5 ms·

>>Tether has not been contacted by US officials or law enforcement with a request to freeze the addresses sanctioned by OFAC, but as noted above, Tether normall

>>Tether has not been contacted by US officials or law enforcement with a request to freeze the addresses sanctioned by OFAC, but as noted above, Tether normally complies with requests from US authorities, being in contact with them almost on a daily basis. Rephrased as: "US Treasury, we're ready to lock & freeze as many addresses as you need -- just give us the word!"

altairprime 4y ago
> “a request to freeze the addresses sanctioned” Emphasis added. The precision of their statement allows for having received other requests.
NikolaNovak 4y ago
I am ignorant, but do they expect government to contact them? I assumed sanctions are sanctions - you broadcast publish them rather than try to inform each and every entity specifically. So this feels like either incompetent ignorance, Or wilful pretence ignorance. <snide comment> Which, hey, Crypto... </snide comment>
- koolba 4y ago
  The US government should publish a contract with a single, isBanned(address), function that implementers can leverage to stay compliant. For efficiency they could just have it return “true” for everybody.
  - thebeastie 4y ago
    “If US Government ever make applications for Ethereum, it means I’ve won.” Vitalik Buterin, probably.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    They already do, it's the OFAC SDN list. [1] Everyone in the money transmission business is not just free to leverage this list but required by law to. If you search for 'tornado' in the plain text version, you'll find the list of blacklisted addresses. [1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/specially-designated-nationals-and-blocked-persons-list-sdn-human-readable-lists https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/...
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      It's incredible how national security became the channel through which to make the US internet more like China's state controlled one.
      - indymike 4y ago
        National security is usually the justification for oppression, followed by "the common good".
        ETH_start 4y ago
        National security is a subset of "the common good" argument, but one more focused on averting harm, than improving the state of society.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        The only way you'd come to that conclusion is if you'd never been to the PRC. The SDN list has nothing, and I do mean nothing, to do with internet censorship.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        This is nothing compared to China-level internet censorship, but barring Americans from interacting with a decentralized protocol that a contract address on the SDN list resolves to, is censorship. And the restrictions will have to massively escalate, possibly to CCP-levels (with restrictions on end-user access strong encryption) to effectively enforce such prohibitions, as cryptocurrency becomes more ubiquitous.
  - BLanen 4y ago
    I don't know if this is a joke, but no.
    - rixthefox 4y ago
      Yes, the quote was originally Linus Torvalds saying "If Microsoft ever builds applications for Linux then I've won". Can't find a direct source from when he said it but that's what the joke was referencing.
nl 4y ago
That's not how this work. Sanction violation is a strict liability offense - it is incumbent on companies to make sure they don't violate sanctions. With this statement Tether is.. dumb? It's impossible for them to claim they didn't know about it. They are domiciled in Hong Kong, but BitFienex (their sister company) recently agreed to pay $18M+ in fines to New York for finance law violations so it's not like they are beyond the reach of US law.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > are domiciled in Hong Kong They're a U.S. dollar stablecoin operator. If they get hit with secondary sanctions it literally becomes illegal for a Tether to be redeemed for dollars. I have no doubt it will continue printing tape at parity, but at least the smart money will know what's going on.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Tether is already under no obligation to redeem Tethers for dollars according to their own terms and conditions [1]. They are only obligated to redeem for people they at their sole discretion deem to be 'customers,' ([1] § 3) they can then arbitrarily delay that redemption for as long as they see fit for basically any reason ([1] § 3) and they can substitute the redemption for any assets they may or may not have on hand ([1] § 3). Most assuredly at any value they deem fit. On top of that there's a final blanket ban (net of 'exceptions') for any and all US persons ([1] § 3.3). [1] https://tether.to/legal https://tether.to/legal
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > can then arbitrarily delay that redemption for as long as they see fit for basically any reason If they're sanctioned, they can't redeem whether they want to or not. Holding Tether if it gets sanctioned would be like having U.S. dollar bank deposits at an Iranian bank. Yes, they may have other assets, but you can't legally accept them nor their proceeds. > there's a final blanket ban (net of 'exceptions') for any and all US persons This is meaningless. Tether use U.S. dollars. They're subject U.S. jurisdiction.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I mean.. that is basically how ALL entities ( and individuals ) in US are expected to behave. Now, Tether as an entity is based in Hong Kong, but, as one theory goes, the moment it touches US dollar it is in OFAC's scope. And tether does do just that. Not to search very far, more recent SDN update had a whole bunch addresses to be blocked. I am all but certain none of the US based entities even thought of not complying. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions/20220808 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/...
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
> Rephrased as: "US Treasury, we're ready to lock & freeze as many addresses as you need -- just give us the word!" Well yeah, what do you expect? The treasury has this right / mandate, and noncompliance will lead to revocation of licenses. They don't fuck around.

altairprime 4y ago

> “a request to freeze the addresses sanctioned” Emphasis added. The precision of their statement allows for having received other requests.

