The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to
invest and donate $100 in bitcoin to startups which directly or indirectly
support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given to the following
niches: protection of personal data, tools for anonymity, cryptocurrency
This is really cool.
An anonymous group has set up a fund to invest $75M in Bitcoin into companies that are building tools for privacy and anonymity.
What did they call it? The Unknown Fund.
Another solid effort to protect us all.
"The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to invest and donate $75 million in #bitcoin to startups which directly or indirectly support the idea of anonymity." 👀
venture altruism is beginning... funding the tools for the resistance ❤️
love this idea behind the unknown fund
gooose123Bronze | QC: CC 21 | r/Privacy 103 weeks ago
Would be really awesome for some of the funds to mobilize Opacity's mission of decentralized anonymous/private cloud storage. They're very focused and already have a platform which can be used for storage with encryption, and zero-knowledge. No credit card needed, and none of the ID details of any traditional storage platform (name/address/email).. They're in a bind for funds to take it to the next level. Very passionate team <3
Would be really great for some of the funds to mobilize Opacity's mission of decentralized anonymous/private cloud storage. They're very focused and already have a platform which can be used for storage with encryption, and zero-knowledge. They're in a bind for funds to take it to the next level. Very passionate team.
While on the face it's a great announcement, some thoughts to moderate enthusiasm with a bit of caution.
When first announced, the website talked about $100 million, not $75m. There are still tweets around showing that and asking what it's about. $25m is a big chunk to suddenly change your mind about after announcement, but ok.
People have asked for proof of funds. After being announced, the site is soliciting contact via email. To be sure it's not a phishing scam, let's see what proof of funds they can provide to the public.
It seems questionable at least to me, that a totally anonymous organization would use announce to use BTC as a vehicle to dole out money, without at least offering more private ways of receiving donations right from the start. BTC is probably the most scrutinized & analyzed chain. Blockchains more amenable to private transactions do exist. So why not use them? At best it's just maxi advertizing for BTC, at worst it's looking to gather more data on precisely those who aim to stop that - the privacy promoting orgs.
Awareness of reputational attacks through tainted funds. MIT Media Lab, Epstein. Enough said? Maybe not. Epstein didn't kill himself. But don't let these people kill projects by being careless about accepting funds. Due diligence. Anonymity is the real bugbear of the wanna-be authoritarians that fight Bitcoin through various dirty trick plays. They hate nothing more than strong anonymity, spend billions each year on deconstructing it in whichever ways they can. Spending a small amount of dirty money to associate anonymity and privacy with some filthy crimes (which does happen, there is no denying that some heinous criminals also seek privacy and anonymity) ... this would be a cheap win in the court of uninformed public opinion.
The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin [core] to startups which directly or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain
The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard.
Just a bunch of dudes who met on 4chan and are now dropping $75 million... sounds legit!
marckolind5 - 6 years account age. 300 - 600 comment karma.4 weeks ago
There's so many ways to hide your identity when dealing with crypto. You can use Monero, but it's not feasible for everyone to use I guess.
Next thing, you could argue that trading isn't anonymous - Depends if you're trading on a centralized exchange like Binance/Bittrex/Kraken, or a decentralized exchange like the Blocknet DEX, which basically doesn't need anyone to signup, share personal KYC documents etc.
Most DEX projects today, lacks volume big time, but we had the same problem with BTC back in 2009, no one took it serious, or accepted it as a means of payment
>You can use Monero, but it's not feasible for everyone to use I guess.
* Plenty of fiat/XMR exchanges around
* Multiple wallets including light mobile wallets (Android & Apple)
* Cheaper, faster and more private than BTC
* Pay anywhere that accepts BTC using xmr.to or shapeshift
I'm genuinely baffled that people would use anything else.
I'd argue there isn't a middle class use case for strong anonymity. There are tons of use cases for identity and privacy, but anonymity presumes you are being preyed upon somehow. You need antagonists, and most of those are government/institution related, but by defining yourself in opposition to them, you in-effect leave the middle class. E.g. cease to identify as someone those institutions ostensibly serve, and identify instead as one of those they target.
To value strong anonymity, you need to be part of either an underclass group, or have enough wealth that it needs protection internationally, with a big gap for use cases in between.
There are tons of criminal use cases for anonymity that facilitate the needs and desperation of people afflicted by poverty, but those are illegal precisely because the line between relieving and exploiting poverty is so grey. Lotteries are a great example, as are cash jobs, narco logistics, vice and sex trade, short term loans, gambling, escrow payments for irregular immigration. These are all things people do for either survival or relief where to facilitate them is exploitative. Arguable, but that's the mainstream view.
On the upper end, moving collateral around to protect the "beneficial owner," of an asset like art or property just reduces to variations on tax and regulatory avoidance, or sometimes evasion. It's almost uniquely both high risk and boring.
I don't see this fund producing anything interesting.
Is it not a little ironic that this payout is in bitcoin, that has been repeatedly shown to be the furthest thing from anonymous? Would they not be better off exchanging it for a coin with baked in anonymity?
I salute this initiative but the focus on corporate surveillance is a bit strange. Snowden demonstrated that corporations either don't have a choice or are complicit in surveillance, why not target the source of the problem which seems to be the regulators who have been hijacked from within? I mean the problem is not technological, it's political.
I find the use of a ProtonMail address to be interesting. Don't they require the use of an existing email address, phone number, or credit card/PayPal donation to create an account? I just tried creating an account via Tor for test purposes, and it was immediately disabled "for abuse or fraud".
Couldn't this mean that some entity could submit a legal request to ProtonMail for said information in the event of an investigation?
Edit: The site is also hosted on Squarespace. Why not something more anonymous, like an onion service, IPFS, ZeroNet, etc?
I think this "solution" is the exact inverse of what is actually needed: Strong identity and attribution.
identity need not be just an "individual". It can be a group of individuals that agree to mutually sign data before dissemination.
Individuals, corporations and your toaster can create as many identities as necessary.
Right now we are all living seemingly schizoid lifestyle because we are forced to partition multiple selves into molds that are being provided to us.
The partitioning is necessary for organizing information. But the way it is partitioned should be flexible enough for the end user to have the ultimate say in what and how that information is curated. Currently, all we have are blackbox "algorithms." People are asking for transparency, thinking this will solve the problem. I think it will only lead to obfuscating the problem even more so.
Until the individual has unfettered control, we will always be playing this game.
I really wish conversations would wind back to towards discussing ideas tangential to the web of trust...
I think that problem was hard to solve for a reason. Being impossible not being one of them... but an easy position to sell if you feared the consequences ultimately lead to a loss of control.