10 ms·

This is an interesting piece, and it highlights one problem I’ve noticed with crypto in general recently, which is that these kinds of investigations are largel

This is an interesting piece, and it highlights one problem I’ve noticed with crypto in general recently, which is that these kinds of investigations are largely being carried out by private entities who build platforms around this type of forensics without any real ability to go after the exchanges that have permitted this laundering. Between this and Bitfinex refusing to submit to an external auditor and other events, I have a hard time trusting the big crypto players any more than I trust the big banks. Wasn’t that whole point of these coins to begin with? It seems like the assumption that the problems with the current financial system stem from centralization isn’t holding up, at least when it comes to the administration of these big exchanges. They’re still running into many of the same problems that big banks have, and frankly they’re not doing any better of a job.

rb808 6y ago
Are there any authorities that help track down stuff like this now? If you can pay taxes on it you'd think the police would help investigate a theft.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  Last I had heard the FBI and Royal Canadian Mounted Police were investigating the QuadrigaX situation so it definitely happens. It seems law enforcement doesn’t really have the time (and maybe lacks the interest/expertise) to investigate most cryptocurrency cases until they become major news.
- vmception 6y ago
  yes, plenty. national authorities are fully capable and familiar with crypto currency transactions and how to request coordination to subpoena foreign exchanges. its happened plenty of times and funds have been recovered, its usually in Department of Justice press releases and an associated court filing. Other times you can just talk to people that were involved in an investigation. Not really news, stuff happens way after the event.
- caterama 6y ago
  On one hand, the authorities are mocked for incompetency (see recently: surveillance cameras on the open internet, 26-year-old EMT shot by police raiding the wrong home) and yet we expect them to handle cases like this? This seems like a double standard. Is there a solution?
  - csense 6y ago
    Yes. You should assume the government will always have a lot of incompetence and abuse in the application of its power. So give government as little power as possible.
    - krapp 6y ago
      I would rephrase that to "give government as little power as necessary." If you give government as little power as possible, because you believe all government is maximally incompetent and abusive, you might as well just do away with it altogether and have anarchy. Allowing a government at all implies at least some trust that government can have some positive societal effect.
  - valachio 6y ago
    There are going to be both competent and incompetent people in any sizable organization. I don't think it's fair to use extreme examples like that EMT getting killed as a generalization of the incompetence of "authority". In that case, it's more like a couple of trigger-happy police officers severely abused their rights.
- vinniejames 6y ago
  The authorities don't want it to succeed. They want a bunch of "I told you so's" to justify shutting it down
wayoutthere 6y ago
I think you've hit on the core reason cryptocurrencies aren't going to take off as currencies. They've taken the governance aspect previously enacted by the federal reserve and enforced through the banks and replaced it with a shadowy cabal of exchange owners. Ultimately I think it's a people problem that can't be solved through technology. But cryptocurrency does happen to be quite useful for money laundering...
- fastball 6y ago
  Decentralized exchanges exist for the more sophisticated cryptos (e.g. Ethereum).
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    Sure, but you will never be able to get out fiat currency from a decentralized exchange (which is what most people want).
    - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
      Bisq and fiatdex do this.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Sure, but you can use something like LocalCryptos[1] to facilitate such a trade (which, in the case of Ethereum, has escrow that happens on the blockchain). There's still a middleman (if needed), but with a reputation system, they generally are not required. The whole idea of cryptocurrency is that one day you won't need fiat because all txs will be happening in crypto, so not exactly a dealbreaker for the concept. In fact, it kinda proves the concept – when fiat is involved, you need middlemen. With pure crypto, you do not. 1: https://localcryptos.com/ https://localcryptos.com/
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    Also for bitcoin- based protocols (Block DX)
- 6y ago
dudus 6y ago
You definitely don't need to trust these players most of the time. Your coins can sit in an offline wallet out of their reach for the majority of the time. What you use them for is liquidity. Since you probably won't find a private party to buy/sell from. Realistically if you want to buy, or sell coins you have to go through one of them. And yes that kinda sucks because none of them are trustworthy., so you have some amount of risk there. The larger problems comes from the risk they inject in the market just by existing. They will be hacked, fail KYC, or straight up scam exit with all their customers money and that will impact the value of the market as a whole. For my risk tolerance, crypto is completely uninvestable
