Easy! IRS says you have crypto! You say you dont! IRS throws you in jail! But cant access your crypto! Eventually they run out of money since prisons run on tax dollars and they are not receiving money because they cannot seize it. The prison guards quit their jobs since prisons use tax $$. And you walk free. Crypto wins in the end.
The rhetoric and philosophy of agorism is appealing, but I have to ask, why do they like to make Capitalism their boogyman? A cursory look at the economics of what goes on shows that in just about every instance it is government sanctioned monopoly that causes these sorts of problems.
> why do they like to make Capitalism their boogyman?
If I understand correctly, SEK3 saw capitalism as inherently dependent on the state. In a sense, while some people may (attempt to) distinguish "crony capitalism" from "pure free-market voluntaryist capitalism" or the like, SEK3 saw only "crony capitalism". I might have misunderstood these things, though.
Consider [the C4SS' Market Anarchism FAQs](https://c4ss.org/market-anarchism-faq-2).
My read on their document (https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-28437.pdf) is that their first focus is on the fiat gateways, increasing what they are required to record/report on to include basically all transactions. So not just fiat/cypto conversions, but transactions from the exchange to your wallet as well.
They continually mention "unhosted" wallets, wallets that interact directly with the blockchain. It's a little murky what they mean exactly, it's not quite a direct attack on wallets, but it's clear that they want to increase the amount of reporting required around wallets.
Lastly, the anti-structuring stuff - "engaging in transactions in a manner to avoid reporting requirement." This is also pretty vague, we can assume it means anything they don't like. My first thought was that this might be designed to ensnare things like DEXs or anything peer-to-peer.
" It's a little murky what they mean exactly, " They don't know what they mean... So the only thing to do is not comply...
Just do the best you can do in good faith in the face of regulatory ignorance.
I don't day trade regularly but the US idiocy in NOT understanding the nature of crypto has cost this nation billions upon billions of lost revenue. The regulators need to swept aside until they catch up or put time and effort into cleaning up their mess... or certain US states need to rise up and be safe haven's and champions for crypto. Wyoming would be one of those states.
I agree that it's discouraging and stopping it outright is a long-shot, but it's a shot. There are cascading goals though. If it can't be stopped, enough letter volume could delay it into the next administration because they can't all be considered in time or strengthen future court cases against it because letters were ignored. It's worth fighting for.
This isn't forward thinking enough. There will be a time where they can trace your wallet to your name. If you hide it then hope no quantum computing platform/AI can link your activity or you'll get hit with money laundering, fraud and whatever else.
Yea let me just be afraid of quantum computing ai in 2020. You're ignorant and your argument is falling apart. On top of quantum computing would open up a billion possibilities it's not even worth discussing. It's like people in this sub have never heard of monero and no KYC platforms.
Your words match your name. Do you think it'll disappear in 2021 or 2030 maybe 2050? You will get nailed and it'll be funny when I see statistics of fools who think they can game the system and not be labelled a criminal then punished by most world organizations.
You can't even see what's coming and it is hilarious.
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but do these things work? Like if several thousand people would leave their comments on their page, is there any chance they would re-consider their stance? Seems to me that they have already made up their mind and that would be a wasted effort at this point. Since when did regulators start listening to people? They will do whatever benefits them more.
Yup, it is just an illusion to make people believe they consider our opinion. We are under a slave system with "democratic" window dressing.
Best thing to do is leave no comments at all to demonstrate that no one cares what these criminals are threatening, they have become irrelevant. Do not negotiate with terrorists.
There is hope that 1) there are guys at Treasury wanting to do the right thing who will be strengthened by thoughtful comments, 2) if not, thoughtful comments in large numbers will take so long to consider that they will push the process into the new administration, 3) if not, many thoughtful comments left ignored will weaken the Treasury's position in later court cases.
It's pathetic really. Not only is it ridiculous, incompetent, and power hungry, it'll also likely be entirely ineffective. AML and KYC are already historically ineffective policies that don't stop criminals, and I don't understand how this would help anything.
