3 ms·

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 institu

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
  I do understand the good that comes from KYC/AML laws. The intent is obviously good, but you've given financial institutions the power to decide who can sell online. Just search online the countless sellers that are selling perfectly legal things that got caught in this KYC net and are banned from processing payments. Let's not even get started on the fact that banks have worked with criminal organizations to help them circumvent KYC/AML laws so the people that are money laundering have the know-how on how to not get caught in the net. The cost of having KYC/AML laws is having a few institutions decide who can sell and what they can sell. The government gave them that power so it's their prerogative to use or abuse it to help themselves. Crypto is simply providing an alternative for people that have been unjustly stopped from processing payments.
  - idopmstuff 3y ago
    It's just as easy to take the mirror argument, though - crypto has been used to transfer money to terrorist groups, and that money has ultimately been used to kill innocent people. If they had been forced to send money through the traditional financial system, whether electronic or cash, it would have been more costly to them either through some loss of money to government seizure or simply the increases costs of evasion and transfer. > Crypto is simply providing an alternative for people that have been unjustly stopped from processing payments. It's also a useful tool for terrorists. This is a point of fact. To be clear, I'm not saying we should get rid of it, just that this is the overly simplistic argument for doing so without considering the positive. Crypto isn't some outright evil, and neither is KYC. Both are parts of complex solutions to complex problems.

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
I do understand the good that comes from KYC/AML laws. The intent is obviously good, but you've given financial institutions the power to decide who can sell online. Just search online the countless sellers that are selling perfectly legal things that got caught in this KYC net and are banned from processing payments. Let's not even get started on the fact that banks have worked with criminal organizations to help them circumvent KYC/AML laws so the people that are money laundering have the know-how on how to not get caught in the net. The cost of having KYC/AML laws is having a few institutions decide who can sell and what they can sell. The government gave them that power so it's their prerogative to use or abuse it to help themselves. Crypto is simply providing an alternative for people that have been unjustly stopped from processing payments.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  It's just as easy to take the mirror argument, though - crypto has been used to transfer money to terrorist groups, and that money has ultimately been used to kill innocent people. If they had been forced to send money through the traditional financial system, whether electronic or cash, it would have been more costly to them either through some loss of money to government seizure or simply the increases costs of evasion and transfer. > Crypto is simply providing an alternative for people that have been unjustly stopped from processing payments. It's also a useful tool for terrorists. This is a point of fact. To be clear, I'm not saying we should get rid of it, just that this is the overly simplistic argument for doing so without considering the positive. Crypto isn't some outright evil, and neither is KYC. Both are parts of complex solutions to complex problems.