Bitcoin Forum

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/eu-warns-malta-of-the-dangers-of-neglecting-money-laundering

Malta aka Blockchain Island has become the mecca crypto due to its favorable crypto laws. With the flood of crypto money to the island it's been taking the right steps to work on compliance such as partnering with crypto security firm CipherTrace to identify and prevent crypto crime.

Steps like this seems to help make the government quite happy in how to handle crypto and manage risk in countries. Would you agree? What else do we need to implement or be sure to watch out for?

I think having the team at ciphertrace is a good start for AML. Just wondering what more the EU thinks needs to be done and what their expectations are looking like for overall compliance. The balance between not to much invovlement and just enough

I'm not sure as to how Malta would respond - they are probably raking in a lot of revenue since crypto businesses prefer them as a destination as opposed to countries with stricter KYC/AML requirements in the European Union.

There is no incentive for them to tighten their rules too much, although they obviously need to prevent the clear cut cases.

This warning could have for sure been sparked because Malta is seen to take away business from the rest of the countries in EU, when it comes to regulated/licensed bitcoin businesses, while the warning about AML may only be what's happening on the surface.

Just a casual thing for a certain country to follow on.If you do fully accept or integrate crypto into your vicinity then its no brainer that
the current organization wont really go overboard and should comply when it comes to safety and risk management.Money laundering or frauds
is one of the possible things that can happen on crypto tx but come to think that even fiat do have it.

Malta is a minnow. The more they attempt the buck the existing order of things the harder other countries will come down on them. No one operates in a vacuum. All the EU would need to do is turn off the banking and funding taps and Malta will be brought to heel in a matter of hours.

Malta would be monumentally stupid to ignore this, and this is why places like Binance flocking there may wind up getting screwed. I'd be less inclined to trust a company that moved to Malta than one that stayed put.

Sounds like Binance may soon be on the run again. Hong Kong, Japan, Malta... where to next? The British Virgin Islands?

Or maybe Binance will finally be brought to heel like Shapeshift was? Bitfinex and some others are still managing to offer trading without KYC if you don't transfer fiat money, but the pressure on exchanges from regulators really feels tangible now.

Only a matter of time. If they think they're somehow 'bigger' than the overwhelming weight of twitchiness when it comes to money then they're dreaming and very stupid.

It may not be cool but it's the way of the world it's not going to magically go away. They'd be better off coming in from the cold rather than drawing it out. And their non dex won't cut it either.

Money laundering is a serious crime and every country should take steps to remain in compliance as per the global standard! I am happy to see Malta is taking right steps to take their economy to another notch higher!

Since small island countries like Malta can't have big production industries due to lack of land, crypto or ITes can be their best bet to provide jobs to the mass. Associated risks will always be there for anything new, but what matters the most is the willingness of the government to manage the risk and grow against all odds. Malta is setting up an example!

They just accept and 'legalize' anyone who wants to start their business because they want to get money. Sure, crypto and tech-friendly because that's their opportunity.

Whatever the case it might be, I think it's impossible for them to not do any KYC for any crypto business in the near future. The risk of money laundering is too big. Unless we somehow can make every crypto user smart enough and care enough not to scam each other.

Even if they apply KYC, some malicious users would still fake their KYC if it's possible, and when that time comes, I think dex volume will increase. So either you risk your identity or deal with something on your own without any backing from the government.

And it's going to be difficult to get away from it. Sure, Binance has what a year or two but sooner or later those regulators will be clamping down on everything that is crypto related and Binance or Malta will not be an exceptions. The pressures will be too much that it's they have to give what the policy makers in EU wanted.

So it will be interesting what Binance will do in such cases, where are they going to run, or are they simply gonna allow what the regulators will say and them not giving a fight?

Perhaps the reason why EU is pressing Malta so hard on setting up regulations is because most crypto businesses are taking refuge on the said island and do their business in there instead of the big guys in the Union. The question is up until when would they be able to be so 'crypto-friendly'? For sure, there will come a time that the little island would be a hotspot for money laundering and other stuff if left unchecked, and that's why the EU is stepping in. Of course, due to favorable crypto conditions, Malta becomes the 'Swiss bank account' of legitimate and illegitimate crypto users alike, and that's no good in the long run.

they move their headquarters once a year already. for all we know, malta wasn't even a long term plan. it was probably just a temporary holdover so they could exit japan as quickly as possible after japanese regulators warned them about unlicensed exchange operation. bitfinex settled on BVI after hong kong; seems like a pretty good choice.

Interesting topic regarding regulations and different countries. I always wondered why so many businesses were setting up in malta and cayman islands. I think for compliance purposes malta did the right step with ciphertrace and may even be the prime example for other countries accepting crypto imo

Wish they could say the same thing for Swiss and Cayman Islands bank  accounts which have been used by big time criminals as part of their money laundering process. If they want money laundering to stop they should also step up their game for this banks in order for this criminal activity to stop. Just by putting their attention all in crypto first won't solve the problem, I just don't think that its efficient for them to focus on a small industry like ours at first.

Always Malta was the controversial country.

It's a paradox but much regulatory in crypto will drive away investors.

They won't because they are still slaves of the fiat systems for many many years. And since they are threaten by crypto, they have to step up and not let loose of this industry as Malta has been the safe haven for exchanges like Binance. They are really putting a lot of attention on crypto for the last three years, specially when it boomed in 2017 so they have to put at end to this. So obviously, Malta is a target now and I'm sure their will be other countries that they can bully and enforce everything they want to have total control again.