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > You definitely don't need to trust these players most of the time. Your coins can sit in an offline wallet out of their reach for the majority of the time. In a sweet bird-bath somewhere, no doubt.
  - spiralx 6y ago
    Who says security through obscurity doesn't work?
- jasonlingx 6y ago
  >The larger problems comes from the risk they inject in the market just by existing. They will be hacked, fail KYC, or straight up scam exit with all their customers money and that will impact the value of the market as a whole. Have you heard of Lehman Brothers? Enron? Madoff? The vast majority of scammers, criminals still use fiat. By your reasoning that would make fiat more risky. >For my risk tolerance, crypto is completely uninvestable It’s not really an investment. Many fiat currencies have collapsed before. IMO, risk of holding BTC was much greater when it was $1 compared to now, and as it keeps maturing and... existing... the risk is going to keep moderating.
  - verdverm 6y ago
    It's for speculation and to get rich quick. That's how myself and a bunch of millennials used it. We had digital money beforehand, it's way easier to use than cryptos, and I get a legal safety net.
vmception 6y ago
you seem to be conflating like 5 issues at the same time, elevating crypto to a fictional higher standard for areas it wasn't made to excel in. "crypto" isn't acting differently here because this article is about centralized financial institutions. and then there are expectations of those centralized financial institutions that are higher than non-crypto centralized financial institutions, simply because we can partially trace the destination of the funds ironically, the only reason we can even do this is because of the hacker not following best practices, and the exchanges not following best practices. exchanges should be rotating addresses upon every deposit, and there should be no way of knowing that an address belongs to an exchange. the hackers actually might be following some normal money laundering best practices, without taking into account how to improve them with crypto. the accounts they send the funds to may not actually be in their control. Like the funds may have changed physical owners through invoices and real services, and simply following onchain transfers won't tell you anything except "look ma, BLOCKCHAIN!". The new physical owner sent their address and that dumb person got their funds frozen because it was a custodial centralized exchange flagging origin transactions. So the reality is that these investigations don't show anything, except try to advertise their work to get government contracts or private plaintiff's lawyers to pay them.
arcticbull 6y ago
Not your keys, not your coins™ -- with that as the core philosophy of cryptocurrency, can you even say this was stolen, let alone laundered? It sounds like the person with the keys transferred the coins into another wallet. Resolved: behaves correctly. At least, as intended anyways.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  That makes sense. I guess that seems to somewhat conflict with the concept of the exchange as a service, at least for how laypeople understand currency exchanges in general. It wouldn’t surprise me if most people with exchange accounts don’t understand that coins not in their own wallet aren’t actually theirs. The exchanges don’t really make that clear to their users either, at least the ones I’ve used.
  - barkingcat 6y ago
    It turns out people want centralization :) I'm sure users mostly understand it but they give the keys away anyway. Core tenant of cryptocurrencies is purely anti-human
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      Can crypto be simultaneously anti-human [nature] and yet pro-user [intent]? Can the pain points of crypto be smoothed to make them pro-human [nature] without losing the qualities that make them pro-user [intent], supposing that they are pro-user [intent]?
      - verdverm 6y ago
        What about the situation, "I paid them, but they never delivered?". How would wage garnishment, as ordered by the courts, work? (This is the main one that needs answering because it is a simple example of the hardest anti-human problem that goes against core blockchain philosophy... reversing or forcing transactions)
nfin 6y ago
it is like saying in the 90s: we don't need open protocols like pop3/imap, because AOL is centralized anyway (fast forward today: yes, most people still use centralized gmail/outlook.com, but I still have a) the choice to host my mails and b) lower cost to build a service that compete with the big ones, as I don't need to part of the big-players to plug-in to the open "email-system") In "crypto" centralized" companies are not required for most stuff inside crypto (mostly necessary to bridge the new with the old fiat system)
- cortesoft 6y ago
  Although that 'open email system' isn't as open in practice, since most of the big providers aren't going to accept your email if you set up your own sender.
  - afidrya 6y ago
    For example which ones? For past few years I'm using Mail-in-a-Box hosted on soyoustart and can't remember any problems when sending mail to big providers. I only had to check that IP is not in spam lists initially and asked to remove it from one of them.
    - cat199 6y ago
