5 ms·

I still don't buy your thesis that there aren't huge swaths of unbanked El Salvadorans who could benefit from low fee crypto transfers, especially now that it i

• arcticbull 5y ago
  > ...maybe we should block all their access to money supply so they and their family can starve. Well, no, remember that asylum is legal immigration and asylees and claimants are free to use the banking system. A properly and fairly executed asylum system actually threads the needle here nicely. Of course they shouldn't exist, we both agree. Given the system is imperfect what should we do, is the question you're asking I think. My answer is not "build circumvention tools" but instead "advocate for reform." In the same way I think drugs should be legal, but instead of building a darknet marketplace - which solves zero existing problems and creates 10 more new ones - I instead advocate for drug decriminalization and prison reform. And safe injection sites. This makes the world a better place. > As are banks and fiat. Of course, but that system tries to stop them with the things you rail against, like AML and KYC rules - whereas crypto welcomes them with open arms. That's a fundamental difference. Whatever is built upon it is fruit of the poison tree, rife with adverse selection. I maintain that building tools to circumvent constitutional laws you happen not to like is a bad thing. I think that energy is better expended advocating for better legislation. It's hard, but it's infinitely better.
  • quantumBerry 5y ago
    There's no KYC for holding fiat, and transactions above 10k are on the honor system for cash purchases. Cash "welcomes them with open arms." There's also minimal checking of those that leave our borders; someone could easily cross into Mexico with 100k in a breifcase of Swiss Francs and no one would be the wiser. Virtually anyone that lives near the border understands this. > Whatever is built upon it is fruit of the poison tree To you; to me it's built on the tree of liberty. >building a darknet marketplace - which solves zero existing problems The existing problem was that people would show up in cash in person, and often without either parties being vetted. The darkmarket did not totally solve this problem but it did help it, by creating a rating system and allowing people to buy items without needing to put themselves in the vicinity of a potentially dangerous drug den. Sometimes direct action is more empowering to the common man than legislation. As Cody Wilson said when he made the 3d gun popular, it was a political act that the world just has to deal with. Bringing crypto into this world "legislated" into reality a way to move funds in a way the legislature failed to by blocking the path of those who are conventionally blocked by KYC and AML. I don't know that every El Salvadoran can just wait indefinitely for legislation to pass for their money to come in from their family members working in the US. Every dollar taken away from them from the likes of Western Union et al is money straight out of the mouth of possibly impoverished family members, and we shouldn't begrudge these people the tools to fund their unbanked families at a fair rate.
    • arcticbull 5y ago
      > There's no KYC for holding fiat... Woah. Hold up. There's no KYC for holding anything. There's always been KYC for obtaining fiat. For withdrawing fiat. For depositing fiat. For getting paid in fiat. For paying other people in fiat. It's not the holding at issue, it's the transacting. > ...and transactions above 10k are on the honor system for cash purchases. No, they certainly are not. Any withdrawals or deposits of over 10K USD at a bank will require an ID and get you a CTR or SAR filed. If you tried to get 100K in fiat you will almost certainly get a CTR or SAR filed on you. You'll probably get a call from a bank manager, a compliance officer and/or someone from FinCEN. Ditto on the deposit. In fact, transactions under 10K also often get CTRs filed. [1] If you aren't withdrawing it the person who did will get the filings. > There's also minimal checking of those that leave our borders; someone could easily cross into Mexico with 100k in a breifcase of Swiss Francs and no one would be the wiser. Potentially, but unlikely. You cannot get 100K of cash lawfully without presenting ID. If you did, you committed a crime to get it, it was probably laundered, and you probably paid 2-10X that amount to launder it. You're probably a criminal. To wind up with an undocumented, untraceable 100K in a briefcase, either you or someone else committed a crime. This is part of the reason people do not cross borders with 100K in cash. It's a crime to do so without reporting it, so if found it'll be seized. It's trivial to find $100K in cash strapped to someone or on an Xray. They tend to instead obtain gift cards and move portfolios of that. > To you; to me it's built on the tree of liberty. No, crime is not liberty. It's crime. Crime is the violation of my liberties and the code of civil society because you think rights you don't have are more important than rights I do have. Again you completely ignore Wise as a much better, less volatile solution to the problem. The problem you're describing, and the world you're describing, feels a bit like finance fanfic. > The existing problem was that people would show up in cash in person, and often without either parties being vetted. The darkmarket did not totally solve this problem but it did help it, by creating a rating system and allowing people to buy items without needing to put themselves in the vicinity of a potentially dangerous drug den. No the issue with drug legislation is it impinges on the freedoms of average citizens and directly harms them via prison. A darknet market does nothing to alleviate the issue at hand. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ctr.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ctr.asp