The guidelines from FinCen seem like a trap, pushing us toward a cashless system while pretending to support peer-to-peer cash. They're so overreaching that some folks at the convention said the technology isn't even ready yet.
Honestly, you gotta grasp how harsh the laws are for American traders and the crypto scene. It's nearly impossible for us to make a profit anymore. They've restricted our exchanges, cut us off from ICOs, and banned us from platforms like BitMEX and Deribit. Being a trader or investor in the U.S. is just not favorable at all. I'm actually looking into getting a Portuguese visa and setting up an international business just to escape all this nonsense.
What's scary is that they want to put in place regulations that undermine the core strengths of crypto, which are its unchangeable nature and resistance to censorship. The U.S. is a bully in the financial world, shutting out the global south and the economically disadvantaged from the payment systems. That’s exactly why Bitcoin came about and even why the EU is trying to ditch SWIFT. FinCen keeps dragging the U.S. into the same discussions as North Korea and Iran. Good luck trying to open a brokerage or bank account overseas as an American without a hefty sum to back you up. It’s impossible.
If we don’t start pressuring our congress members to change this, they’re gonna wreck our industry.
Not everything is set in stone yet because the last news I have seen is the G20 is talking about regulation in terms of protection of the users itself and that includes a license requirement for any crypto related business in the industry as well as an enforced KYC for all the users. The G20 is more focus on the protection of the crypto-assets itself since it has been one of the most targeted assets by criminals around the world and they are only concerned for their own citizens' money. They are more focus on regulation now since a lot of the countries part in the G20 don't even have a legal framework to begin with.
yea go ahead and delete things admin but you know I'm right. It'll be worse to come than that. There will be no good to come of this type of premise for a ponopticon. You can skirt around it and give face and mouth to the SEC and CFTC, but they are threatening the censorship resistence and immutability of bitcoin with these proposals.
Most of the things you have said are on protection as I see. The major aim of governance is protection. The government would try to do such if they are convinced to, if they feel the large percentage of the popular will be safe on it. Thus, they lead some policies which might not be favourable to some few and the best option is to leave the country where you think will better your living.
This great description for American instututions against crypto and FREEDOOM
look at my post please i m at court facing jail federals undercover bought bitcoin from in large amounts like 50k
Rhe US is the only nation I know of wherein the government is actively hindering the growth of its own citizens and its domestic policies as well as international relations by imposing things that they see fit (especially during Trump's admin). Right now, the G20 regulations aren't final yet, and the said standards won't be headed thankfully by the US but Japan which is a more capable country when it comes to crypto regulation. Government intervention is a painful yet needeed compromise to ensure that the growth of the scene is sustainable with less of the criminality. We don't know how this would pan out, but hopefully it sides on the interests of traders and not the governments this time around.
what makes you say that? japan has been rather heavy handed---for example, by strong-arming exchanges into de-listing privacy coins in order to obtain licensing. they've been quite proactive with crypto regulation, but they tend towards over-regulation.
the USA by comparison has been pretty hands off, mainly pressuring businesses to comply with existing AML regs. i'm a bit fearful of what crypto-specific laws will look like once passed though. some of the proposed bills haven't been half bad.
Japan is acting as sort of a test case for the G20 since they've been quicker than any other country to pass cryptocurrency regulations and establish licensing procedures. Thankfully, they're not really "heading" anything, though. I hope the world doesn't follow Japan's example because their approach seems to get more rigid and overreaching as time goes on.
The latest example: New stricter regulations that are expected to cause huge financial barriers to entry and force small companies out of business. New lower limits on margin trading, etc.
Japan Solution for Crypto Regulation
Japan is preparing to share its experience regarding crypto regulation with finance minister and central bank from other g20 countries at he upcoming summit which it will host in june . According to local media, Lapanese regulators have asolution for crypto regulation to offer te G20 Countries
USA is known to be really strict and in the area of cryptocurrency it is implementing laws it can find so that its own interest is protected. Now, having said that, I think USA is still better compared to China, Russia, North Korea and plainly other countries where the word ban is in effect. We are living in a world where we can never have our cake and eat it too, sadly.
Does anyone know how much of what G20 decides actually has an impact on the regulations of the countries in the G20?
At the end of the day, doesn't it still depend on the countries themselves to draft up legislation and regulation in order to put things into action? And that's certainly appearing to be a process that won't be completely overnight, or any time soon, even if these G20 regulations are approved by most countries.
