7 ms·

We’re all criminals now

79 points by DistantCl3ric 5y ago

kache_ 5y ago
Thank god for monero
- capsulecorp 5y ago
  Alternatively, thank the Monero developers.
- verdverm 5y ago
  If Monero is made illegal, how do you buy basic necessities with it? (i.e. why do you think there is something inherently different about monero)
  - nostrademons 5y ago
    In many developing countries, the black market exceeds the size of the "legitimate" economy by many multiples. Monero just codifies what people already do with a currency that's out of control of the local government (and presumably inflates less).
    - verdverm 5y ago
      Except that the same currency used in the black market is also accepted by banks and grocery stores. In other words, the black market operates with legal tender, not an illegal one (i.e. BTC or MNR if either are made illegal) Again, there does not seem to be any intrinsic difference between anonymous cryptos and non-anon if cryptos are generally illegal and not a valid tender
janandonly 5y ago
We have heard a lot of similar news out of other jurisdictions. And seeing how slow many lawmaking bodies respond to any stimuli at all, we will for the foreseeable future...
jeroenhd 5y ago
The point of crypto currency is to do the exact thing money laundering laws try to prevent: to transfer large sums of cash untraceably across the globe, with no way for the government to do anything about it. Recently it's become a game of baseless investment, but anyone actually wanting to use crypto currencies as payment should've seen this coming from miles away.
- dash2 5y ago
  It's not just money-laundering laws. It's also more general "financial repression", i.e. being forced to hold local currencies while the government inflates them and/or holds the interest rate down. The two tend to blur into each other, I guess.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > two tend to blur into each other Not entirely. Capital controls and currency bans are distinct from AML. South Africa's proximate problem is capital controls. Cryptocurrencies make those controls easier to circumvent. If you look at the countries that are responding forcefully to crypto, it's the ones who want a sovereign monetary policy and relatively fixed exchange rate [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - zionic 5y ago
    Exactly. 350+ million people get screwed when the government triples the money supply, but relatively few people use crypto to buy coke and that’s suddenly what it’s all about.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > 350+ million people get screwed when the government triples the money supply Not necessairly if those people have a lot of debt, or the inflation fears turn out to be a mirage.
mrverify 5y ago
Your honor, can the prosecution please be compelled to demonstrate where the bitcoin physically exists? Oh on this computer? Well, the key is memorized and there are several copies saved all over the world in cloud computers. Can the prosecution show the court, physically, where in the computer the asset exists?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mrverify 5y ago
  "This is a fairly recent “announcement” and many people are upset about the Reserve Bank making up seemingly hostile and uninformed rules regarding something that has no notion of borders and is practically impossible for the regulators to control in terms of owning and transferring. Something that arguably does not even exist in any one location..." So now, a memorized key or password means you are transferring "right to capital" and therefore cannot leave South Africa? I'm fairly certain that Apartheid was thoroughly shot down back in the 80s.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    The law isn't new and expecting cryptocurrency to get a free pass. The guidelines for how to follow those laws make sense. If there is anything to be upset with, it is the law itself which is something that South Africans have had a long time to get changed.
    - DistantCl3ric 5y ago
      It isn't clear if its illegal to use ones Single Discretionary allowance (SDA) (1m ZAR per annum) or applying for and using a Foreign investment allowance (FIA) (further 10m ZAR per annum) for crypto. If exchange control was applied fairly as was the interpretation up until recently, then staying below those amounts in ZAR terms would be fine. However, that may not be the case any more.
    - BTCarel 5y ago
ElViajero 5y ago
> And by the way, this exact rule is the reason many South African startup founders incorporate in Delaware instead of locally, because it is extremely difficult to attract foreign investment if the investors know they will not be able to get the return on their investment (or share of the IP) out of the country again. Except that in the USA you also need to declare transfers over $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). And this is done to find people trying to avoid paying taxes. It is the same for the European Union. And it is the same for any other country. Quite often the answer to all this articles is "the world does not work as you think it works", crypto-currencies are not special, it is just that the bureaucracy of countries need to catch up.
- dash2 5y ago
  Yes, but "declare to the IRS" is not as bad as "anything over $40 is banned".
  - guest159835 5y ago
    Exactly, even a smartphone is worth over $40. Personal apparel is usually not worth 10 grand.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  > Except that in the USA you also need to declare transfers over $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). And this is done to find people trying to avoid paying taxes. It is the same for the European Union. And it is the same for any other country. Re-read the article. Foreign investors literally cannot move their money* from South Africa to another country, period, if the law is followed strictly. It's not money laundering or tax issues, it's literally wealth portability. * Technically, minus ~US$69,000.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  In the USA it is at least merely a CRT report the bank has to file. It looks like in South Africa they're going to need permission first rather than simply providing the government with the ability to track capital movements.
owlbynight 5y ago
The fucking stock art on this article lol
Loic 5y ago
Just remembering what someone from the trade directorate of the EU told me a some years ago about Bitcoin: "If it starts to have a real impact on the ability to collect taxes and control money transfers we are simply going to make it illegal".
