4 ms·

> At $10k in America, KYC and AML laws force banks to step through extra layers of verification Isn't that only for cash transfers? > which would likely invol

> At $10k in America, KYC and AML laws force banks to step through extra layers of verification Isn't that only for cash transfers? > which would likely involve a mandatory in-person meeting with the bank customer At least at Chase and Fidelity, wires can be done over the phone with no limit. > to verify their credentials and purpose I've never seen a banker really help to verify wire instructions, as in contacting the intended recipient. Normally they just ask the sender if they've verified the instructions, if they understand that the wire is irreversible, etc. Of course when it gets to the bank's wire department, they make some attempt to block suspicious wires. But they're guessing based on limited info, as they don't typically contact the sender or recipient. > I'm sure you'll still be able to recover that money back because banks are required to actually validate transactions of that size with KYC, AML, etc. laws From what I've heard, fraudsters will (indirectly) transfer funds to e.g. a Nigerian bank and cash out there. It doesn't always succeed, but it does sometimes, or wire fraud wouldn't exist.

skim_milk 5y ago
Yes, the banking industry won't do much to prevent Aunt Senile from wiring $80k to Nigeria, although I doubt they make it easy. Hell, I couldn't even phone-authorize a wire of 8k to buy a car two states over, but I guess that's just my bank. Had to bloody pay for the car on credit card, no joke. But the scenario in the OP is only possible in cryptocurrencies. You can't put a button on a website "Click here to send a JPEG through email for $3.50*" with the fine print "*and also 100 million dollars" and expect that to ever work out with the legacy banking system. Only in cryptoland could someone ever accidentally yeet 100 million dollars in a few seconds by visiting a website and clicking a button.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  It's a fair criticism. But the reverse is also true, in that money is frictionless to raise and coordinate in cryptocurrencies, such as the $45M attempt at buying a copy of the Constitution (which failed, but people simply got a refund), or the $56M that was raised for Julian Assange's defense last week. I'm able to work with total strangers, raise money, sell products, contribute to causes, commission art work etc, etc, hold those funds in a smart contract treasury and encode rules to govern the spending of those funds. Safe guards do exist for the aforementioned issue. Number one is not holding significant sums of money in a single wallet, unless it's a multi-sig that requires multiple parties to agree to transactions (like Gnosis Safe wallets, which store $100B+ in assets and are battle tested at this point).
  - ves 5y ago
    You’re aware that an enormous proportion of people’s constitution dao refunds were eaten up by gas fees, presumably.
    - chrisco255 5y ago
      No, they weren't: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/constitutiondao https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/constitutiondao The value of the PEOPLE tokens on the secondary market proceeded to increase nearly 10x in the weeks following the dissolution of the DAO. Even though market cap is declining, at $327M mcap, it is still many multiples of the amount raised. PEOPLE tokens in circulation are still redeemable for the underlying ETH, but the monetary premium has increased as a result of the dispersed liquidity to so many holders (16K+) as well as the novelty of retaining the token for a failed, yet valiant effort.

skim_milk 5y ago

Yes, the banking industry won't do much to prevent Aunt Senile from wiring $80k to Nigeria, although I doubt they make it easy. Hell, I couldn't even phone-authorize a wire of 8k to buy a car two states over, but I guess that's just my bank. Had to bloody pay for the car on credit card, no joke. But the scenario in the OP is only possible in cryptocurrencies. You can't put a button on a website "Click here to send a JPEG through email for $3.50*" with the fine print "*and also 100 million dollars" and expect that to ever work out with the legacy banking system. Only in cryptoland could someone ever accidentally yeet 100 million dollars in a few seconds by visiting a website and clicking a button.

chrisco255 5y ago
It's a fair criticism. But the reverse is also true, in that money is frictionless to raise and coordinate in cryptocurrencies, such as the $45M attempt at buying a copy of the Constitution (which failed, but people simply got a refund), or the $56M that was raised for Julian Assange's defense last week. I'm able to work with total strangers, raise money, sell products, contribute to causes, commission art work etc, etc, hold those funds in a smart contract treasury and encode rules to govern the spending of those funds. Safe guards do exist for the aforementioned issue. Number one is not holding significant sums of money in a single wallet, unless it's a multi-sig that requires multiple parties to agree to transactions (like Gnosis Safe wallets, which store $100B+ in assets and are battle tested at this point).
- ves 5y ago
  You’re aware that an enormous proportion of people’s constitution dao refunds were eaten up by gas fees, presumably.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    No, they weren't: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/constitutiondao https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/constitutiondao The value of the PEOPLE tokens on the secondary market proceeded to increase nearly 10x in the weeks following the dissolution of the DAO. Even though market cap is declining, at $327M mcap, it is still many multiples of the amount raised. PEOPLE tokens in circulation are still redeemable for the underlying ETH, but the monetary premium has increased as a result of the dispersed liquidity to so many holders (16K+) as well as the novelty of retaining the token for a failed, yet valiant effort.