NikolaNovak 4y ago

I am ignorant, but do they expect government to contact them? I assumed sanctions are sanctions - you broadcast publish them rather than try to inform each and every entity specifically. So this feels like either incompetent ignorance, Or wilful pretence ignorance. <snide comment> Which, hey, Crypto... </snide comment>

koolba 4y ago
The US government should publish a contract with a single, isBanned(address), function that implementers can leverage to stay compliant. For efficiency they could just have it return “true” for everybody.
- thebeastie 4y ago
  “If US Government ever make applications for Ethereum, it means I’ve won.” Vitalik Buterin, probably.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  They already do, it's the OFAC SDN list. [1] Everyone in the money transmission business is not just free to leverage this list but required by law to. If you search for 'tornado' in the plain text version, you'll find the list of blacklisted addresses. [1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/specially-designated-nationals-and-blocked-persons-list-sdn-human-readable-lists https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/...
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    It's incredible how national security became the channel through which to make the US internet more like China's state controlled one.
    - indymike 4y ago
      National security is usually the justification for oppression, followed by "the common good".
      - ETH_start 4y ago
        National security is a subset of "the common good" argument, but one more focused on averting harm, than improving the state of society.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      The only way you'd come to that conclusion is if you'd never been to the PRC. The SDN list has nothing, and I do mean nothing, to do with internet censorship.
      - ETH_start 4y ago
        This is nothing compared to China-level internet censorship, but barring Americans from interacting with a decentralized protocol that a contract address on the SDN list resolves to, is censorship. And the restrictions will have to massively escalate, possibly to CCP-levels (with restrictions on end-user access strong encryption) to effectively enforce such prohibitions, as cryptocurrency becomes more ubiquitous.
- BLanen 4y ago
  I don't know if this is a joke, but no.
  - rixthefox 4y ago
    Yes, the quote was originally Linus Torvalds saying "If Microsoft ever builds applications for Linux then I've won". Can't find a direct source from when he said it but that's what the joke was referencing.

nl 4y ago

That's not how this work. Sanction violation is a strict liability offense - it is incumbent on companies to make sure they don't violate sanctions. With this statement Tether is.. dumb? It's impossible for them to claim they didn't know about it. They are domiciled in Hong Kong, but BitFienex (their sister company) recently agreed to pay $18M+ in fines to New York for finance law violations so it's not like they are beyond the reach of US law.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> are domiciled in Hong Kong They're a U.S. dollar stablecoin operator. If they get hit with secondary sanctions it literally becomes illegal for a Tether to be redeemed for dollars. I have no doubt it will continue printing tape at parity, but at least the smart money will know what's going on.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Tether is already under no obligation to redeem Tethers for dollars according to their own terms and conditions [1]. They are only obligated to redeem for people they at their sole discretion deem to be 'customers,' ([1] § 3) they can then arbitrarily delay that redemption for as long as they see fit for basically any reason ([1] § 3) and they can substitute the redemption for any assets they may or may not have on hand ([1] § 3). Most assuredly at any value they deem fit. On top of that there's a final blanket ban (net of 'exceptions') for any and all US persons ([1] § 3.3). [1] https://tether.to/legal https://tether.to/legal
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > can then arbitrarily delay that redemption for as long as they see fit for basically any reason If they're sanctioned, they can't redeem whether they want to or not. Holding Tether if it gets sanctioned would be like having U.S. dollar bank deposits at an Iranian bank. Yes, they may have other assets, but you can't legally accept them nor their proceeds. > there's a final blanket ban (net of 'exceptions') for any and all US persons This is meaningless. Tether use U.S. dollars. They're subject U.S. jurisdiction.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

I mean.. that is basically how ALL entities ( and individuals ) in US are expected to behave. Now, Tether as an entity is based in Hong Kong, but, as one theory goes, the moment it touches US dollar it is in OFAC's scope. And tether does do just that. Not to search very far, more recent SDN update had a whole bunch addresses to be blocked. I am all but certain none of the US based entities even thought of not complying. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions/20220808 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/...

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

> Rephrased as: "US Treasury, we're ready to lock & freeze as many addresses as you need -- just give us the word!" Well yeah, what do you expect? The treasury has this right / mandate, and noncompliance will lead to revocation of licenses. They don't fuck around.