5 ms·

Also - if regulations don't allow them to have stocks & dollars - then either the regulations are there for good reason, or we should change the regulations - n

Also - if regulations don't allow them to have stocks & dollars - then either the regulations are there for good reason, or we should change the regulations - not just skirt them.

lazide 4y ago
Nuking KYC/AML rules (the biggest issues) would certainly help bank large swathes of the population that currently are excluded. If you think that is a good thing or a bad thing depends a lot on various highly polarizing religious and political discussions that are unlikely to be solved... well, at all, frankly. Maybe ever. Based on the human history I've been able to find and read, anyway.
- notch898a 4y ago
  I like to tell the story of the time I was moving from one state to another and did not have housing yet. The bank refused to open an account. With a passport, plus license with outdated address. Said it violates KYC w/ no proof of address. Meanwhile, with no documentation (no id, passport, etc) I could legally conceal carry a gun in the bank. I can't believe it's gotten to the point where you can be trusted to legally have a gun in the bank but considered too dangerous to hand over $5.
  - lazide 4y ago
    I agree, it's absurd. But.... maybe you'd send those $5 to ISIS?!? /s
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    There's no bill of rights amendment to give you access to a bank account. Also, a lot of people think it would be stupid and not good to bring a gun into a bank, but if you try to codify that in any way, including a sign on the outside of the bank that says "please don't bring a gun in here", certain really angry people get even angrier and will publicize such a thing to fellow very angry people as if it isn't a perfectly normal thing to not want a gun in your bank.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      I would argue the bill of rights, specifically the 4th amendment, should protect you from a government imposed search of your papers to open an account.
      - lazide 4y ago
        It's hard to imagine that standing up to the situation that is required, which is someone must provide gov't issued identification to have a bank account (because terrorists). After all, I don't think anyone has a right to privacy from the gov't regarding gov't issued IDs. Maybe 10th amendment/interstate commerce clause overreach? (Why is the federal gov't mandating what my local branch requires for acceptance of ID?!?) But then the Gov't would pull out the whole 9/11 patriot act justification, national security, blah blah blah, and chances are the supreme court would give them even more justification.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      > There's no bill of rights amendment to give you access to a bank account. Interestingly, the EU does take this exact approach, having a directive that mandates that everyone has the right to a basic bank account and banks can't refuse opening one just because you're a refugee or a convicted fraudster or a homeless unemployed drug addict. Access to financial infrastructure is a key part of participating in modern society and interacting with the state (e.g. receiving any benefits), so it is imperative that everyone, including the most downtrodden, can access it.
      - lazide 4y ago
        But what if one of them gasp buys something illegal with it!?!? Or funds something terrible? /s That’s the argument here for the KYC/AML laws. No joke.
- nradov 4y ago
  In developed countries very few legitimate customers are unable to open bank accounts due to KYC/AML rules. You can probably find a few examples where people were turned down due to identity theft or procedural errors but those cases are rare and temporary. In the real world when banks reject customers it's because they have negative items on their credit reports or a history of fraud (like bouncing checks).
  - lazide 4y ago
    Or for unexplained reasons. There are numerous examples from early crypto where well known banks froze individuals accounts merely for getting a transfer from coinbase. also, gun retailers, porn companies, marijuana dispensaries, etc. all have a LOT of experience having account applications denied or accounts frozen.
brokenkebaby 4y ago
Sure, if someone happen to be a citizen of a repressive dictatorship - then either it's for a good reason, or we should change the dictatorship! Sounds easy!
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  The total investments in BTC from places like that are less than 0.1% of all investments. BTC is not a tool helping the world operate more freely. 99.9% of it is something else... Namely speculation and scams.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    But which one is it? Are those regulations there for a good reason, or should we just change the regulations, presumably e.g. via military intervention to topple their governments?
  - brokenkebaby 4y ago
    Here's me. I use crypto to help my relatives. Btw, your stats apparently should have a source, and definition of what "investment" is in the context. Why not to show it?
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
      The vast majority of inflows into crypto happen in USD (>85%). So - ballpark - a max of 15% of crypto inflows can come from people without access to dollars. JPY, EUR, and KRW aren't much easier to access and make up almost all of the missing 15%. The amount of inflows from North Korean Won, Zimbabwean Dollars, etc are virtually zero. Sure, maybe people like you are using crypto as a way to transfer money to people somewhere like North Korea (which would be illegal in dollars). That's a tiny, tiny insignificant portion of crypto usage & investment. It's almost like saying - Elon Musk donated $X billion dollars in stock to charity (mostly to avoid taxes). Don't tell me stocks exist to invest in companies! Other people are using stocks to transfer money to charities! The vast majority is of fiat inflow is coming from the US, Japan, and the EU - and it's mainly for speculation (or, as crypto people claim "investment").

