Inspired by https://www.fullstackeconomics.com/p/its-time-to-get-serious-about-regulating, particularly this quote:
As I pointed out at the time, the US government’s arguments against Liberty Reserve could easily be used against Bitcoin. Indeed, I believe this is a big reason Satoshi Nakamoto chose to create Bitcoin using a pseudonym: If he had identified himself, he might have wound up in prison like Liberty Reserve founder Arthur Budovsky.
Note that the rationale behind the imprisonment must simply be the creation of the cryptocurrency, not what they do with it later. SBF may go to prison, but it wasn't for creating FTT.
In the event that the crimes they were charged with were something other than the creation of the cryptocurrency but it seems motivated by that, I'll resolve to PROB based on how much of the true reason for the government's focus on them seems to be the creation of the currency.
Related questions
What if they investigate someone for creating a cryptocurrency, but it's easier to convict them on some other charge? i.e. Al Capone and tax evasion, "lying to the FBI", or just having an officer tail them and find some crime. The "stated rationale" is whatever's easiest to get a conviction for, not their "true rationale".
What if they're charged for a crime that would qualify, but plead guilty to a different crime to get a lighter sentence? But it's likely they would be convicted if it went to trial for the original crime.
@Mira Hmm. I'll resolve to PROB based on how much of the true reason for the government's focus on them is the creation of the currency.
I guess this probably doesn't count and is not really in the spirit of this question, but it is close.