pull down to refresh

I'm genuinely curious if one runs the risk of running afoul of regulations in certain jurisdictions by holding funds on behalf of users. And if so, has anyone thought of an implementation that does not require stacker.news (or similar site) to host funds (not-custodial)?
Why would you put yourself and with your own consent under jurisdiction of anybody? Only slaves do that. Bitcoiners are sovereign individuals not nocoiner slaves. Please read this https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/natural-law-and-bitcoin
reply
With my authority as the Honorable Chief Supreme President Commander of the Universe, I hereby decree that Stacker News requires a money transmitter license for my jurisdiction. Please send 200 BTC immediately in order to comply 😂😂😂
reply
I will gladly accept your contract offer, but only if you send me back 400 BTC 😂😂😂
reply
How did I miss your article about Natural Law! Great read. Thanks!
reply
The goal is to never ask these questions, do not ask for permission.
reply
Yes always this!
reply
I'll allow it. I hereby consent everyone to be sovereign
reply
i often think of it like if you have a zebra and a horse. you can paint the horse but it does not become a zebra.
reply
We’ll be non-custodial and decentralized by the end of next year. I’d love SN TO get hit with some kind of legal thing though. We can really use the PR.
reply
👀 Looking forward to seeing how you design this
reply
reply