3 ms·
> I wouldn't recommend using this for non-trivial amounts of money for hopefully obvious reasons Hey Tom! Guy from the article here. First off, thanks for Meta
by auston 9y ago
> I wouldn't recommend using this for non-trivial amounts of money for hopefully obvious reasons
Hey Tom! Guy from the article here. First off, thanks for Metabase. I'm a big fan & recommend it often.
Second, you're absolutely right. We have been capping people at $1500 purchases per month unless they were willing to provide identification & an understanding of the risks associated with our service.
> Nor would I recommend the founders continue to run it unless they've consulted a lawyer and are aware they're likely running a money transmitter business. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Casascius_physical_bitcoins#Suspe.. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Casascius_physical_bitcoins#Suspe....
Casascius very simply shut down, some of our counsel thinks we have legal basis to not be a money transmitter while other legal counsel believes we may be. We're currently working through that to understand how and where we stand to adapt our offering to be within the limits of the law.
> Accepting credit cards as payment for cryptocurrency is also a risky proposition, to say the least.
Agreed. Mutual trust has been required, we're working on something better than that now :D
- GordonS 9y ago> We're currently working through that to understand how and where we stand to adapt our offering to be within the limits of the law. Trying to claim it's an 'art collectible' (as you say in another comment), doesn't sound like being 'within the limits of the law' - it sounds squarely like trying to find loopholes in the law.
- auston 9y agoQuick correction: "where we stand to adapt our offering to be within the limits of the law." should be "where we stand to adapt our offering to be within the limits of the law if it is determined to not already be within said limits."