      running email for 15+ years here, going with ditto. many ppl get el-cheapo vps on a low-tier network, setup some new domain on a dirty IP without proper DNS records (PTR, MX, yadda), and then parrot this emails not the easiest thing, but it's not impossible either
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Isn't this anathema to the whole blockchain-currency credo? It's all about no authority. Its all on you to keep your bitcoin secure. For better or worse.
mindslight 6y ago
In order for something to function as money, it must be fungible - every unit must be interchangeable. Bitcoin and many other cryptocurrencies lack a critical ecash property known as untraceability. This has attracted private analysis companies offering solutions for legacy identity-bound concerns even despite them being directly contrary to existing cryptocurrency conventions and desires. Ten years ago the refrain was "Bitcoin is anonymous". These days exchanges and even cash-based ATMs want your identifying info. Ten years from now, every flow of value will be bound to a real world identity. If we're lucky, the coins that do have untraceability will survive.
- verdverm 6y ago
  This is exactly why they will fail. Most of us don't want anonymous money and even more shady financial institutions. Ok with it being tied to the real identity. I fully expect govt fiat on a blockchain before any wild west money ever talked off.
- nootropicat 6y ago
  Anonymity in ethereum is rapidly accelerating. Currently the best option is an on-chain mixer [1] for set amounts, but fully anonymous transaction systems are going to launch relatively soon [2]. In two years, ether is virtually certain to be the most anonymous cryptocurrency and dai (dollar stablecoin) to be the most anonymous digital dollar in existence. Anonymous digital dollar has the potential to cause quite a stir. Coins that aim to be fully anonymous (like monero) are, counterintuitively, much worse, because they lack plausible deniability. Optional (but large enough!) anonymity on a smart-contract platform allows it: you can manufacture fake profits on a dex using anonymous funds, and then claim you never anonymized your funds - you made a speculative profit (from a much smaller fully transparent seed fund). Many, many possibilities exist in this area. [1] https://tornado.cash/ https://tornado.cash/ [2] https://www.aztecprotocol.com/ https://www.aztecprotocol.com/
  - mindslight 6y ago
    IMO, if Bitcoin had had untraceability, it would be in the exact same regulatory situation it is in today. That would be serious plausible deniability. The mechanisms you're describing also happen to already be crimes. As soon as a system has any legible structure, regulators want to mount up. They don't care about perfect enforcement or even aiming for perfection, but rather just exerting control over most uses. I do hope untracability can be sustainably implemented at scale by the techniques you're describing, but we'll see. There are many more people thinking that tracing cryptocurrency transactions is a desirable thing.
dylkil 6y ago
>Wasn’t that whole point of these coins to begin with? The whole point was to have an open system where you dont place trust in or ask permission of someone to use. That still holds up in this scenario.
- jasonlingx 6y ago
  And governments can’t just print more of it at their whim.
  - dylkil 6y ago
    falls under trustless
  - valachio 6y ago
    Government printing money is not a bad thing. Printing money can be a bad thing if used improperly. But generally having the government be able to print money in an emergency has many benefits.
deevolution 6y ago
This is why people should use P2P exchanges like Bisq or localbitcoins. The moment you transfer your coins to an exchange is the moment you lose control.
lend000 6y ago
This isn't a cryptocurrency problem so much as a cyber crime enforcement problem. There is currently very little enforcement against cyber criminals originating in certain countries. Governments probably like it this way, so it won't change.
mudlus 6y ago
Exactly, now you see. The exchanges are also the enemy. Bisq is a start at trying to make something like Local Bitcoins WITHOUT a central authority. Coins that aren't centralized in a single location can't be stolen in the first place. Hence "Not your keys not your coins". People should take control of your coins, but that's difficult in practice. In this regard, the Bitcoin doesn't actually need new users--it just needs the users in the ecosystem that understand this. However, every halving there is a bull cycle that leads to the same ways that people lose money (exchange insolvency, loss of money on shitcoin speculation, exchange hacks). But, exchanges, who do all of the advertising in the space, don't want you to even think about that. At best, they think they actually have control and drink their own kool-aide.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Never heard of Bisq. Can you tell me more about what it is and how it works, and any connection to it you may have that you are comfortable or obliged to share?
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Bisq is a start at trying to make something like Local Bitcoins WITHOUT a central authority. It wouldn't be an HN cryptocurrency post without slipping in a reference to your own shitcoin. lol.
doopy1 6y ago
Exchanges exist primarily to convert between cryptos and fiat. If cryptocurrency succeeds, then why would anyone need to convert to fiat?

