstad There is also smart contract risk from both Rocket Pool (reth) or Lido (wsteth), since they are used as collaterals. Possibly governance risk from those protocols as well, depending on their design. They are the most battle tested liquid staking protocols. Still, not 0 risk.

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@LeaT_Design @LiquityProtocol @MKjrstad The risks are oracle risk (Chainlink I think), smart contract risk (arguably lower over time), and ETH price risk (if total system collateral backing falls too fast). Compared to other protocols it is arguably very low risk, due to solid oracle and good system design.

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@LeaT_Design @LiquityProtocol @MKjrstad https://t.co/ZaOwTHBMHr

This is the Yearn auto-compounding vault. If I am reading it correctly it has returned 7% since June 1st 2025.

[Roman Storm 🇺🇸 🌪️ @rstormsf]

🚨 This is not a drill. Real case. Real prison time. Real story.

Software engineers, founders, privacy tech builders, non-custodial builders, immutable software praisers — listen up.

You CAN be prosecuted for your software. ⚖️

It doesn't matter if you can't stop it. Doesn't matter if you can't trace it. Doesn't matter how decentralized it is. Doesn't matter how much geoblocking or address filtering you put in place — they'll call it "window dressing" and move on. 🪟

You will get prosecuted. You will spend years in court fighting to prove your intentions (even though the burden is supposed to be on them). You will face a relentless stream of lies and an illogical machine weaponized against you. 🔁

If your plan is to stay silent — to pretend this doesn't affect you because "it's decentralized" "there's nothing I can do," etc. — that's fine. I followed the same logic. Then it happened. A SWAT team in your home, AR-15s pointed at your face💭➡️💥

📖 Read this: https://t.co/QT0WZ4W9VC

More details to come. 🧵

We have to win this fight and set the right precedent. There are critical UNanswered questions: ❓

🛑 When should I have stopped developing?
🤝 What does "helping and knowing" actually mean — where is the line?
🧾 Does publishing an immutable frontend for an unstoppable smart contract make you a money transmitter despite what FinCEN guidance says?

The answers will define the next decade of open-source development. 🛠️🔓

Donate to help with legal bills if you can - https://t.co/aCPTvkXT98

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@aarvay @LiquityProtocol Fixed part is that you decide your rate. Average is what users on average decide to pay. If BOLD is below peg the users paying the lowest rates have their collateral sold for BOLD. To avoid that there are services who manage your rate for you, resulting in a low non-fixed rate.

[TriangleHead @Simon48979437]

@LiquityProtocol I am not able to report Liquity impostors anymore, but X will allow reporting impostors as the impersonated.

[The Rage @theragetech]

🚨 UPDATES: JUDGE HAS NOT MADE UP HER MIND

The Court convened for over 3 hours, but the judge ultimately did not come to a decision on whether Roman Storm should be acquitted, stating that she had not yet made up her mind.

Most importantly, the judge indicated early on that she was not convinced of the defense's first amendment arguments.

The following discussion was based around the definition of an "overt act" as well as on the question of venue:

Does using NYC-based Infura hosting give SDNY jurisdiction over Storm's alleged criminal conduct if the hosting itself was not alleged to be part of the crime?

Do inaction or failure to act constitute behavior in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy?

Overall, Judge Failla asked much detailed questions of both sides. Whether Storm's motion for acquittal will be granted remains to be seen.

[Privacy Guides @privacy_guides]

🚨 Less than 168 days remain before Android becomes a locked down platform!

Google intends to force all software developers to register with a centralized Google service before their apps can run on the biggest mobile operating system on the planet, regardless of whether those apps are distributed via Google Play.

➡️ Visit Keep Android Open’s website at https://t.co/DmYYcHn9YU for more information about why it’s a problem, and how you can make your voice heard.

As supporters of open platforms we have consistently encouraged developers and alternative app stores to refuse to participate in this program, and to spread this message throughout the Android community. ✊

📝 Read our open letter to Google’s leadership: https://t.co/kZAPPWMeMG

#Android #KeepAndroidOpen #Google #PrivacyGuides #Privacy

[Mullvad.net @mullvadnet]

Mass surveillance and censorship are escalating in many countries right now. There is a global attack on secure encrypted communication. Often, authorities, politicians, and tech companies work together to push for new laws. One example: when Ashton Kutcher (yes, the actor), through his tech company Thorn, tried to introduce total surveillance of all EU citizens through undemocratic and corrupt methods.

First, Ashton Kutcher convinced the EU Commission that they could scan everything on an EU citizen’s phone or computer (messages, photos, emails, phone calls, all of it) for child sexual abuse material without, at the same time, looking at the content of other types of communication.

And then?

And then EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson presented the legislative proposal called Chat Control, which aimed to scan everything on all EU citizens' phones and computers (including conversations in end-to-end-encrypted messaging services). The message from the Commission was: we will only search for child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

And then?

And then experts from all over the world explained to her that the kind of scanning she was talking about (as Ylva described it: a drug-sniffing dog that can detect illegal content in a message without reading the message) simply cannot be done safely, and that Chat Control would mean the end of privacy and pose a security threat to all Europeans. Ylva responded with: “what about the children?”

And then?

And then it was revealed that Thorn, the organization founded by Ashton Kutcher and which had been lobbying for Chat Control from the beginning, was selling the kind of scanning technology that could be used for Chat Control – despite being registered as a charity organization in the EU’s lobbying registry.

And then?

And then it was revealed that Thorn, together with the EU Commission, had also started and funded “children’s rights organizations” that had supported the proposal. What appeared publicly to be charitable organizations were in fact lobby groups.

And then?

And then it was revealed that Europol wanted unlimited access and wanted to use the scanning for more than just child abuse crimes, saying that all data – also unfiltered and innocent material – should be stored because it “could at some point be useful to law enforcement”.

And then?

And then it was revealed that employees at Europol had joined Thorn, to lobby their old colleagues.

And then?

And then politicians in Brussels wanted to exempt themselves from the scanning.

And then?

And then the European Parliament, in an almost historic consensus, voted against the proposal and called Chat Control nothing but mass surveillance. As one of the members of the parliament said: “The Commission wasn’t focusing on protecting children but wanted mass surveillance.”

And then?

And then The Council of the EU (law proposals must go through both the Parliament and the Council), after three years of negotiation, finally reached a common position on Chat Control. The requirement for mandatory scanning (including end-to-end encrypted messaging services) was removed, which is a major victory, but several problematic elements remain in the Council's position. For instance, the Council wants to demand ID Control to use messaging services (including end-to-end encrypted).

And then?

And then, in 2026 the final negotiations began, between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the EU. At the same time, the European Commission is working on a Plan B, through the initiative Going Dark/ProtectEU, where they once again try to force total surveillance (this time organized crime is the excuse) on the citizens of the EU.

And then?

https://t.co/2uxBeeNr3p