13 ms·

I’m not pro crypto or pro Russia, but the fact that it’s so easy to lose ones freedom to transact[0] (regardless of the specific merits here) is troubling. [0]

• rootusrootus 5y ago
  Hasn't really been a problem for other countries to avoid this problem, so I'm not sure how worried I ought to be. Like so many things, I'll worry about trends when there is a trend.
  • cm2187 5y ago
    It has been a problem. There is pretty much a duopoly, look at the difficulties you face if they disapprove your business or politics. More competition is long overdue. But we are testing modern finance by weaponising the financial system. The most problematic move I think has been freezing the central bank's reserve. It might achieve the short term gain of hurting Russia, but what about the long term impact on the trust in holding foreign currencies?
    • cgio 5y ago
      I anticipate lots of gold moving physically over the next few months.
      • theshrike79 5y ago
        Pretty much all of Russia's liquid cash is in physical gold and bills, it'll be interesting to see how that's getting moved and used.
      • stubish 5y ago
        Unfortunately for Russia, if it does need to significantly dip into it's gold reserves it is likely to crash that market. I think China will get to negotiate a sweet discount to convert it to Yuan, if for no other reason than China seems to be the only place the gold can be laundered at the moment. I think I heard about $US 180bn worth?
        • selcuka 5y ago
          I believe it could be the other way around, i.e. other countries paying in gold for Russia's natural gas to bypass sanctions. Iran has been able to sell petrol using the same method despite of the embargo.
    • mvc 5y ago
      If you wanna play at autocracy, don't hold foreign reserves in countries that value democracy. Simples
      • cm2187 5y ago
        As simple as the economic impact when China reaches this conclusion.
        • mvc 5y ago
          China is seeing that people who live in democratic countries have been given a timely reminder about how valuable that is. They will fight to protect that status. And over the medium to long term, they will reorient their economies so that they are not dependent on autocratic countries. Autocracy will lose long term.
        • ceejayoz 5y ago
          The Chinese aren't dumb enough to pretend their economy wouldn't collapse if they got the sort of embargo Russia's seeing. Their #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, and #7 top trading partners are all US or US allies.
          • tsol 5y ago
            The United States would also face huge shortages and other problems if they couldn't trade with China. China also realizes that too-- it's a two way street. Globalization makes everyone vulnerable
            • ceejayoz 5y ago
              Yes. It’s MAD, without the “everyone is on fire in 15 minutes” aspect. I’m inclined to see that as good.
    • selimthegrim 5y ago
      Russia saw what happened to the Taliban and shrugged, they didn't realize the bell would toll for them too so soon
  • User23 5y ago
    It’s hard to remember as long ago as last month when peaceful Canadian protestors had their assets seized without due process. We already live in a world where so-called first world nationals have this happen to them. It’s not about countries or individuals, it’s about power. And the rulers of the west have demonstrated the power to completely destroy someone financially by flipping a few bits as well as the willingness to use it at any scale. It used to be you had to send armed men to seize wealth, which doesn’t scale well. Now it’s all keystrokes which scale up to the total population just fine. But wait you say, those are bad people, and I’m a good person, I have nothing to fear! Good luck with that. Edit: It didn’t take long for a good person with nothing to fear to assure us of his status.
    • rootusrootus 5y ago
      > It’s hard to remember as long ago as last month when peaceful Canadian protestors had their assets seized without due process. I have never had any expectation that when I am actively committing a crime, I can expect authorities to wait for the courts to decide if I should face any immediate sanctions or controls to stop my behavior. What would you rather have happen? Rubber bullets and tear gas? Or are you actually suggesting that it is okay to hold the public hostage until you get what you want?
      • Lascaille 5y ago
        >Or are you actually suggesting that it is okay to hold the public hostage until you get what you want? Ghandi and MLK have already given us the answer to that question. It's fine to peacefully protest until you achieve your objectives. Yes, people will try to malign you (saying that you're 'holding the public hostage') and insinuate things about you, but ignore them. It's okay. It's okay.
