They were developing it and making money from it, so that's "running it" by all but the most boring pedantic definition.

Ethereum is a protocol and a tool, which Tornado used it to knowingly profit from illegal transactions. Ethereum is somewhat akin (not identical) to USD, and Tornado somewhat akin to a bank operating with USD outside of the law.

I was unaware I need to get a university law degree before commenting here.

Laws are all about boring pedantic definitions. And when you talk about what counts as ignoring laws, or about what consequences people "can expect", those definitions matter.

I am obviously not argueing this case in court here, and expecting the same standard from random HN commentors is not reasonable. The basic facts from my previous comment are accurate and have been widely reported for a long time, and it's pretty clear what's intended. Trying to nitpick on the exact language as some form of "rebuke" is not exactly constructive.

> Ethereum is somewhat akin (not identical) to USD, and Tornado somewhat akin to a bank operating with USD outside of the law.

Many people are arguing that Ethereum node operators should be on the hook when they facilitate Tornado Cash transactions through their participation on the network. I'm glad we can count on your support should such arguments ever be pursued legally. Thank you.