rb808 6y ago

Are there any authorities that help track down stuff like this now? If you can pay taxes on it you'd think the police would help investigate a theft.

elliekelly 6y ago
Last I had heard the FBI and Royal Canadian Mounted Police were investigating the QuadrigaX situation so it definitely happens. It seems law enforcement doesn’t really have the time (and maybe lacks the interest/expertise) to investigate most cryptocurrency cases until they become major news.
vmception 6y ago
yes, plenty. national authorities are fully capable and familiar with crypto currency transactions and how to request coordination to subpoena foreign exchanges. its happened plenty of times and funds have been recovered, its usually in Department of Justice press releases and an associated court filing. Other times you can just talk to people that were involved in an investigation. Not really news, stuff happens way after the event.
caterama 6y ago
On one hand, the authorities are mocked for incompetency (see recently: surveillance cameras on the open internet, 26-year-old EMT shot by police raiding the wrong home) and yet we expect them to handle cases like this? This seems like a double standard. Is there a solution?
- csense 6y ago
  Yes. You should assume the government will always have a lot of incompetence and abuse in the application of its power. So give government as little power as possible.
  - krapp 6y ago
    I would rephrase that to "give government as little power as necessary." If you give government as little power as possible, because you believe all government is maximally incompetent and abusive, you might as well just do away with it altogether and have anarchy. Allowing a government at all implies at least some trust that government can have some positive societal effect.
- valachio 6y ago
  There are going to be both competent and incompetent people in any sizable organization. I don't think it's fair to use extreme examples like that EMT getting killed as a generalization of the incompetence of "authority". In that case, it's more like a couple of trigger-happy police officers severely abused their rights.
vinniejames 6y ago
The authorities don't want it to succeed. They want a bunch of "I told you so's" to justify shutting it down

wayoutthere 6y ago

I think you've hit on the core reason cryptocurrencies aren't going to take off as currencies. They've taken the governance aspect previously enacted by the federal reserve and enforced through the banks and replaced it with a shadowy cabal of exchange owners. Ultimately I think it's a people problem that can't be solved through technology. But cryptocurrency does happen to be quite useful for money laundering...

fastball 6y ago
Decentralized exchanges exist for the more sophisticated cryptos (e.g. Ethereum).
- cortesoft 6y ago
  Sure, but you will never be able to get out fiat currency from a decentralized exchange (which is what most people want).
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    Bisq and fiatdex do this.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Sure, but you can use something like LocalCryptos[1] to facilitate such a trade (which, in the case of Ethereum, has escrow that happens on the blockchain). There's still a middleman (if needed), but with a reputation system, they generally are not required. The whole idea of cryptocurrency is that one day you won't need fiat because all txs will be happening in crypto, so not exactly a dealbreaker for the concept. In fact, it kinda proves the concept – when fiat is involved, you need middlemen. With pure crypto, you do not. 1: https://localcryptos.com/ https://localcryptos.com/
- hanniabu 6y ago
  Also for bitcoin- based protocols (Block DX)
6y ago

dudus 6y ago

You definitely don't need to trust these players most of the time. Your coins can sit in an offline wallet out of their reach for the majority of the time. What you use them for is liquidity. Since you probably won't find a private party to buy/sell from. Realistically if you want to buy, or sell coins you have to go through one of them. And yes that kinda sucks because none of them are trustworthy., so you have some amount of risk there. The larger problems comes from the risk they inject in the market just by existing. They will be hacked, fail KYC, or straight up scam exit with all their customers money and that will impact the value of the market as a whole. For my risk tolerance, crypto is completely uninvestable