        • rootusrootus 5y ago
          So you're suggesting they were peacefully protesting, not blockading an entry point? To what extent can a protest go before the public has the right to force it to stop? Does blaring so many horns continuously so that residential apartments are subjected to 100dB indoors count as peaceful? How bad does it get before the police are allowed to take whatever steps necessary to stop it? And before you say anything about BLM, recall than many thousands of people were arrested last year during those protests, and there were plenty of rubber bullets, tear gas, and beatings. I'm always amazed at the extent people will go to absolve their own tribe from responsibility while accusing the other side of doing the same thing. Personally I abhorred the violence in downtown Portland last year and I'm glad they finally stopped. I think the police need to dial it back a little in many cases, but I want them to be able to put a lid on the ability of protesters to destroy the lives of innocent people. And I think January 6 was an insurrection, but of course it was. I find all of y'all kinda annoying :).
  • whiddershins 5y ago
    Well, there was freezing the bank accounts in Canada. That was just a couple of weeks ago.
  • lixtra 5y ago
    Another example was Operation Choke Point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
• gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  Historical regimes have managed to implement similarly restrictive controls on the population with absolutely primitive technology compared to today. It’s troubling, but hardly without precedent. Imagine if they had social media in the 30s-40s.
  • phs318u 5y ago
    > Imagine if they had social media in the 30s-40s. I have thought about this, and given the amount of pro-Fascist sentiment in Western Europe, WWII probably wouldn't have happened. Germany would probably have gotten away with taking Austria, Czechoslovakia, possibly the lands forfeited to France after WWI and at least part of Poland. The world would look VERY different to today. Assuming Japan stuck to their neck of the woods, the USA probably would never have gotten to be a super power (given it was WWII that really catapulted them into that category). The UK may still have reasonable parts of the empire. The super powers would probably be Germany, USSR and a lesser extent, UK, Japan. This is the stuff of alt-historical fiction. EDIT: apologies for straying off topic but I couldn't resist.
    • Chyzwar 5y ago
      Nazi Germany had no choice but continue war in 1939. The economy was close to collapse and food shortages were coming. Nazi concept of Lebensraum would require conquest to the east. I think with social media in that period, national socialism and communism could win in more countries.
      • r00fus 5y ago
        Uhm. National socialism is fascism, not communism.
        • Chyzwar 5y ago
          Both are form of socialism. https://youtu.be/eCkyWBPaTC8 https://youtu.be/eCkyWBPaTC8
• ProjectArcturis 5y ago
  Russians still have the freedom to transact in cash, and with domestic transfer companies. They do not have the right to have their transactions fulfilled by third-party facilitators.
  • anonporridge 5y ago
    It's a good thing most first world countries aren't constantly talking about the transition to a cashless society...oh wait...
• zamalek 5y ago
  This is analogy is an over-vilification of the Russian people, but I do think it helps bring the intricacies of this into perspective: Imagine there's one big bully in a schoolyard playground, alongside the one kid who is singled out. All the other kids (freely) choose to follow the bullies' lead and, at the very best, join in by ostracizing the victim. Who is in the wrong in that scenario? The best thing Russian people can do is render Putin the king of an empty kingdom, and that was always the solution. Sure, there are hundreds of thousands, to millions and tens of millions of people (depending on where the poverty line is in Russia) for who that isn't an option. Equally so, those people wouldn't have been able to lift Putin's empire into what it is today. There would rather be no expertise for nukes, nobody to architect oil pipelines, and a terribly demoralized and disloyal army. Russia is has aspects of a developed country because of the fantastic people that live there. Stop paying taxes to dictators, narcissists, and megalomaniacs. We should widely open borders to Russian refugees and defectors. Patriotism is the love of a country, not a dictator.
  • tomp 5y ago
    This is both morally (are Americans responsible for Bush’s & Obama’s wars? Should they stop paying taxes? They’re clearly much richer than Russians) and factually (North Korea hasn’t collapsed yet) wrong.
• theshrike79 5y ago
  This is only possible because Russia is the first clear and acceptable Bad Guy since WW2 Germany. There are very few gray areas about what they are doing in Ukraine, so everyone is firing with everything they've got. Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction someone called them.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • klyrs 5y ago
    This isn't remotely the first since WW2. There were near universal sanctions of South Africa in the 60s due to the apartheid there, for example.
    • theshrike79 5y ago
      We have had sanctions before, but at this level? It's pretty much unprecedented. Usually sanctions are a bit of this and bit of that, just enough to put pressure on the politicians. Now we have companies left and right refusing to do business with Russia, all their foreign money is frozen and billionaires are getting their yachts taken from them. They can't even sell their oil anywhere, not even at a discount. (Although it seems Shell bought some, let's see how the fallout from that decision turns out).
