On August 25, 2024, Pavel Durov, the CEO of Telegram, was arrested in France. The charges against him include failing to prevent Telegram from being used for criminal purposes.
Telegram, created by Pavel Durov, is known for its high level of security and anonymity, making it a popular tool for bypassing government censorship, particularly in countries that restrict freedom of expression. However, due to these features, it has also been criticized for being exploited for criminal activities. Several countries have attempted to ban or regulate Telegram for this reason.
After Pavel Durov's arrest, opinions on the matter have varied widely. On August 26, 2024, French President Emmanuel Macron claimed that Durov's arrest was not politically motivated but rather a lawful action, stressing the importance of regulating criminal activity on platforms like Telegram. Macron emphasized that freedom on such platforms must operate within the boundaries of the law.
Alex Hern, a technology expert at The Guardian, argued that Durov's arrest could lead to overregulation by platform operators. However, he also highlighted that platforms must bear responsibility for illegal activities, particularly criticizing Telegram for being used by extremists and suggesting that Durov cannot avoid this responsibility.
Source: Elon Musk X
On the other hand, Elon Musk expressed his support for Durov by using the hashtag #FreePavel on his X (formerly Twitter) account. He warned about the dangers of censorship in Europe, sarcastically suggesting a scenario in which people could be executed in 2030 just for liking a meme.
Source: Vitalik Buterin X
Vitalik Buterin also voiced concerns about the impact of Durov's arrest on software and communication freedom. While he had previously criticized Telegram’s encryption methods, he now warned that this arrest sets a dangerous precedent for software and expression freedom in Europe.
In light of the debate over the appropriateness of Pavel Durov’s arrest, one might wonder why this issue had to culminate in the arrest of the founder. Upon reflection, I concluded that the root cause is the excessive dependence of the service on individuals like the founder or CEO.
To elaborate, the fundamental problem that led to this misguided resolution is the lack of independence between the service and a singular leader, such as the founder. Independence between the service and the person in charge means that no individual, without following due process, can influence or interfere with the decision-making of the service. While companies often have boards of directors to gather opinions, if the board only echoes the CEO’s opinions, situations like Telegram’s are unavoidable.
Source: Unsplash
France exploited this weakness by "checkmating" Telegram. In Telegram’s case, Pavel Durov effectively played the role of a single responsible individual. Since Telegram strongly emphasizes privacy, it has been reluctant to provide user data for investigations or legal disputes. As many countries, including France, struggled with this, France took advantage of Durov's presence in their country. By arresting Durov, the French government applied its most powerful pressure on Telegram.
Source: db X
Of course, since an investigation into the Telegram corporation itself has not been initiated, Telegram services do not need to take any action until such an investigation is underway.
Durov, who fully owns Telegram, said the company had “been offered $30bn-plus valuations” from potential investors including “global late-stage tech funds”, but has ruled out selling the platform while it explores a future initial public offering.
However, if the founder of Telegram, a private company, is personally detained, it would be practically difficult for the company to act independently. The founder may even be forced to sacrifice the service in an attempt to quickly escape this situation. As a result, it is no coincidence that small changes have been detected in Telegram's FAQ content, as seen in the above image.
How can services be made independent of their leaders?
This is a challenging task because humans still handle most activities in service operations. However, with the advent of blockchain and Ethereum, the concept of smart contracts emerged, enabling services to automate certain functions without human intervention (services that operate on smart contracts are called DApps).
A smart contract is a key component of blockchain technology. It is an autonomous, decentralized program that automatically executes when predetermined conditions are met. One of its characteristics is that "once deployed, it permanently remains on the blockchain network and operates autonomously without being tampered with by external forces." The reasons for this are as follows:
Immutability of Blockchain
Once a smart contract is deployed on the blockchain, it is permanently stored on the network, and altering this data requires the consensus of network nodes. This ensures that no one can arbitrarily change the logic or code of the smart contract once deployed.
Autonomy of Smart Contracts
Smart contracts automatically execute based on predetermined conditions after being deployed on the blockchain. No one can interfere with or halt their execution. This means that a smart contract, once deployed, operates autonomously without external manipulation.
Of course, the downside is that smart contracts must be deployed with great care due to their rigid nature. However, this same rigidity ensures that services can be fully independent of their founders.
By using smart contracts to set predetermined rules and processes for a service and separating the system from human intervention, a service can continue operating without interference, even if the founder is arrested.
A prime example of this independence between service and individual is the Tornado Cash case.
Source: Tornado Cash X
Tornado Cash is a privacy-focused mixing service on the Ethereum network that helps users conceal their transaction history, enhancing anonymity. While blockchain transactions are transparently recorded, Tornado Cash obscures the transaction path, protecting privacy.
In August 2022, one of Tornado Cash’s developers, Alexey Pertsev, was arrested by Dutch authorities. The arrest followed the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) placing Tornado Cash on its sanctions list due to its alleged use in illegal activities like the large-scale cryptocurrency hacks attributed to the North Korean hacker group Lazarus. Dutch authorities arrested Pertsev, claiming that he was responsible for providing a tool that facilitated money laundering.
This arrest ignited a debate in the Web3 community about the freedom of code and privacy rights. Some legal experts criticized OFAC and the Dutch government for overreaching, arguing that open-source software should be neutral, and only users who commit illegal acts should be held accountable.
Source: Tornado Cash Classic Ethereum Mainnet Smart Contract Address
Despite the controversy, Tornado Cash remains operational as it had already been deployed as a smart contract on the Ethereum network, fully independent of its creators. This independence has allowed Tornado Cash to continue functioning according to its original code, even as its developer remains detained.
Source: Unsplash
The fundamental philosophy behind blockchain, starting with Bitcoin, is to prevent the centralization of power in a world where trust is hard to come by. With the arrest of Telegram’s founder, signs of policy-driven instability around the service have emerged. Users are beginning to worry that their privacy may no longer be protected, a situation that is far from ideal for the company. Unless services are made more independent from their founders, this risk will persist, and future situations like Telegram’s will be hard to avoid.
While the shift towards smart contract-based services that are independent of individuals may take time, it could help save costs and resources wasted on risks like the arrest of a responsible leader. In the future, outside forces may recognize that targeting a service’s leader is ineffective, and incidents like the Telegram crisis may no longer make headlines.
Related Articles, News, Tweets etc. :
