6 ms·

Your irony is poisonous. Not only is the OP comment completely valid, it has both legal, historical, and contextual significance, unlike your comment. Cash-eq

Your irony is poisonous. Not only is the OP comment completely valid, it has both legal, historical, and contextual significance, unlike your comment. Cash-equivalent monetary commodities are, by literal definition, illegal to create, trade, receive, pay taxes, or entice/offer/force employees to accept, without the explicit permission from congress through the US Mint - an authorized office of the Treasury, or a licence as a credible/reputable broker, brokerage, or investment firm through the Security and Exchange Commission. If someone owes you for a debt that has been incurred - public or private, you must accept United States Dollars. An executive order can, has, had, and will almost certainly be passed again, imminently seizing any cache of "valued currency" - regardless of its medium. An EO isn't even needed - so far, the legal coverage of "sactions" has allowed the US to help shape the narrative in the interest of the security of the economy/nation by not allowing an unbacked, un-correctable fiat challenge the stability of the nations currency.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Cash-equivalent monetary commodities are, by literal definition, illegal to create No they're not. U.S. dollars are illegal to forge. But the history of currency in America includes state-chartered currency [1], privately-issued currency [2] and even community currencies [3]. Hell, the entire theory of banking is private banks create cash-like instruments in the form of deposits. > executive order can, has, had, and will almost certainly be passed again, imminently seizing any cache of "valued currency" Source? This has only been done with gold to my knowledge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_i...
- Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
  > Cash-equivalent monetary commodities are, by literal definition, illegal to create No they're not. Next time you get a token for your local arcade, note the obvious "not redeemable for cash" that every single one has. The same reason is why Gift cards/store 'credit'(read: literally legally debit) have the opposite - that they can only be redeemed for its cash equivalent - but are "not transferable" - those words explicitly dilineate a currency from a store of value - it's economic interoperability. You can have internal representations of value that you accept - and even deny, such as Casino's, if warranted. But you must treat them as a debited cash account, must accept USD regardless for any services indebted, and if you allow infra-structural transactions ( like between users) or accept a large enough amount of fiat, you must Know your Customer, or run afoul of more laws. Eutherum's ICO and the subsequent secondary shovel-selling scams saddled the SEC with the need for more stringent guidance. >U.S. dollars are illegal to forge. without a charter/license/permit and your 10% tax, effectively making it nonviable. It's also illegal to drive a car without a license, sell untaxed alcohol, and offer redemptive fractions of future swap's possible `price. The difference between a fine and a tax is semantics (see: Obamacare) > But the history of currency in America includes state-chartered currency [1], privately-issued currency [2] and even community currencies [3]. Hell, the entire theory of banking is private banks create cash-like instruments in the form of deposits. This is moreso an artifact of companies being people and money being speech; which is legally/politically irreconcilable with the needs of modern governance. > executive order can, has, had, and will almost certainly be passed again, imminently seizing any cache of "valued currency" Source? This has only been done with gold to my knowledge. https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20220808 https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20220808 Bitcoin was intentionally modeled after the literal economics of the scarcity of a resource vs. it's production rate and it intrinsic utility - Gold. Aside from a trivial privacy oversight (really from a lack of applied math at the time), Bitcoin is nearly perfectly analogous to cash, and therefore would likely be reasoned as such. Even each token having a unique serial number, and those presumably being connected/correlated constantly, make it a near perfect analogy - especially in contexts. Bitcoin is a currency, currencies must be controlled by the State for stability and institutional continuity. Even if it's not "de facto" illegal - given non-production, a regressive tax, and a mote of regulation, it is essentially illegally to horde value for others without 'oversight', as the risks you expose others to could systemically impact everyone's security/stability.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > note the obvious "not redeemable for cash" that every single one has Sure. They don't want to do KYC. There is nothing preventing them from issuing a currency untied to U.S. dollars. Again, look at the community currency example. > Eutherum's ICO and the subsequent secondary shovel-selling scams saddled the SEC with the need for more stringent guidance The fact that a civil agency enforcing securities laws is the enforcer in your model should be the hint. What may be confusing you is the difference between issuing a currency de novo, which is pretty much unregulated, and issuing something that's linked to U.S. dollars, which is highly regulated.
    - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
      >The fact that a civil agency enforcing securities laws is the enforcer in your model should be the hint. IRS is a civil agency, referring anything more than fines to the DOJ. However, that actually illustrates your point even more. Since money is speech, and freedom of association is a right, it is not really possible to 'legally' enforce (nor practically, in-theory) others to not value some representation as valuable. That right is only inalienable when it affects 'interstate' commerce / national interests - offering this proactively as a mediated service, or becoming a sizable portion of a nation's GDP - which boils semantically back down to... what does it mean to be "illegal" > the difference between issuing a currency de novo, which is pretty much unregulated, and issuing something that's linked to U.S. dollars, which is highly regulated. This is also the other grey part. If it has value and was traded - or not traded, it impacts "interstate commerce", and therefore is regulated as a good, it must have a tax levied on it. Which just re-enforces the Le Laissez Faire' attitude projection the US tries to impose. We don't need actual laws, just taxes. No wars, just foreign policy. You are correct tho - "de novo", legal. Practically, its nearly treasonous - literally.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > IRS is a civil agency, referring anything more than fines to the DOJ. Yes. The IRS doesn't make rules around what currency is legal or not. > Since money is speech No court has ever said this. > If it has value and was traded - or not traded, it impacts "interstate commerce", and therefore is regulated as a good, it must have a tax levied on it What are you talking about? Plenty of economic activity is untaxed. > You are correct tho - "de novo", legal. Practically, its nearly treasonous - literally Did you ignore the links provided in the top comment?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Cash-equivalent monetary commodities are, by literal definition, illegal to create No they're not. U.S. dollars are illegal to forge. But the history of currency in America includes state-chartered currency [1], privately-issued currency [2] and even community currencies [3]. Hell, the entire theory of banking is private banks create cash-like instruments in the form of deposits. > executive order can, has, had, and will almost certainly be passed again, imminently seizing any cache of "valued currency" Source? This has only been done with gold to my knowledge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_i...

Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
> Cash-equivalent monetary commodities are, by literal definition, illegal to create No they're not. Next time you get a token for your local arcade, note the obvious "not redeemable for cash" that every single one has. The same reason is why Gift cards/store 'credit'(read: literally legally debit) have the opposite - that they can only be redeemed for its cash equivalent - but are "not transferable" - those words explicitly dilineate a currency from a store of value - it's economic interoperability. You can have internal representations of value that you accept - and even deny, such as Casino's, if warranted. But you must treat them as a debited cash account, must accept USD regardless for any services indebted, and if you allow infra-structural transactions ( like between users) or accept a large enough amount of fiat, you must Know your Customer, or run afoul of more laws. Eutherum's ICO and the subsequent secondary shovel-selling scams saddled the SEC with the need for more stringent guidance. >U.S. dollars are illegal to forge. without a charter/license/permit and your 10% tax, effectively making it nonviable. It's also illegal to drive a car without a license, sell untaxed alcohol, and offer redemptive fractions of future swap's possible `price. The difference between a fine and a tax is semantics (see: Obamacare) > But the history of currency in America includes state-chartered currency [1], privately-issued currency [2] and even community currencies [3]. Hell, the entire theory of banking is private banks create cash-like instruments in the form of deposits. This is moreso an artifact of companies being people and money being speech; which is legally/politically irreconcilable with the needs of modern governance. > executive order can, has, had, and will almost certainly be passed again, imminently seizing any cache of "valued currency" Source? This has only been done with gold to my knowledge. https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20220808 https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20220808 Bitcoin was intentionally modeled after the literal economics of the scarcity of a resource vs. it's production rate and it intrinsic utility - Gold. Aside from a trivial privacy oversight (really from a lack of applied math at the time), Bitcoin is nearly perfectly analogous to cash, and therefore would likely be reasoned as such. Even each token having a unique serial number, and those presumably being connected/correlated constantly, make it a near perfect analogy - especially in contexts. Bitcoin is a currency, currencies must be controlled by the State for stability and institutional continuity. Even if it's not "de facto" illegal - given non-production, a regressive tax, and a mote of regulation, it is essentially illegally to horde value for others without 'oversight', as the risks you expose others to could systemically impact everyone's security/stability.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > note the obvious "not redeemable for cash" that every single one has Sure. They don't want to do KYC. There is nothing preventing them from issuing a currency untied to U.S. dollars. Again, look at the community currency example. > Eutherum's ICO and the subsequent secondary shovel-selling scams saddled the SEC with the need for more stringent guidance The fact that a civil agency enforcing securities laws is the enforcer in your model should be the hint. What may be confusing you is the difference between issuing a currency de novo, which is pretty much unregulated, and issuing something that's linked to U.S. dollars, which is highly regulated.
  - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
    >The fact that a civil agency enforcing securities laws is the enforcer in your model should be the hint. IRS is a civil agency, referring anything more than fines to the DOJ. However, that actually illustrates your point even more. Since money is speech, and freedom of association is a right, it is not really possible to 'legally' enforce (nor practically, in-theory) others to not value some representation as valuable. That right is only inalienable when it affects 'interstate' commerce / national interests - offering this proactively as a mediated service, or becoming a sizable portion of a nation's GDP - which boils semantically back down to... what does it mean to be "illegal" > the difference between issuing a currency de novo, which is pretty much unregulated, and issuing something that's linked to U.S. dollars, which is highly regulated. This is also the other grey part. If it has value and was traded - or not traded, it impacts "interstate commerce", and therefore is regulated as a good, it must have a tax levied on it. Which just re-enforces the Le Laissez Faire' attitude projection the US tries to impose. We don't need actual laws, just taxes. No wars, just foreign policy. You are correct tho - "de novo", legal. Practically, its nearly treasonous - literally.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > IRS is a civil agency, referring anything more than fines to the DOJ. Yes. The IRS doesn't make rules around what currency is legal or not. > Since money is speech No court has ever said this. > If it has value and was traded - or not traded, it impacts "interstate commerce", and therefore is regulated as a good, it must have a tax levied on it What are you talking about? Plenty of economic activity is untaxed. > You are correct tho - "de novo", legal. Practically, its nearly treasonous - literally Did you ignore the links provided in the top comment?