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  Except by then the cat is out of the bag and significant % of the population/institutions holds it and you can't hurt your own population without swift opposition. It's pretty clever if it works out.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    The inversion of monetary control is the biggest reason my mind boggles that governments haven't clamped down harder. The only explanation I can come up with is that institutional banking / government regulation is so stodgy that they haven't played out the decade+ repercussions. Because after viable value is established, it's going to be a hard genie to put back in the bottle. It's much harder to make something that appears to have value, not. Than it is to keep something that appears to not have value, not having value.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > institutional banking / government regulation is so stodgy that they haven't played out the decade+ repercussions Crypto is massively profitable. Wall Street hasn't seen margins like these in a long time. There aren't clear and present harms accruing to the electorate. That leaves no incentive, in countries without capital controls, to bother with it.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        Afaik, the big (US) money was still prohibited from flowing into crypto? Or did leaks spring in that firewall?
    - rawtxapp 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
guest159835 5y ago
Free market... "No person shall, except with permission granted by the Treasury and in accordance with such conditions as the Treasury may impose — take out of the Republic goods, including personal apparel, household effects, and jewellery which have a value in excess of 600 Rand (approx $40) or of such greater amount as the Treasury may determine;"
RustyConsul 5y ago
I miss the old crypto. When it was this fringe, nerdy digital coin i could transfer to my friends to pay my bar tab. Yeah - Venmo/paypal/ a billion other systems that did the same thing, but to my friends btc and eventually eth was cooler. I could stake coins, provide liquidity, mine random coins from my laptop - It was fun. The concept of a global computer was awesome, interesting and nerdy. I've never used an exchange, but i could watch my coins go up and use them to play a couple random Play-To-Earn games, which was also fun. Now we got all these 'Scam' Coins. But they aren't scams because they literally come out and say they are scams but still achieve billions of dollars in market cap because everyone is just trying to make a quick buck/ have constrained liquidity. I think the SEC needs to come in and regulate this space, it would be a very welcome change to what crypto has become. Make stablecoins have 24/7 auditability of their investments and have some vetting mechanism to trade on exchanges. That would make it nerdy and cool again.
- vmception 5y ago
  Old fringe crypto was the cringiest thing ever. I miss nothing about that. Every single crypto was and is called a scam in every single chat and thread about it. Pivoting to that as your rationale for whats different is very inaccurate.
  - RustyConsul 5y ago
    It was soooo cringy and I think that's why i liked it. Going to the old BTC or crypto meetups was like going to a warhammer turny. No one showered, everyone smelled like shit and you always had those wannabe prophets preaching about a 'New World Order'. Everyone laughed along and never took it too seriously. Same thing now but people act like those prophets have something interesting to say because they are in a $10k suit and screaming "Fuck Elon" on stages haha.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Oh just ignore the people at conferences lol
    - 5y ago
X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
If this was just about the law and didn't say anything about cryptocurrency or bitcoin these comments would be a lot more sensible. It seems like simply including cryptocurrency in an article triggers an in-group vs out-group where people dive right into attacking positions. Making it illegal to move more than 40 USD of value out of South Africa without written permission from the treasury is absurd. Every tourist has done this, I've done this. I'll do it again without any fear of being charged for this crime.
vmception 5y ago
Crypto doesn't exist in a physical location. You can prove somebody has access to a registry on a blockchain, you cant prove nobody else does. This has been one of the hurdles for custodial regulations to adapt to. South Africa has the entire concept wrong though.
munificent 5y ago
> the Reserve Bank making up seemingly hostile and uninformed rules regarding something that has no notion of borders The whole point of being a government organization is the ability to make up rules and define notions of things like borders. Sure, the rules may or may not be hostile and uninformed, but it seems silly to criticize a government for doing literally the primary thing it is designed to do.
- DistantCl3ric 5y ago
  Reserve bank is not the government
- BTCarel 5y ago
  Have you read the article? The relevant rule discussed is outdated and very few governments enforce something similar.
csomar 5y ago
> This is a fairly recent “announcement” and many people are upset about the Reserve Bank making up seemingly hostile and uninformed rules regarding something that has no notion of borders and is practically impossible for the regulators to control in terms of owning and transferring. Something that arguably does not even exist in any one location... Actually it's pretty simple. By "owning" Bitcoins, you own money/capital. But it's in the "blockchain", or alternatively, the possession of such money happens inside South Africa. Once you do a transaction that transfers that capital (or the power of control of such capital) outside of South Africa (ie: a foreign exchange), you are breaking the law. If you are sending it to another friend in South Africa, you should be fine. (ps: Just reading into the substance of such a law, why it was made, I'm not a lawyer and this is not a legal advice). > And by the way, this exact rule is the reason many South African startup founders incorporate in Delaware instead of locally, because it is extremely difficult to attract foreign investment if the investors know they will not be able to get the return on their investment (or share of the IP) out of the country again. It essentially turns our country into an economic Black Hole. All these Entrepreneurs are breaking the capital AND the fiscal laws of the country. Since I assume they won't report their holdings (because of the capital controls). > First of all, we are dealing here with existing (very old) legislation that is fairly unique to South Africa. No “new rules” have been made. Not many countries deal with the type of restrictive exchange controls we have, in fact this specific clause was promulgated in 1961. Most countries do have controls on the "transfer" of capital outside of a country border. (or into the country too). But since you are using the banking system, you do not notice such regulation. > Anyway, the Reserve Bank is now in a position where it must either continue supporting a 60 year old, unenforcable rule, or focus on updating legislation to align with 2021 realities. The thing is, countries have a payment balance. They put these rules because they usually have a few big export companies (usually natural resources) or tourism. Allowing these companies to take their money out, will destabilize their balance of trade. They could ignore the crypto-kids (their size is negligible for now), but they can't afford a loophole for the system. And for that reason, the law is unlikely to get patched.
- BTCarel 5y ago
  Thank you, this is probably the only insightful comment on this post...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