arcticbull 6y ago
> You definitely don't need to trust these players most of the time. Your coins can sit in an offline wallet out of their reach for the majority of the time. In a sweet bird-bath somewhere, no doubt.
- spiralx 6y ago
  Who says security through obscurity doesn't work?
jasonlingx 6y ago
>The larger problems comes from the risk they inject in the market just by existing. They will be hacked, fail KYC, or straight up scam exit with all their customers money and that will impact the value of the market as a whole. Have you heard of Lehman Brothers? Enron? Madoff? The vast majority of scammers, criminals still use fiat. By your reasoning that would make fiat more risky. >For my risk tolerance, crypto is completely uninvestable It’s not really an investment. Many fiat currencies have collapsed before. IMO, risk of holding BTC was much greater when it was $1 compared to now, and as it keeps maturing and... existing... the risk is going to keep moderating.
- verdverm 6y ago
  It's for speculation and to get rich quick. That's how myself and a bunch of millennials used it. We had digital money beforehand, it's way easier to use than cryptos, and I get a legal safety net.

vmception 6y ago

you seem to be conflating like 5 issues at the same time, elevating crypto to a fictional higher standard for areas it wasn't made to excel in. "crypto" isn't acting differently here because this article is about centralized financial institutions. and then there are expectations of those centralized financial institutions that are higher than non-crypto centralized financial institutions, simply because we can partially trace the destination of the funds ironically, the only reason we can even do this is because of the hacker not following best practices, and the exchanges not following best practices. exchanges should be rotating addresses upon every deposit, and there should be no way of knowing that an address belongs to an exchange. the hackers actually might be following some normal money laundering best practices, without taking into account how to improve them with crypto. the accounts they send the funds to may not actually be in their control. Like the funds may have changed physical owners through invoices and real services, and simply following onchain transfers won't tell you anything except "look ma, BLOCKCHAIN!". The new physical owner sent their address and that dumb person got their funds frozen because it was a custodial centralized exchange flagging origin transactions. So the reality is that these investigations don't show anything, except try to advertise their work to get government contracts or private plaintiff's lawyers to pay them.

arcticbull 6y ago

Not your keys, not your coins™ -- with that as the core philosophy of cryptocurrency, can you even say this was stolen, let alone laundered? It sounds like the person with the keys transferred the coins into another wallet. Resolved: behaves correctly. At least, as intended anyways.

save_ferris 6y ago
That makes sense. I guess that seems to somewhat conflict with the concept of the exchange as a service, at least for how laypeople understand currency exchanges in general. It wouldn’t surprise me if most people with exchange accounts don’t understand that coins not in their own wallet aren’t actually theirs. The exchanges don’t really make that clear to their users either, at least the ones I’ve used.
- barkingcat 6y ago
  It turns out people want centralization :) I'm sure users mostly understand it but they give the keys away anyway. Core tenant of cryptocurrencies is purely anti-human
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    Can crypto be simultaneously anti-human [nature] and yet pro-user [intent]? Can the pain points of crypto be smoothed to make them pro-human [nature] without losing the qualities that make them pro-user [intent], supposing that they are pro-user [intent]?
    - verdverm 6y ago
      What about the situation, "I paid them, but they never delivered?". How would wage garnishment, as ordered by the courts, work? (This is the main one that needs answering because it is a simple example of the hardest anti-human problem that goes against core blockchain philosophy... reversing or forcing transactions)

nfin 6y ago

it is like saying in the 90s: we don't need open protocols like pop3/imap, because AOL is centralized anyway (fast forward today: yes, most people still use centralized gmail/outlook.com, but I still have a) the choice to host my mails and b) lower cost to build a service that compete with the big ones, as I don't need to part of the big-players to plug-in to the open "email-system") In "crypto" centralized" companies are not required for most stuff inside crypto (mostly necessary to bridge the new with the old fiat system)

cortesoft 6y ago
Although that 'open email system' isn't as open in practice, since most of the big providers aren't going to accept your email if you set up your own sender.
- afidrya 6y ago
  For example which ones? For past few years I'm using Mail-in-a-Box hosted on soyoustart and can't remember any problems when sending mail to big providers. I only had to check that IP is not in spam lists initially and asked to remove it from one of them.
  - cat199 6y ago
    running email for 15+ years here, going with ditto. many ppl get el-cheapo vps on a low-tier network, setup some new domain on a dirty IP without proper DNS records (PTR, MX, yadda), and then parrot this emails not the easiest thing, but it's not impossible either

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Isn't this anathema to the whole blockchain-currency credo? It's all about no authority. Its all on you to keep your bitcoin secure. For better or worse.