It also shows total ignorance of how cryptocurrency works, it's potential, and how it will grow. It'll wreck DeFi. It's a huge privacy infringement and is the antithesis of crypto in general. Not only that, this level of privacy infringement is disturbing and likely should be unconstitutional, if nothing else because of the 10th Amendment.
It’s about taxes.
Criminals don’t care about laws and rules. If they want to send someone crypto for some guns or drugs they will send it. Most of the time the crypto will simply move from one address to another and it will mean nothing to law enforcement. There will be a few cases where the seller will have possibly tainted BTC in an address and swap and wash it like they have done for years. The crime will have been committed long prior to them spending the BTC. And having tainted BTC could happen to anyone. You could be a vendor selling paintings for BTC and a person coming along to send you .1 BTC for your 10’ square painting in your gallery will seem like a great pay day. You accept and hand over the painting. But you didn’t know that person had a friend that has a cousin criminal. The criminal sent his cousin 1 BTC for Christmas. The cousin owed his friend and sent him .25 BTC. And that friend paid for the painting. Now a painter with a gallery has “tainted BTC” does he go to jail. Does the FBI come raid his gallery?
yes you know criminals dont even use their own names they use stolen identities or they use hookers or homless people to do that kyc stuff so their names are protected and they can do whatever they want with these accounts kyc or aml are inefficient to stop criminals their are lots of loopholes in the system its really stupid
I believe in paying my taxes. And I don’t want others evading them. That being said I’m going to have a good read of the proposal now to see what I really think of it and pass on my comments to them.
Edit: ok I began writing out my comment for fincen but am incredibly tired so will continue tomorrow. My main argument was that this proposal will stifle innovation. I think instead they should work with the big project come up with some guidelines on what a crypto identity system should work like on chain.
Right but then you should be voting for a party that believes in no taxes then. You can’t just refuse to pay taxes you unless you also believe that laws don’t need to be followed? In which case you are saying that you believe you are outside the law. In that case your solution is to make yourself domiciled in a zero tax country.
You can’t be part of a country , yet expect this fincen thing to aid you in your fight against zero taxes... they are just following the rules .your beef is with the country you are in , not fincen in that case.
This is a good idea, it will accelerate the destruction of non-private cryptos, coins like monero will flourish, there will be more privacy and the government will lose tax revenue. Don't stop your enemy when they are making mistakes. By passing this legislation, the treasury has just opened a pandora's box. Development into encrypted blockchains is going to skyrocket. I support cryptos, but as soon as a crypto is legally a security, its nothing more than a tool of the banking system. As soon as someone is taxing you for owning a crypto, that crypto has lost the game, IMHO.
This is an awful take. If you think Monero will somehow be exempt from all of this, then you're incredibly naive.
In fact, I would say there is a very real possibility that, when the dust settles on all the upcoming crypto regulation legislation (and it is definitely coming), lawmakers could very well agree to "go easier" on cryptos that have transparent blockchains due to the ease with which they will be able to regulate them as compared to privacy coins such as Monero, which they could quite possibly just make illegal to own/trade.
Before the reactionaries in this sub rush to click the downvote button on this comment, you should know these actions do not reflect my opinion on this matter, it's merely just one very possible outcome that people here seem to be overlooking.
And while one (or two or three or several) nations making it illegal to trade privacy coins like Monero may not be enough to kill it outright, I imagine it will have quite the effect on price and trade volume.
The technology behind Monero is great. It's what people who don't understand Bitcoin think Bitcoin is. Unfortunately, the tech isn't the only variable in this equation. If it were, Monero would have taken its rightful spot as Bitcoin's successor years ago.
Yeah, no. Monero is actually more compliant with banking laws than you would expect. If you check (I believe) the Monero Research Lab or whatever it's called, the nice folks there paid for a bunch of lawyers to do lawyer things and put well reasoned opinion to paper.
I just don't buy the argument here. It's one possible outcome sure. Another is the value increases of Monero. Another is a quicker push to develop tech or exchanges that make restrictive regulations moot. Another is the dark world continues business as usual and those using crypto for non illict activity take the hit from regs.