79 points by DistantCl3ric 5y ago

kache_ 5y ago

Thank god for monero

capsulecorp 5y ago
Alternatively, thank the Monero developers.
verdverm 5y ago
If Monero is made illegal, how do you buy basic necessities with it? (i.e. why do you think there is something inherently different about monero)
- nostrademons 5y ago
  In many developing countries, the black market exceeds the size of the "legitimate" economy by many multiples. Monero just codifies what people already do with a currency that's out of control of the local government (and presumably inflates less).
  - verdverm 5y ago
    Except that the same currency used in the black market is also accepted by banks and grocery stores. In other words, the black market operates with legal tender, not an illegal one (i.e. BTC or MNR if either are made illegal) Again, there does not seem to be any intrinsic difference between anonymous cryptos and non-anon if cryptos are generally illegal and not a valid tender

janandonly 5y ago

We have heard a lot of similar news out of other jurisdictions. And seeing how slow many lawmaking bodies respond to any stimuli at all, we will for the foreseeable future...

jeroenhd 5y ago

The point of crypto currency is to do the exact thing money laundering laws try to prevent: to transfer large sums of cash untraceably across the globe, with no way for the government to do anything about it. Recently it's become a game of baseless investment, but anyone actually wanting to use crypto currencies as payment should've seen this coming from miles away.

dash2 5y ago
It's not just money-laundering laws. It's also more general "financial repression", i.e. being forced to hold local currencies while the government inflates them and/or holds the interest rate down. The two tend to blur into each other, I guess.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > two tend to blur into each other Not entirely. Capital controls and currency bans are distinct from AML. South Africa's proximate problem is capital controls. Cryptocurrencies make those controls easier to circumvent. If you look at the countries that are responding forcefully to crypto, it's the ones who want a sovereign monetary policy and relatively fixed exchange rate [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zionic 5y ago
  Exactly. 350+ million people get screwed when the government triples the money supply, but relatively few people use crypto to buy coke and that’s suddenly what it’s all about.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > 350+ million people get screwed when the government triples the money supply Not necessairly if those people have a lot of debt, or the inflation fears turn out to be a mirage.