Ultimately though, regulation will come regardless of what the community does. And whether or not the regulation is positive, or draconian, we honestly have very little influence over. Though, I think that the enforceability of any draconian regulation directly impeding on the uncensored and decentralised nature of the bitcoin network will be extremely difficult to enforce given the nature of the network, and they'll most likely be targeting third party businesses that utilise bitcoin as a means of payment instead.
I totally agree with you about your outlook on American legal system. They have recognized cryptos but knee capped everything that works against their favor. So they aren't providing any positive picture to the crypto community.
However, about G20 regulation, we need to understand that G20 summit can only provide guidance but can't draft a law for the countries. At the end of the day, it all depends on your government on how they want to draft laws about cryptocurrencies.
However, let's wait till the end of this month as a lot of things will be clearer post the summit in Japan.
technically, yes, states will need to draft new laws before this becomes a reality, but that seems more like a formality than anything else. the g20 member states have already publicly pledged to enact the FATF recommendations. i doubt we're gonna see much divergence between the original recommendations and eventual legislation at the national level.
That was well envisaged by industry experts that FATF recommendations will be enacted at some point of time! But why a common person will be worried for that? FATF recommendations are definitely not legally binding to any countries, but the fear of getting blacklisted may force every G20 members to enact the same!
But my question still remains, why a common person should be worried?? If we are abiding laws, what's the issue in disclosing our identity to the exchanges and permit the exchanges reporr it back to the government??
For one thing, it's a breach of privacy. What's next, AML reporting every time someone spends $100? Where does it end?
For another thing, data security is a major problem. Major companies are compromised everyday, losing customer data left and right. The more companies that have your KYC data, the more likely you are to have your data breached and your identity stolen. I know someone who had their identity stolen. He's been struggling with the fallout for several years now. His credit was ruined because of it. I would never wish that on anybody.
There's a lot to be said about your rights to privacy -- they should be understood and they should be exercised. I'll admit that I have few qualms about the law, verifying myself with a service I like and intend to use often (and I already am verified on at least 2 platforms, would even be 2 more platforms if they'd support verifications from my country of origin!) because yes, I have no misdeed or malicious intent to hide. But it doesn't make me less worried about what they'll do with my information. Worst-case scenario, they lose it or it gets hacked because they have poor security, and then my identity is used elsewhere for criminal purposes. Not-so-bad scase scenario, they use my data to learn about me, maybe surreptitiously have me blocked from accessing certain sites, maybe even profile me politically or commercially.
Whatever it is, no one has the rights to know more than they must -- I agree that security concerns, money laundering, terrorist financing, etc, can and should be addressed but there can be better ways than exist and there must be a check and balance. There is no right answer and there is so much width on the middle ground as well but for me the point is to resist as much as possible and push back.
Because as squatter says: if today we give in without a fight to report $500, then tomorrow they'll try for $100, and the next day, I can't even send lunch money to my kid without verifying.
Unfortunately, I don't even think that lobbying will do much given the factc that a lot of these people have vested interest from the banking industry to tighten up regulations so that they can filter out competition or even enter the crypto space themselves due to their intrinsic advantage over smaller startups in terms of regulation.
But anyways, you're right. The main objectives for G20 right now doesn't seem to be trying to help crypto grow as an industry, or even how to incorporate it more effectively within the economy - but it's more so about tighter controls.
We have to expect tighter KYC, tighter AML, and with these draconian measures they are able to essentially discourage people from using it and raising the bar for users. However, whatever they do, they can't censor nor produce an entry barrier to the bitcoin network itself.
I think we need to be more involved than ever both as a consumer and as a active members of the crypto community. This is really serious stuff. Whether we choose to vote or work with companies that are taking an active role in speaking to congress. One company in particular I've been actively watching ciphertrace who has been super vocal in the entire regulation announcement
It is unlikely that there will be a big difference between the recommendations of the G-20 countries and national laws. It is precisely the task force of FATF that specifies these recommendations. FATF has already decided that KYC checks should be carried out by persons who send or receive transactions in cryptocurrency in the amount exceeding one thousand dollars. In addition, exchanges will have to report transactions in excess of $ 15,000 to government agencies. In my opinion, these are pretty good rules and knowing them can bypass these identifications.