mindslight 6y ago

In order for something to function as money, it must be fungible - every unit must be interchangeable. Bitcoin and many other cryptocurrencies lack a critical ecash property known as untraceability. This has attracted private analysis companies offering solutions for legacy identity-bound concerns even despite them being directly contrary to existing cryptocurrency conventions and desires. Ten years ago the refrain was "Bitcoin is anonymous". These days exchanges and even cash-based ATMs want your identifying info. Ten years from now, every flow of value will be bound to a real world identity. If we're lucky, the coins that do have untraceability will survive.

verdverm 6y ago
This is exactly why they will fail. Most of us don't want anonymous money and even more shady financial institutions. Ok with it being tied to the real identity. I fully expect govt fiat on a blockchain before any wild west money ever talked off.
nootropicat 6y ago
Anonymity in ethereum is rapidly accelerating. Currently the best option is an on-chain mixer [1] for set amounts, but fully anonymous transaction systems are going to launch relatively soon [2]. In two years, ether is virtually certain to be the most anonymous cryptocurrency and dai (dollar stablecoin) to be the most anonymous digital dollar in existence. Anonymous digital dollar has the potential to cause quite a stir. Coins that aim to be fully anonymous (like monero) are, counterintuitively, much worse, because they lack plausible deniability. Optional (but large enough!) anonymity on a smart-contract platform allows it: you can manufacture fake profits on a dex using anonymous funds, and then claim you never anonymized your funds - you made a speculative profit (from a much smaller fully transparent seed fund). Many, many possibilities exist in this area. [1] https://tornado.cash/ https://tornado.cash/ [2] https://www.aztecprotocol.com/ https://www.aztecprotocol.com/
- mindslight 6y ago
  IMO, if Bitcoin had had untraceability, it would be in the exact same regulatory situation it is in today. That would be serious plausible deniability. The mechanisms you're describing also happen to already be crimes. As soon as a system has any legible structure, regulators want to mount up. They don't care about perfect enforcement or even aiming for perfection, but rather just exerting control over most uses. I do hope untracability can be sustainably implemented at scale by the techniques you're describing, but we'll see. There are many more people thinking that tracing cryptocurrency transactions is a desirable thing.

dylkil 6y ago

>Wasn’t that whole point of these coins to begin with? The whole point was to have an open system where you dont place trust in or ask permission of someone to use. That still holds up in this scenario.

jasonlingx 6y ago
And governments can’t just print more of it at their whim.
- dylkil 6y ago
  falls under trustless
- valachio 6y ago
  Government printing money is not a bad thing. Printing money can be a bad thing if used improperly. But generally having the government be able to print money in an emergency has many benefits.

deevolution 6y ago

This is why people should use P2P exchanges like Bisq or localbitcoins. The moment you transfer your coins to an exchange is the moment you lose control.

lend000 6y ago

This isn't a cryptocurrency problem so much as a cyber crime enforcement problem. There is currently very little enforcement against cyber criminals originating in certain countries. Governments probably like it this way, so it won't change.

mudlus 6y ago

Exactly, now you see. The exchanges are also the enemy. Bisq is a start at trying to make something like Local Bitcoins WITHOUT a central authority. Coins that aren't centralized in a single location can't be stolen in the first place. Hence "Not your keys not your coins". People should take control of your coins, but that's difficult in practice. In this regard, the Bitcoin doesn't actually need new users--it just needs the users in the ecosystem that understand this. However, every halving there is a bull cycle that leads to the same ways that people lose money (exchange insolvency, loss of money on shitcoin speculation, exchange hacks). But, exchanges, who do all of the advertising in the space, don't want you to even think about that. At best, they think they actually have control and drink their own kool-aide.

aspenmayer 6y ago
Never heard of Bisq. Can you tell me more about what it is and how it works, and any connection to it you may have that you are comfortable or obliged to share?
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Bisq is a start at trying to make something like Local Bitcoins WITHOUT a central authority. It wouldn't be an HN cryptocurrency post without slipping in a reference to your own shitcoin. lol.

doopy1 6y ago

Exchanges exist primarily to convert between cryptos and fiat. If cryptocurrency succeeds, then why would anyone need to convert to fiat?