mrverify 5y ago

Your honor, can the prosecution please be compelled to demonstrate where the bitcoin physically exists? Oh on this computer? Well, the key is memorized and there are several copies saved all over the world in cloud computers. Can the prosecution show the court, physically, where in the computer the asset exists?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mrverify 5y ago
"This is a fairly recent “announcement” and many people are upset about the Reserve Bank making up seemingly hostile and uninformed rules regarding something that has no notion of borders and is practically impossible for the regulators to control in terms of owning and transferring. Something that arguably does not even exist in any one location..." So now, a memorized key or password means you are transferring "right to capital" and therefore cannot leave South Africa? I'm fairly certain that Apartheid was thoroughly shot down back in the 80s.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The law isn't new and expecting cryptocurrency to get a free pass. The guidelines for how to follow those laws make sense. If there is anything to be upset with, it is the law itself which is something that South Africans have had a long time to get changed.
  - DistantCl3ric 5y ago
    It isn't clear if its illegal to use ones Single Discretionary allowance (SDA) (1m ZAR per annum) or applying for and using a Foreign investment allowance (FIA) (further 10m ZAR per annum) for crypto. If exchange control was applied fairly as was the interpretation up until recently, then staying below those amounts in ZAR terms would be fine. However, that may not be the case any more.
  - BTCarel 5y ago

ElViajero 5y ago

> And by the way, this exact rule is the reason many South African startup founders incorporate in Delaware instead of locally, because it is extremely difficult to attract foreign investment if the investors know they will not be able to get the return on their investment (or share of the IP) out of the country again. Except that in the USA you also need to declare transfers over $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). And this is done to find people trying to avoid paying taxes. It is the same for the European Union. And it is the same for any other country. Quite often the answer to all this articles is "the world does not work as you think it works", crypto-currencies are not special, it is just that the bureaucracy of countries need to catch up.

dash2 5y ago
Yes, but "declare to the IRS" is not as bad as "anything over $40 is banned".
- guest159835 5y ago
  Exactly, even a smartphone is worth over $40. Personal apparel is usually not worth 10 grand.
zinekeller 5y ago
> Except that in the USA you also need to declare transfers over $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). And this is done to find people trying to avoid paying taxes. It is the same for the European Union. And it is the same for any other country. Re-read the article. Foreign investors literally cannot move their money* from South Africa to another country, period, if the law is followed strictly. It's not money laundering or tax issues, it's literally wealth portability. * Technically, minus ~US$69,000.
ineedasername 5y ago
In the USA it is at least merely a CRT report the bank has to file. It looks like in South Africa they're going to need permission first rather than simply providing the government with the ability to track capital movements.

owlbynight 5y ago

The fucking stock art on this article lol

Loic 5y ago

Just remembering what someone from the trade directorate of the EU told me a some years ago about Bitcoin: "If it starts to have a real impact on the ability to collect taxes and control money transfers we are simply going to make it illegal".

rawtxapp 5y ago
Except by then the cat is out of the bag and significant % of the population/institutions holds it and you can't hurt your own population without swift opposition. It's pretty clever if it works out.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The inversion of monetary control is the biggest reason my mind boggles that governments haven't clamped down harder. The only explanation I can come up with is that institutional banking / government regulation is so stodgy that they haven't played out the decade+ repercussions. Because after viable value is established, it's going to be a hard genie to put back in the bottle. It's much harder to make something that appears to have value, not. Than it is to keep something that appears to not have value, not having value.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > institutional banking / government regulation is so stodgy that they haven't played out the decade+ repercussions Crypto is massively profitable. Wall Street hasn't seen margins like these in a long time. There aren't clear and present harms accruing to the electorate. That leaves no incentive, in countries without capital controls, to bother with it.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Afaik, the big (US) money was still prohibited from flowing into crypto? Or did leaks spring in that firewall?
  - rawtxapp 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

guest159835 5y ago

Free market... "No person shall, except with permission granted by the Treasury and in accordance with such conditions as the Treasury may impose — take out of the Republic goods, including personal apparel, household effects, and jewellery which have a value in excess of 600 Rand (approx $40) or of such greater amount as the Treasury may determine;"