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • selimthegrim 5y ago
      Are you sure you don't mean the 80s?
      • klyrs 5y ago
        Yeah, you're right. The arms embargo started in the 60s but sanctions didn't really hit broad buy-in until the 80s.
  • 5y ago
• colesantiago 5y ago
  > I’m not pro crypto or pro Russia, but the fact that it’s so easy to lose ones freedom to transact[0] I am absolutely sure that Transferwise is still available for Russians to use, so the freedom to transact isn't really lost. 'Cryptocurrencies' should not be used at all.
  • 323 5y ago
    > Payments companies Wise, Remitly suspend money transfer businesses in Russia https://www.reuters.com/technology/payments-company-wise-suspends-money-transfer-business-russia-2022-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/payments-company-wise-sus...
    • colesantiago 5y ago
      Western Union and Moneygram exists in Russia no? You do realise that Transferwise isn’t the only money transfer service, there only given as an example. The fact that the article states that there was a limit shows this ‘ban’ is only a temporary measure by Wise. As I said you can still use other regulated alternatives.
      • Lascaille 5y ago
        >Western Union and Moneygram exists in Russia no? What aspect of 'sanctions' do you not understand? Edit: Oh, I read your other contributions in this thread and see you're just trolling. My mistake.
        • colesantiago 5y ago
          So you can’t do money transfers with Western Union in Russia? A source from you would be great rather than dismissing my claim with ‘sanctions’. You need to elaborate.
          • Lascaille 5y ago
            >A source from you would be great Much like you sourced your claim that transferwise worked? No thanks, I'll save my time.
• xdennis 5y ago
  > it’s so easy to lose ones freedom to transact How is it easy? Does your country's dictator regularly invade neighbors without so much as pretext and targets civilians?
  • native_samples 5y ago
    It's as easy as reading up a bit on an experimental drug and deciding you don't need it. Pretty darn easy.
  • vkou 5y ago
    I'll also mention that transactions work just fine in most countries ran by dictators who invade neighbours without pretext, and target civilians. Saudi princes seem to have no problems buying mega-yachts and futball clubs. The key is that they tend to not invade European neighbours. So, yes, if you upset Europe, and all your transactions rely on European cooperation, you may no longer be able to transact. In fact, if you upset Europe enough, and are not a nuclear state, you might even get invaded as a result. Your concerns about international financial transactions will be a bit academic at that point. If anything, this episode should make you more confident about transactions just working. The point at which they stop working is 'We've done everything we could against you, short of declaring war.'
• Comevius 5y ago
  So what's the alternative? I can not trust global institutions all I want and rely on alternatives for everything, but would I be able to trust the alternatives, and what would stop powerful institutions from butting in all the same? Wouldn't it be just easier to fix our institutions so that we can trust and rely on them? The crypto economy for example is full of sharks. It's a bigger, insider, scammer dog eats smaller, outsider, bagholder dog world and there is no fixing it. It's a zero sum game. It's unsustainable. It's inhumane. It's too simple to hold up any practical economy at scale.
• anonporridge 5y ago
  You're not the only one, https://world.hey.com/dhh/i-was-wrong-we-need-crypto-587ccb03 https://world.hey.com/dhh/i-was-wrong-we-need-crypto-587ccb0...
• koonsolo 5y ago
  It's funny how people here on HN are always on about "it's a solution looking for a problem", etc. And then others try explain the use-cases, and they just try to refute it with all kinds of stupid arguments. Now it's pretty clear how crypto can have a use case (as some of us already knew and were hammering on about it for a long time). So can we set a new baseline here, and agree that crypto has a use-case? Or are you anti-crypto people still as short sighted as before? I think we made some progress here on HN, and some of the "anti-crypto" people are now moving into "not pro crypto" space.
  • Symbiote 5y ago
    I think everyone here recognises the criminal use cases of cryptocurrency (drugs, money laundering etc). Evading sanctions is just another type of illegal trade.
    • koonsolo 5y ago
      Some claim this is a bad use-case since it's a public ledger and everything can be traced. See, every use-case can be easily taken down. If I was in Russia, I would be very glad to own some crypto right now. But hey, you do you.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • tomp 5y ago
      Crypto is for people who don’t outsource their morality to governments or other authorities.