6 ms·

This seems a bit of a landgrab or an exploitable (regulation-sense) ambiguity: In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person acce

by drucken 14y ago

This seems a bit of a landgrab or an exploitable (regulation-sense) ambiguity: In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency. So, if you only exchange virtual currency, do you now fall under US FinCEN rules or does, say, virtual currency not count as a "substitute" for currency?

deepblueocean 14y ago
As far as my non-lawyer view takes me, that line is simply meant to catch the case where you exchange a de-centralized virtual currency for something (anything) else of value that's meant to substitute for currency in some context (i.e. what if you traded BTC for gold? For certificates that represent gold? For another virtual currency like WoW gold?). That is, FinCEN is saying that you're still a money transmitter if you accept Bitcoins for anything else the Treasury considers to be equivalent to currency (which means, roughly, it can be readily converted back to currency), but not for goods and services. That way, you can't claim not to be subject to the rules just because you don't exchange Bitcoins for dollars. Remember, the idea here is to make rules that allow FinCEN to track large flows of capital and generally prevent money laundering. So they're concerned with the situation where I give you bitcoins for gold and then turn around and sell the gold for clean dollars.
joe_the_user 14y ago
Not really a land-grab. Just the landlord walking up to some folks picnicking and mentioning, "by the way, you are on my land". Or equivalently - "Hi, I just wanted to mention that your leash is exactly this long. Thanks for listening" It's not like the government isn't always thinking about the importance of its control over the currency.
- drucken 14y ago
  Control of currency in the form of legal tender, yes that would be fully understandable. But I'm talking specifically about the passage on "decentralized virtual currency" and all that is being exchanged is virtual currency. For example, you charge a fee in the virtual currency itself (or some other virtual currency) for exchanging it in some way that does not involve legal tender of any jurisdiction.
  - URSpider94 14y ago
    For example, you charge a fee in the virtual currency itself (or some other virtual currency) for exchanging it in some way that does not involve legal tender of any jurisdiction. What would you be exchanging it for, then? All the Treasury is trying to regulate is the exchange of dollar-denominated wealth into another currency, whether actual (fiat currency of some jurisdiction) or virtual. They don't care about transactions that don't involve dollars on one side (at least not as addressed by this letter).

by drucken 14y ago

deepblueocean 14y ago

As far as my non-lawyer view takes me, that line is simply meant to catch the case where you exchange a de-centralized virtual currency for something (anything) else of value that's meant to substitute for currency in some context (i.e. what if you traded BTC for gold? For certificates that represent gold? For another virtual currency like WoW gold?). That is, FinCEN is saying that you're still a money transmitter if you accept Bitcoins for anything else the Treasury considers to be equivalent to currency (which means, roughly, it can be readily converted back to currency), but not for goods and services. That way, you can't claim not to be subject to the rules just because you don't exchange Bitcoins for dollars. Remember, the idea here is to make rules that allow FinCEN to track large flows of capital and generally prevent money laundering. So they're concerned with the situation where I give you bitcoins for gold and then turn around and sell the gold for clean dollars.

joe_the_user 14y ago

Not really a land-grab. Just the landlord walking up to some folks picnicking and mentioning, "by the way, you are on my land". Or equivalently - "Hi, I just wanted to mention that your leash is exactly this long. Thanks for listening" It's not like the government isn't always thinking about the importance of its control over the currency.

drucken 14y ago
Control of currency in the form of legal tender, yes that would be fully understandable. But I'm talking specifically about the passage on "decentralized virtual currency" and all that is being exchanged is virtual currency. For example, you charge a fee in the virtual currency itself (or some other virtual currency) for exchanging it in some way that does not involve legal tender of any jurisdiction.
- URSpider94 14y ago
  For example, you charge a fee in the virtual currency itself (or some other virtual currency) for exchanging it in some way that does not involve legal tender of any jurisdiction. What would you be exchanging it for, then? All the Treasury is trying to regulate is the exchange of dollar-denominated wealth into another currency, whether actual (fiat currency of some jurisdiction) or virtual. They don't care about transactions that don't involve dollars on one side (at least not as addressed by this letter).