Also - if regulations don't allow them to have stocks & dollars - then either the regulations are there for good reason, or we should change the regulations - not just skirt them.

lazide 4y ago

Nuking KYC/AML rules (the biggest issues) would certainly help bank large swathes of the population that currently are excluded. If you think that is a good thing or a bad thing depends a lot on various highly polarizing religious and political discussions that are unlikely to be solved... well, at all, frankly. Maybe ever. Based on the human history I've been able to find and read, anyway.

notch898a 4y ago
I like to tell the story of the time I was moving from one state to another and did not have housing yet. The bank refused to open an account. With a passport, plus license with outdated address. Said it violates KYC w/ no proof of address. Meanwhile, with no documentation (no id, passport, etc) I could legally conceal carry a gun in the bank. I can't believe it's gotten to the point where you can be trusted to legally have a gun in the bank but considered too dangerous to hand over $5.
- lazide 4y ago
  I agree, it's absurd. But.... maybe you'd send those $5 to ISIS?!? /s
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  There's no bill of rights amendment to give you access to a bank account. Also, a lot of people think it would be stupid and not good to bring a gun into a bank, but if you try to codify that in any way, including a sign on the outside of the bank that says "please don't bring a gun in here", certain really angry people get even angrier and will publicize such a thing to fellow very angry people as if it isn't a perfectly normal thing to not want a gun in your bank.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    I would argue the bill of rights, specifically the 4th amendment, should protect you from a government imposed search of your papers to open an account.
    - lazide 4y ago
      It's hard to imagine that standing up to the situation that is required, which is someone must provide gov't issued identification to have a bank account (because terrorists). After all, I don't think anyone has a right to privacy from the gov't regarding gov't issued IDs. Maybe 10th amendment/interstate commerce clause overreach? (Why is the federal gov't mandating what my local branch requires for acceptance of ID?!?) But then the Gov't would pull out the whole 9/11 patriot act justification, national security, blah blah blah, and chances are the supreme court would give them even more justification.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    > There's no bill of rights amendment to give you access to a bank account. Interestingly, the EU does take this exact approach, having a directive that mandates that everyone has the right to a basic bank account and banks can't refuse opening one just because you're a refugee or a convicted fraudster or a homeless unemployed drug addict. Access to financial infrastructure is a key part of participating in modern society and interacting with the state (e.g. receiving any benefits), so it is imperative that everyone, including the most downtrodden, can access it.
    - lazide 4y ago
      But what if one of them gasp buys something illegal with it!?!? Or funds something terrible? /s That’s the argument here for the KYC/AML laws. No joke.
nradov 4y ago
In developed countries very few legitimate customers are unable to open bank accounts due to KYC/AML rules. You can probably find a few examples where people were turned down due to identity theft or procedural errors but those cases are rare and temporary. In the real world when banks reject customers it's because they have negative items on their credit reports or a history of fraud (like bouncing checks).
- lazide 4y ago
  Or for unexplained reasons. There are numerous examples from early crypto where well known banks froze individuals accounts merely for getting a transfer from coinbase. also, gun retailers, porn companies, marijuana dispensaries, etc. all have a LOT of experience having account applications denied or accounts frozen.

brokenkebaby 4y ago

Sure, if someone happen to be a citizen of a repressive dictatorship - then either it's for a good reason, or we should change the dictatorship! Sounds easy!

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
The total investments in BTC from places like that are less than 0.1% of all investments. BTC is not a tool helping the world operate more freely. 99.9% of it is something else... Namely speculation and scams.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  But which one is it? Are those regulations there for a good reason, or should we just change the regulations, presumably e.g. via military intervention to topple their governments?
- brokenkebaby 4y ago
  Here's me. I use crypto to help my relatives. Btw, your stats apparently should have a source, and definition of what "investment" is in the context. Why not to show it?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    The vast majority of inflows into crypto happen in USD (>85%). So - ballpark - a max of 15% of crypto inflows can come from people without access to dollars. JPY, EUR, and KRW aren't much easier to access and make up almost all of the missing 15%. The amount of inflows from North Korean Won, Zimbabwean Dollars, etc are virtually zero. Sure, maybe people like you are using crypto as a way to transfer money to people somewhere like North Korea (which would be illegal in dollars). That's a tiny, tiny insignificant portion of crypto usage & investment. It's almost like saying - Elon Musk donated $X billion dollars in stock to charity (mostly to avoid taxes). Don't tell me stocks exist to invest in companies! Other people are using stocks to transfer money to charities! The vast majority is of fiat inflow is coming from the US, Japan, and the EU - and it's mainly for speculation (or, as crypto people claim "investment").