I also believe it will make more users open their eyes to privacy. However I'm a little sad that it will likely be a confirmation that XMR will not achieve full regulatory approval in the future. Not that it needs to be approved to be successful; I've been using xmr for years without an exchange. but I at least had some hope.
I did not say banned; I do not think Monero will be banned.
I just want it to get added to the NY BitLicense, I want Coinbase to list it, and I want some confirmation from Janet Yellen that privacy coins can be given a full greenlight. I want there to be a verbal confirmation or statement that businesses & investment funds can feel comfortable pouring some big bucks in. There won't be institutional holdings until xmr leaves the world of uncertainty.
Right now it just sits in this kind of limbo of "will they or won't they?" Which again, hasn't affected its usage or price much, and isn't an essential. Hell, I have been using XMR plenty in NY despite having an effective pseudo-ban on it. My comment was to say that with these new laws it seems like a lean more towards "they won't."
Again, not a ban, just a lack of total go-ahead approval.
(And on a final note... something being unconstitutional has never stopped the government before. I don't want to get sidetracked into talking about an XMR ban because I DO NOT insinuate that such a ban is forthcoming. But things like the Patriot Act, civil asset forfeiture, and the NSA PRISM program are all ridiculously unconstitutional and yet here we are)
>I did not say banned; I do not think Monero will be banned.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that.
>There won't be institutional holdings until xmr leaves the world of uncertainty.
Do you think there would be significant institutional holdings even if it gets an explicit green-light? I can see businesses holding Monero as part of their balance sheet, and actually using it as a currency, since Monero will let them transact privately without revealing their providers and clients to competition. And I also can see really wealthy individuals or families holding some of their wealth in Monero, etc. Or even governments or governmental branches holding some Monero for transacting privately, etc. But it's a little harder for me to imagine institutions investing in Monero, since they don't really care a lot about privacy, fungibility, or cheap fees. I only see them investing in Monero after hyperbitconization has already happened and they start searching for a hedge against it. Today Bitcoin is the hedge for them. So, I don't see them investing in Monero even with regulatory certainty in the near future. Although I can see great adoption of Monero by individuals, businesses, and maybe governments, which could actually result in people using Monero more than Bitcoin on a day to day basis.
>(And on a final note... something being unconstitutional has never stopped the government before. I don't want to get sidetracked into talking about an XMR ban because I DO NOT insinuate that such a ban is forthcoming. But things like the Patriot Act, civil asset forfeiture, and the NSA PRISM program are all ridiculously unconstitutional and yet here we are)
Unfortunately that's true. Although even if the US and some other nations go full authoritarian and outright ban privacy coins, I still see Monero thriving under other jurisdictions. But yeah, we don't want to deal with that bullshit, so we should be ready to fight against attempts to criminalize privacy coins, or other bullshit regulations that hurt cryptocurrency adoption in general like the one being discussed in this post.
DeFi is **huge** in the Ethereum ecosystem at the moment. Decentralized exchanges like Uniswap currently have several billions of dollars of liquidity locked into their smart contracts.
It's definitely a bubble, and regulators seem to be licking their chops at the thought of cracking down and getting a piece of the pie... But for the last 10 months or so, DeFi has absolutely exploded on ETH.
And while yea, the transparency of it all may mean that I could have to pay taxes on it (though layer-2 privacy solutions such as zk-rollups do exist), but despite that I have made a decent amount of money this year by cutting out the unnecessary middlemen and taking advantage of decentralized finance. Decent by my standards at least.
There is no doubt in my mind that what I have seen in this past year is the future of finance... that is, unless/until the bank lobby kills it first.
Yeah there's support but like 90+% of trades are between those 2. That's where all the liquidity is
Honestly it's fine for me because those are the only 2 I ever deal with
The big problem with bisq is getting from fiat to crypto
I'm against government invasion of personal privacy. Those same beliefs that make me support Monero make me angry at this intrusive regulation. And though--yes--it hurts transparent-blockchain cryptocurrencies more than it hurts Monero, it also hurts Monero because you get reported at the onramp. Any gains are only relative to those other cryptos, not absolute.