Throughout the evolution of cryptocurrency, few cases have sparked such widespread discussion as the mixer controversy—covering privacy rights, developer responsibilities, regulatory boundaries, and even the legal protection of open-source code. This is not just a technical story; it is a microcosm of the collision between Web3 innovation and anti-money laundering enforcement.
**What is a mixer?**
Simply put, a mixer is a privacy tool for cryptocurrencies. It operates on EVM-compatible blockchains like Ethereum, using zero-knowledge proof technology to enable anonymous transactions. Users deposit funds into a "pool," the protocol shuffles the source of funds, and then allows you to withdraw an equivalent amount from a different address—thus hiding the transaction trail, somewhat like cash transactions in the real world.
**Origin and design philosophy of the project**
In 2019, three Russian-origin developers—Roman Storm, Roman Semenov, and Alexey Pertsev—founded this project. Most importantly, in May 2020, they permanently relinquished control of the protocol through a "trustless setup ceremony." Once this ceremony was completed, the smart contract became immutable, unchangeable by anyone, including the founders themselves. The original intention was to create a truly decentralized system, but this choice later became the focal point of legal disputes.
**Why has it become a controversy?**
The U.S. government alleges that the protocol was used to launder over $7 billion. The most famous case involved North Korean hacker group Lazarus, which stole $455 million in a security breach and laundered the funds through this tool. This raises a dilemma: a system that is technically fully decentralized and where developers have relinquished control—who should be responsible for its misuse? The developers? The users? Or does the technology itself inherently not deserve to exist?
The balance between privacy tools and anti-money laundering enforcement has always been one of the most sensitive topics in the crypto ecosystem.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
13 Likes
Reward
13
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
TideReceder
· 4h ago
Can you still be held accountable after relinquishing control? That logic is really clever; the US's move is indeed ruthless.
View OriginalReply0
MissingSats
· 13h ago
Giving up control has become the excuse for taking the blame; this move is truly brilliant.
View OriginalReply0
StablecoinGuardian
· 13h ago
Honestly, the developers have already given up control, and now they're the ones catching people. How can this logic be so absurd?
View OriginalReply0
memecoin_therapy
· 13h ago
Abandoning control to avoid responsibility? That's naive, brother. The regulatory sword has been sharpened for a long time.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropFatigue
· 13h ago
To be honest, giving up control is a bit naive... The US government doesn't care whether you're technically decentralized or not; they will still hold you accountable.
View OriginalReply0
RadioShackKnight
· 13h ago
Giving up control has become the excuse for taking the blame, this logic is brilliant
View OriginalReply0
BTCWaveRider
· 13h ago
Honestly, is the contradiction between decentralization and legality really such a deadlock? Developers have already given up control, and you're still trying to catch them. Where does this logic hold up?
Throughout the evolution of cryptocurrency, few cases have sparked such widespread discussion as the mixer controversy—covering privacy rights, developer responsibilities, regulatory boundaries, and even the legal protection of open-source code. This is not just a technical story; it is a microcosm of the collision between Web3 innovation and anti-money laundering enforcement.
**What is a mixer?**
Simply put, a mixer is a privacy tool for cryptocurrencies. It operates on EVM-compatible blockchains like Ethereum, using zero-knowledge proof technology to enable anonymous transactions. Users deposit funds into a "pool," the protocol shuffles the source of funds, and then allows you to withdraw an equivalent amount from a different address—thus hiding the transaction trail, somewhat like cash transactions in the real world.
**Origin and design philosophy of the project**
In 2019, three Russian-origin developers—Roman Storm, Roman Semenov, and Alexey Pertsev—founded this project. Most importantly, in May 2020, they permanently relinquished control of the protocol through a "trustless setup ceremony." Once this ceremony was completed, the smart contract became immutable, unchangeable by anyone, including the founders themselves. The original intention was to create a truly decentralized system, but this choice later became the focal point of legal disputes.
**Why has it become a controversy?**
The U.S. government alleges that the protocol was used to launder over $7 billion. The most famous case involved North Korean hacker group Lazarus, which stole $455 million in a security breach and laundered the funds through this tool. This raises a dilemma: a system that is technically fully decentralized and where developers have relinquished control—who should be responsible for its misuse? The developers? The users? Or does the technology itself inherently not deserve to exist?
The balance between privacy tools and anti-money laundering enforcement has always been one of the most sensitive topics in the crypto ecosystem.