RustyConsul 5y ago

I miss the old crypto. When it was this fringe, nerdy digital coin i could transfer to my friends to pay my bar tab. Yeah - Venmo/paypal/ a billion other systems that did the same thing, but to my friends btc and eventually eth was cooler. I could stake coins, provide liquidity, mine random coins from my laptop - It was fun. The concept of a global computer was awesome, interesting and nerdy. I've never used an exchange, but i could watch my coins go up and use them to play a couple random Play-To-Earn games, which was also fun. Now we got all these 'Scam' Coins. But they aren't scams because they literally come out and say they are scams but still achieve billions of dollars in market cap because everyone is just trying to make a quick buck/ have constrained liquidity. I think the SEC needs to come in and regulate this space, it would be a very welcome change to what crypto has become. Make stablecoins have 24/7 auditability of their investments and have some vetting mechanism to trade on exchanges. That would make it nerdy and cool again.

vmception 5y ago
Old fringe crypto was the cringiest thing ever. I miss nothing about that. Every single crypto was and is called a scam in every single chat and thread about it. Pivoting to that as your rationale for whats different is very inaccurate.
- RustyConsul 5y ago
  It was soooo cringy and I think that's why i liked it. Going to the old BTC or crypto meetups was like going to a warhammer turny. No one showered, everyone smelled like shit and you always had those wannabe prophets preaching about a 'New World Order'. Everyone laughed along and never took it too seriously. Same thing now but people act like those prophets have something interesting to say because they are in a $10k suit and screaming "Fuck Elon" on stages haha.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Oh just ignore the people at conferences lol
  - 5y ago

X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago

If this was just about the law and didn't say anything about cryptocurrency or bitcoin these comments would be a lot more sensible. It seems like simply including cryptocurrency in an article triggers an in-group vs out-group where people dive right into attacking positions. Making it illegal to move more than 40 USD of value out of South Africa without written permission from the treasury is absurd. Every tourist has done this, I've done this. I'll do it again without any fear of being charged for this crime.

vmception 5y ago

Crypto doesn't exist in a physical location. You can prove somebody has access to a registry on a blockchain, you cant prove nobody else does. This has been one of the hurdles for custodial regulations to adapt to. South Africa has the entire concept wrong though.

munificent 5y ago

> the Reserve Bank making up seemingly hostile and uninformed rules regarding something that has no notion of borders The whole point of being a government organization is the ability to make up rules and define notions of things like borders. Sure, the rules may or may not be hostile and uninformed, but it seems silly to criticize a government for doing literally the primary thing it is designed to do.

DistantCl3ric 5y ago
Reserve bank is not the government
BTCarel 5y ago
Have you read the article? The relevant rule discussed is outdated and very few governments enforce something similar.

csomar 5y ago

> This is a fairly recent “announcement” and many people are upset about the Reserve Bank making up seemingly hostile and uninformed rules regarding something that has no notion of borders and is practically impossible for the regulators to control in terms of owning and transferring. Something that arguably does not even exist in any one location... Actually it's pretty simple. By "owning" Bitcoins, you own money/capital. But it's in the "blockchain", or alternatively, the possession of such money happens inside South Africa. Once you do a transaction that transfers that capital (or the power of control of such capital) outside of South Africa (ie: a foreign exchange), you are breaking the law. If you are sending it to another friend in South Africa, you should be fine. (ps: Just reading into the substance of such a law, why it was made, I'm not a lawyer and this is not a legal advice). > And by the way, this exact rule is the reason many South African startup founders incorporate in Delaware instead of locally, because it is extremely difficult to attract foreign investment if the investors know they will not be able to get the return on their investment (or share of the IP) out of the country again. It essentially turns our country into an economic Black Hole. All these Entrepreneurs are breaking the capital AND the fiscal laws of the country. Since I assume they won't report their holdings (because of the capital controls). > First of all, we are dealing here with existing (very old) legislation that is fairly unique to South Africa. No “new rules” have been made. Not many countries deal with the type of restrictive exchange controls we have, in fact this specific clause was promulgated in 1961. Most countries do have controls on the "transfer" of capital outside of a country border. (or into the country too). But since you are using the banking system, you do not notice such regulation. > Anyway, the Reserve Bank is now in a position where it must either continue supporting a 60 year old, unenforcable rule, or focus on updating legislation to align with 2021 realities. The thing is, countries have a payment balance. They put these rules because they usually have a few big export companies (usually natural resources) or tourism. Allowing these companies to take their money out, will destabilize their balance of trade. They could ignore the crypto-kids (their size is negligible for now), but they can't afford a loophole for the system. And for that reason, the law is unlikely to get patched.

BTCarel 5y ago
Thank you, this is probably the only insightful comment on this post...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]