3 ms·

I wrote about the topic of slow possible cryptocurrency death in the context of Estonia and their upcoming laws. Although banning of cryptocurrencies might not

I wrote about the topic of slow possible cryptocurrency death in the context of Estonia and their upcoming laws. Although banning of cryptocurrencies might not be an explicit goal, regulation, either by bureacratic regulators, lack of undestanding from senior politicians and citizens, kneejerk reactions, overreaching policing and spooks (Canada), protect the kids folks, conservatives fearing porn payments, general decline of democracy and freedom of speech and pissed off traditional bankers might cause it: https://capitalgram.com/posts/estonia-cryptocurrency-ban/ https://capitalgram.com/posts/estonia-cryptocurrency-ban/ The only way to stop the slippery slope towards the political ban is for voters to start caring about the topic. Also FATF guidelines to not require zero threshold, but propose $1000. This is completely self made rule by weak minded EU members of parliaments who try to score votes from concerned (senior) citizens https://mobile.twitter.com/moo9000/status/1491386266377945088 https://mobile.twitter.com/moo9000/status/149138626637794508... https://mobile.twitter.com/moo9000/status/1466455515119206400 https://mobile.twitter.com/moo9000/status/146645551511920640... Zero reporting threshold for transactions is not practical or desirable.

horsawlarway 5y ago
I have a different more nuanced take on this. I've commented earlier, but I'll repeat myself here: ----- Currency is only as good as the government that mediates its exchange. If mediating that exchange incurs costs, then the government will take steps to either stop mediating those exchanges (ex: China - where all crypto exchanges are illegal by default, so the legal system can no longer be used to offset the cost of those exchanges at cost to itself) or it will bring that currency under control so that it can make those costs predictable and acceptable (ex: The US - where crypto is getting "all the bad bits" added back through legislation) Which means the original intent of crypto only works in this honeymoon period (which I actually think ended not too long after the silk road went down) where it happens to get treated as an asset by a government that hasn't yet found out that they're essentially mediating exchanges in a foreign currency for free (not something most governments want to do).
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  The theory a decade ago was that cryptocurrency would develop an native economy of sorts: you could buy and sell things directly in crypto, and there would be markets for that. Maybe not markets for everything! But at least enough that it would start to erode the need for fiat ramps. That hasn't really happened yet, despite the fact that we now have various permissionless stablecoins to tackle the volatility problems. Maybe it never will.
louwrentius 5y ago
Frankly speaking, I don't support this fight. There is absolutely no good reasons for electronic payments to be anonymous. They never were and they should not be. I understand it serves (yes here we go) crime, oh sure. But this is not a hill to die on. This is not about a lack of understanding or FUD. This is about not letting crime happen. There is no problem to be solved here.
- miohtama 5y ago
  As a nitpick, cryptocurrency payments are pseudonymous, not anonymous. The current AML system is good enough and prevents cryptocurrency crime as efficiently as they prevent other crime. Also this is not about preventing crime, this is about setting a reporting requirement to an inpractical limit of zero euros. Nobody is going to do crime with 10 EUR PornHub or gay condom purchases. What would you consider an accetable reporting requirement for all of your transactions?
- dathinab 5y ago
  I think that fight makes sense, not to win it but to make sure the bills they pass are sensible. Like there should be a non-small burden to de-anonymize things. Mainly to reduce misuse potential.

horsawlarway 5y ago

I have a different more nuanced take on this. I've commented earlier, but I'll repeat myself here: ----- Currency is only as good as the government that mediates its exchange. If mediating that exchange incurs costs, then the government will take steps to either stop mediating those exchanges (ex: China - where all crypto exchanges are illegal by default, so the legal system can no longer be used to offset the cost of those exchanges at cost to itself) or it will bring that currency under control so that it can make those costs predictable and acceptable (ex: The US - where crypto is getting "all the bad bits" added back through legislation) Which means the original intent of crypto only works in this honeymoon period (which I actually think ended not too long after the silk road went down) where it happens to get treated as an asset by a government that hasn't yet found out that they're essentially mediating exchanges in a foreign currency for free (not something most governments want to do).

matthewdgreen 5y ago
The theory a decade ago was that cryptocurrency would develop an native economy of sorts: you could buy and sell things directly in crypto, and there would be markets for that. Maybe not markets for everything! But at least enough that it would start to erode the need for fiat ramps. That hasn't really happened yet, despite the fact that we now have various permissionless stablecoins to tackle the volatility problems. Maybe it never will.

louwrentius 5y ago

Frankly speaking, I don't support this fight. There is absolutely no good reasons for electronic payments to be anonymous. They never were and they should not be. I understand it serves (yes here we go) crime, oh sure. But this is not a hill to die on. This is not about a lack of understanding or FUD. This is about not letting crime happen. There is no problem to be solved here.

miohtama 5y ago
As a nitpick, cryptocurrency payments are pseudonymous, not anonymous. The current AML system is good enough and prevents cryptocurrency crime as efficiently as they prevent other crime. Also this is not about preventing crime, this is about setting a reporting requirement to an inpractical limit of zero euros. Nobody is going to do crime with 10 EUR PornHub or gay condom purchases. What would you consider an accetable reporting requirement for all of your transactions?
dathinab 5y ago
I think that fight makes sense, not to win it but to make sure the bills they pass are sensible. Like there should be a non-small burden to de-anonymize things. Mainly to reduce misuse potential.