4 ms·

> To sum up, KYC does not protect individuals This is true, but it's also not the point. KYC isn't about protecting individuals - it's about protecting the sys

> To sum up, KYC does not protect individuals This is true, but it's also not the point. KYC isn't about protecting individuals - it's about protecting the system (financial and geopolitical) as a whole. Can it be defeated? Of course it can. But it's not the sole line of defense against these sorts of things - it's part of a broader system comprised of internal bank security procedures, government monitoring and after-the-fact investigation of financial crimes. I don't mean to say that everything written here is wrong, but this is a complex topic that has meaningful tradeoffs of security vs. being free of surveillance and convenience. This sort of blind CRPYTO GUD GUBMINT BAD writing that doesn't even pretend to attempt to understand its topic at any meaningful level of depth doesn't exactly contribute to the discourse.

latchkey 3y ago
> KYC isn't about protecting individuals - it's about protecting the system (financial and geopolitical) as a whole. At the cost of individual privacy.
theturtletalks 3y ago
Your comment is quite naive and doesn't understand the damage KYC and AML laws do to businesses. The GUBMINT BAD because they effectively gave financial institutions the right to decide who can do business and who can't. That means effectively deciding the winners and losers. They can ban and deny any company from accepting payments only behind the ruse of KYC and AML laws. They don't have to tell you why (security thru obscurity). Let's take OnlyFans. OnlyFans can accept payments using Stripe and other payment processors. Now try to make your own OnlyFans. The banks say you can't. Isn't this what laws are for? Selling porn is legal, yet payment processors decide what you can sell online. And to think they don't decide which company can process payment or not, effectively decides who wins. This is where decentralization and CRPYTO GUD comes from. I don't want a few companies deciding what I can sell online, especially if it's legal, and they hide behind KYC/AML laws afterwards. Just looking at credit card processing fees where we essentially have a rent-seeking fee that will continually increase and is not even refunded to the merchant when a customer returns something. That's the power the government gave to these financial institutions with these laws.
- jamespo 3y ago
  Are payment processors hiding behind KYC & AML laws? Do they even need to provide justification?
  - theturtletalks 3y ago
    Yes, you can look up countless stories of small sellers online that have had their payment processing stopped by Stripe or Paypal. In some cases, these are decade old accounts and they keep their funds for weeks after the user is banned. I've even had a friend get banned from Paypal when logged in from another country they didn't operate in. I'm not talking about sending funds, just checking his account. When he asked why, they said their system alerted something and their decision is final. The government truly made them judge, jury, and executioner. They can stop you from collecting payments at any time, hold your funds, and don't have to provide reasons. Forget appealing their decision since it's final most times. In the end, the government let this industry "self-regulate" itself and crypto gives users a different option.
    - jamespo 3y ago
      That isn't hiding behind these laws though necessarily. I've heard of this from Paypal and I'm sure it happens, on the other hand I'm sure there is lots of abuse and we only ever hear one side of the story.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  My comment isn't naive - it acknowledges that KYC is part of a series of safeguards against what is an incredibly complex problem, and those safeguards absolutely come at a cost. The difference between my comment and yours, as well as my comment and the initial post, is that I acknowledge the complexity. You look only at the bad - you don't seem to understand the reason that KYC exists or the value that it provides (and yes, despite the negatives, there is value to KYC rules).
  - theturtletalks 3y ago

latchkey 3y ago

> KYC isn't about protecting individuals - it's about protecting the system (financial and geopolitical) as a whole. At the cost of individual privacy.

theturtletalks 3y ago

Your comment is quite naive and doesn't understand the damage KYC and AML laws do to businesses. The GUBMINT BAD because they effectively gave financial institutions the right to decide who can do business and who can't. That means effectively deciding the winners and losers. They can ban and deny any company from accepting payments only behind the ruse of KYC and AML laws. They don't have to tell you why (security thru obscurity). Let's take OnlyFans. OnlyFans can accept payments using Stripe and other payment processors. Now try to make your own OnlyFans. The banks say you can't. Isn't this what laws are for? Selling porn is legal, yet payment processors decide what you can sell online. And to think they don't decide which company can process payment or not, effectively decides who wins. This is where decentralization and CRPYTO GUD comes from. I don't want a few companies deciding what I can sell online, especially if it's legal, and they hide behind KYC/AML laws afterwards. Just looking at credit card processing fees where we essentially have a rent-seeking fee that will continually increase and is not even refunded to the merchant when a customer returns something. That's the power the government gave to these financial institutions with these laws.

jamespo 3y ago
Are payment processors hiding behind KYC & AML laws? Do they even need to provide justification?
- theturtletalks 3y ago
  Yes, you can look up countless stories of small sellers online that have had their payment processing stopped by Stripe or Paypal. In some cases, these are decade old accounts and they keep their funds for weeks after the user is banned. I've even had a friend get banned from Paypal when logged in from another country they didn't operate in. I'm not talking about sending funds, just checking his account. When he asked why, they said their system alerted something and their decision is final. The government truly made them judge, jury, and executioner. They can stop you from collecting payments at any time, hold your funds, and don't have to provide reasons. Forget appealing their decision since it's final most times. In the end, the government let this industry "self-regulate" itself and crypto gives users a different option.
  - jamespo 3y ago
    That isn't hiding behind these laws though necessarily. I've heard of this from Paypal and I'm sure it happens, on the other hand I'm sure there is lots of abuse and we only ever hear one side of the story.
idopmstuff 3y ago
My comment isn't naive - it acknowledges that KYC is part of a series of safeguards against what is an incredibly complex problem, and those safeguards absolutely come at a cost. The difference between my comment and yours, as well as my comment and the initial post, is that I acknowledge the complexity. You look only at the bad - you don't seem to understand the reason that KYC exists or the value that it provides (and yes, despite the negatives, there is value to KYC rules).
- theturtletalks 3y ago