3 ms·

>>The paper doesn't speak to anything about OFAC, Not sure why you're trying to whitewash the Treasury's actions. The release they put out highlights the alleg

>>The paper doesn't speak to anything about OFAC, Not sure why you're trying to whitewash the Treasury's actions. The release they put out highlights the allegation of TC being used for money laundering, and sanctions enforcement is one of the objectives of AML programs. So the paper is relevant.

RandomLensman 4y ago
While the paper is relevant to AML overall, it doesn't really speak towards the efficiency of enforcing sanctions as such. That particular area could be a lot more (or less) effective.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> why you're trying to whitewash the Treasury's actions I’m showing why a source is irrelevant to an argument, in part because of some unintuitive jargon. (Though the part quoted by the original comment is straightforward for anyone who reads the paper and the definitions around the 0.2% figure.) If one takes directly the paper’s suggested endpoint, seized funds as a measure of programme success, it counters the gist of OP’s argument. > release they put out highlights the allegation of TC being used for money laundering, and sanctions enforcement is one of the objectives of AML programs AML, in the paper’s context, begins and ends with banks telling on suspicious accounts. For detecting money laundering. TC was fingered by feds analysing the blockchain. That’s police work. Different monitoring mechanism. The goal is stopping money laundering. But the midpoint, identifying accounts laundering money, and endpoint, seizing those funds, are downstream of the paper’s concerns. To the extent the paper discusses OFAC and similar agencies, it implies an endpoint far more drastic than anything done so far to Tornado or its users. > the paper is relevant Tangentially. But not in furtherance of the argument that OFAC sanctions are ineffective.

3 ms·

>>The paper doesn't speak to anything about OFAC, Not sure why you're trying to whitewash the Treasury's actions. The release they put out highlights the alleg

by ETH_start 4y ago

RandomLensman 4y ago
While the paper is relevant to AML overall, it doesn't really speak towards the efficiency of enforcing sanctions as such. That particular area could be a lot more (or less) effective.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> why you're trying to whitewash the Treasury's actions I’m showing why a source is irrelevant to an argument, in part because of some unintuitive jargon. (Though the part quoted by the original comment is straightforward for anyone who reads the paper and the definitions around the 0.2% figure.) If one takes directly the paper’s suggested endpoint, seized funds as a measure of programme success, it counters the gist of OP’s argument. > release they put out highlights the allegation of TC being used for money laundering, and sanctions enforcement is one of the objectives of AML programs AML, in the paper’s context, begins and ends with banks telling on suspicious accounts. For detecting money laundering. TC was fingered by feds analysing the blockchain. That’s police work. Different monitoring mechanism. The goal is stopping money laundering. But the midpoint, identifying accounts laundering money, and endpoint, seizing those funds, are downstream of the paper’s concerns. To the extent the paper discusses OFAC and similar agencies, it implies an endpoint far more drastic than anything done so far to Tornado or its users. > the paper is relevant Tangentially. But not in furtherance of the argument that OFAC sanctions are ineffective.