L0la L33tz's avatar
L0la L33tz L0laL33tz@cashu.me 6 months ago
Google has changed its Play Store Policy in response to our reporting. Here's why this is a big deal for developers. Since our story yesterday, several people reached out to me about Google Play Store delisting non-custodial wallets well before the policy in question came into effect in July, asking for local licenses under what was previously known as their Blockchain-based Content Policy. One of these wallets was Electrum Wallet, who thankfully documented their ordeal with the Google Play Store publicly. It seems that as soon as a local jurisdiction codified licensing requirements for software wallets, Google wanted to see that the developers obtained said license, making no distinction between custodial and non-custodial wallets. If no license was provided, it appears that Google auto-banned flagged wallets for policy violations, leaving it up to the developers to prove that they did not need a license under local laws. In the case of Electrum Wallet, getting their wallet back into the Play Store took over 100 days. That's 100 days in which no new installs were possible, while existing users weren't able to pull updates. A big deal, seeing how some updates push critical security fixes. By fixing their newest policy to now specifically exempt non-custodial wallets, non-custodial wallet developers will no longer have to prove that they don't need a license if they are flagged, but can simply point to the fact that they are a non-custodial application, referencing Google's own policy. Never thought I'd say this, but thank you Google for fixing this, and thanks to everyone who helped raise hell to make it happen. Let this be your reminder that protesting injustices actually works, and that we should be doing a lot more of it. As a side note, I am open for apologies and do not hold grudges for dumb takes (@`Jameson Lopp`) image

Replies (21)

Default avatar
Duvel 6 months ago
In the near future Google and Apple could just ban non-custodial wallets from their app store. For me, thus is a lesson to not depend on apps from the app store.
Jameson Lopp's avatar
Jameson Lopp lopp@lopp.net 6 months ago
You chose to create news rather than report news. Understandable given the incentive to drive attention, but not really a best practice for journalism. More specifically, you chose to interpret Google's (admittedly poorly worded) policy without actually doing the legwork of asking them first. Next, your article claimed self custody apps were being banned while providing zero actual examples. As a self custody app publisher who pushes builds every few days, Casa is keenly aware of policy changes and we knew that no such interpretation was being applied upon us. Your fearmongering caused some of our clients to freak out and flood our support team, questioning if Casa's app was going to abruptly disappear. It's commendable that you got Google to clarify their policy. But it could have been achieved without the stress and drama.
1 replies ↓
Jameson Lopp's avatar
Jameson Lopp lopp@lopp.net 6 months ago
You chose to create news rather than report news. Understandable given the incentive to drive attention, but not really a best practice for journalism. More specifically, you chose to interpret Google's (admittedly poorly worded) policy without actually doing the legwork of asking them first. Next, your article claimed self custody apps were being banned while providing zero actual examples. As a self custody app publisher who pushes builds every few days, Casa is keenly aware of policy changes and we knew that no such interpretation was being applied upon us. Your fearmongering caused some of our clients to freak out and flood our support team, questioning if Casa's app was going to abruptly disappear. It's commendable that you got Google to clarify their policy. But I dare say it could have been achieved without the stress and drama.
2 replies ↓
Jameson Lopp's avatar
Jameson Lopp lopp@lopp.net 6 months ago
She's referring to my objection with how this issue was reported.
Jameson Lopp's avatar Jameson Lopp
You chose to create news rather than report news. Understandable given the incentive to drive attention, but not really a best practice for journalism. More specifically, you chose to interpret Google's (admittedly poorly worded) policy without actually doing the legwork of asking them first. Next, your article claimed self custody apps were being banned while providing zero actual examples. As a self custody app publisher who pushes builds every few days, Casa is keenly aware of policy changes and we knew that no such interpretation was being applied upon us. Your fearmongering caused some of our clients to freak out and flood our support team, questioning if Casa's app was going to abruptly disappear. It's commendable that you got Google to clarify their policy. But it could have been achieved without the stress and drama.
View quoted note →
Sotashi Nokamato's avatar
Sotashi Nokamato 6 months ago
Google and windows are restricting liberty and privacy of their customers since the beginning that’s why you should never use them. Thx Lola for these investigations
xSilentG's avatar
xSilentG 5 months ago
GM 😘 ☕ Dear Google, Thank you for fixing your fkup. Please refrain from further fuckery. I will not apologize for flipping the finger at a monopolizing corporate surveillance apparatus approaching obsoletion. Google is welcome to inquire about remaining relevant in the near future. Fucking with devops will accelerate obsoletion. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 😊🌻
Spotify
Fafo
Alter Ego-Incognito · Fafo · Song · 2025
L0la L33tz's avatar L0la L33tz
Google has changed its Play Store Policy in response to our reporting. Here's why this is a big deal for developers. Since our story yesterday, several people reached out to me about Google Play Store delisting non-custodial wallets well before the policy in question came into effect in July, asking for local licenses under what was previously known as their Blockchain-based Content Policy. One of these wallets was Electrum Wallet, who thankfully documented their ordeal with the Google Play Store publicly. It seems that as soon as a local jurisdiction codified licensing requirements for software wallets, Google wanted to see that the developers obtained said license, making no distinction between custodial and non-custodial wallets. If no license was provided, it appears that Google auto-banned flagged wallets for policy violations, leaving it up to the developers to prove that they did not need a license under local laws. In the case of Electrum Wallet, getting their wallet back into the Play Store took over 100 days. That's 100 days in which no new installs were possible, while existing users weren't able to pull updates. A big deal, seeing how some updates push critical security fixes. By fixing their newest policy to now specifically exempt non-custodial wallets, non-custodial wallet developers will no longer have to prove that they don't need a license if they are flagged, but can simply point to the fact that they are a non-custodial application, referencing Google's own policy. Never thought I'd say this, but thank you Google for fixing this, and thanks to everyone who helped raise hell to make it happen. Let this be your reminder that protesting injustices actually works, and that we should be doing a lot more of it. As a side note, I am open for apologies and do not hold grudges for dumb takes (@`Jameson Lopp`) image
View quoted note →
↑