3 ms·
The title is alarmist and IMO very, very unlikely (global economy, ban being practically unenforceable, crypto-native assets getting integrated in incumbent fin
by 3np 6y ago
The title is alarmist and IMO very, very unlikely (global economy, ban being practically unenforceable, crypto-native assets getting integrated in incumbent financial institutions etc).
That being said, the points raised and the concerns about harmful regulation is worth taking seriously.
More specifically, now with the digital assets "travel rule" ratified by the FATF (which is expected and on its way to result in legislation in most global jurisdications). A bit oversimplified: Any VASP (virtual asset service provider ~= private business holding, transmitting, issuing or exchanging digital assets on behalf of customers) are expected to request and verify information of wallet holders (the usual KYC/AML with name/passport/etc) for any ingoing and outgoing transfers. They are also expected to send this information onward to any other VASP they transfer to on behalf of users (e.g. if you transfer BTC from your Kraken account to a friends' Coinbase account, Kraken and Coinbase are on the hook to coordinate this information between each other).
In practice, forcing any business that touches digital assets to draconian regulation can be very effective in hampering adoption - IMO we've already seen a similar thing play out where tax requirements for both individuals and businesses coupled with regulatory uncertainty have made it an accounting nightmare to be fully compliant with retail payments in crypto.
I don't see an outright blanket ban on individuals holding or transacting Bitcoin. But overly restrictive and draconian regulation in some shape or form is very much likely.
- solotronics 6y agoA lot (most?) of main street traders never even transfer their coins out of the exchange so I'm not sure if increased KYC when transferring would even make much impact.
- 3np 6y agoIndeed - which is why regulators are much more likely to push in that direction - make self-custody a regulatory minefield, denormalizing managing your own keys. And effectively reaching the same goal (complete oversight and control over funds and transactions). I'm concerned if it continues in this direction, holding your own keys will be viewed as suspicious and seen as attempt to money laundering, further raising the barrier for people not to have their funds controlled and transactions monitored bu the incumbents.
- colechristensen 6y agoIt’s not so draconian when the major drive behind what most people say is the benefit of cryptocurrencies is explicitly money laundering.
- 3np 6y ago"what most people say about X" is not possible to disprove or have an argument about and is questionable as motivation for regulation in the first place.
- xiphias2 6y ago2 CIA agents believed that it's good for money laundering, and they got cought, as the ledger is public. That was before chain analyzer services. Nowdays I would say stay with greenbacks for laundering money.