No it won't. It's the price of doing business. If people refuse to countenance it then they won't get to play.

Many more investors will be driven away from platforms that don't toe the line and may be crushed at any moment.

I believe Coinbase will still be here in five years. Unless something changes I do not think the same about Binance.

Stuff like this - https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2019/06/12/bitcoin-cryptocurrency-fatf-regulation/ is not easing up, it's heating up.

That seems to be right, I know most of the politicians out here who are also against cryptocurrency have something to hide with their swiss bank accounts, now that people have this kind of power with cryptocurrencies they seem to be afraid  that normal people like us can transfer money without their rules stopping us. Now they are hot on our heads just because they see us taking advantage of the system. They are really worried about the economical imbalance it will bring once a lot of people will start getting rich with the industry.

I don't think it'll drive away investors, but it could definitely change the nature of current trading practices. Some -- including Coinbase (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-11/crypto-exchanges-are-facing-biggest-regulatory-hurdle-yet) -- are speculating that these FATF guidelines will drive investors away from exchanges and back to peer-to-peer trading:


If he's right, it could be a double whammy for exchanges. Increased compliance costs and a smaller share of retail investors.

this pressure from the EU and many countries on money laundering becomes a big joke, I say it becomes a big joke because many politicians are money laundering mentors because when they steal government money they use their diplomatic passports and they deposit the money in another country, as if it were money from some of their country's company (fake company) and keep talking about that bitcoin is dangerous because of money laundering or the financing of terrorism becomes a big joke

I feel that money laundering can easily be tracked more so on a public blockchain than say our fiat system though because we don't even know where the money is and goes.  Having technology like ciphertrace's is necessary in my  opinion

It'll have to be true P2P, not quasi custodial like Localbitcoins which is getting ever more uptight. I just don't see that many people wanting to do it in comparison to sticking your card into nice, friendly-looking Coinbase.

Things would have to get pretty desperate for the average dunderhead to consider it. All the same those look like some onerous requirements so perhaps in some places there won't be an alternative as exchanges can't afford to comply.

we've established that most folks are okay with KYC. but where do people draw the line?

what the FATF is talking about goes far beyond just KYC. they're talking about global coordination among exchanges to report all transactions of $1000+, including requiring disclosure of information about recipients. presumably coinbase, bitstamp and their ilk will become even quicker to terminate accounts if they don't like what they see.

bisq to the rescue? plz? ::)

No exception, soon there will be a universal regulation on crypto.
Crypto seem to be attracting more money and regulators are afraid of the money launderer as they cannot control it if such country is lax in regulation about money laundering. It's just a warning, nothing is serious here but like I said, sooner, they will be fully compliant just like the regulation in compliant countries.

Money laundering happens also in countries that they haven't adopted the blockchain technology.
They just found a way to regulate a country that seems to be thriving economically without giving them a crap about the decisions of the EU.

Everyone knows that Malta is a free heaven for every companies and if they do not heed the warning then there will be strict regulations against them and i am sure they will not make things worse and comply to the demands of EU and US, i personally do not like these kind of restrictions but the way in which is market is going with all the scams, we need to have some regulations to get rid of the scammers from the market and since every transaction in bitcoin can be tracked it is not a big task if they want to catch all the scammers.

We know that money laundering is going to happen, people will always find a way so it's a matter of how will we regulate this? I think we can look to Malta as a leading country and see that hiring a cyber security firm like ciphertrace is a great first step on crypto's side.

Although money laundering is really dangerous but i think if a certain country knows how to deal with this without sacrificing the benefits from crypto currencies then i believe this so called money laundering will not be a problem. There are lot of regulations that strictly implemented today but still the bad guys can find ways on how to deal with them, so hopefully EU will not act of their own as Malta is surely doing what is best for their economy.

AML is not the only reason why businesses are running to Malta. I remember an article about a Polish exchange that had to move there because of some unfavourable conditions in the country. Long story short, they banks there were cutting ties with crypto businesses and the government demanded them to hand over all user information for the purpose of taxation, even people who didn't trade for fiat but only exchanged cryptocurrencies.

On one hand money laundering is bad, but on the other handing out user information to every agency that asks for it, even when they aren't investigating that user, is a bit too much. Show me the man and I will show you the crime.

The warning of EU is fair, because the man reason why countries arent adopting this is the money laundering issue ( and also all the freedom that indviduals get from btc). Malta has to see how these crypto companies operate, and if there are issues with their finances, Malta should require and see what is happening with that business!

Why would Malta care if their economy is increasing and the EU can only warn them for something that is still so vague in the rest of the EU. Regulating or completely forbid a thing like Bitcoin is only possible when you kick in doors, regulate the whole internet and arrest everyone who owns/trades/accepts/whatever does something with BTC. Just accept the fact it’s here to stay and be like Malta. Pro-active and supports the future

Frankly, they should leave the EU. The biggest problem in Malta right now is overdevelopment.

It's a small island absolutely crowded with tourists. It would be a much nicer place if it had less tourists, and a few more money-launderers to compensate.

Malta is not taking away businesses from other EU countries simply because those businesses wont be in other countries because other countries have much stricter regulation. It is a miracle that EU has not imposed some stricter rules on Malta . There are a lot of big crypto exchanges registered there Binance,Okex, Etoro and most likely more.

Eu is just concerned the huge amounts of money going thru there unregulated.

Its important to further strengthen the law of the land to guide against money laundering and not because of the good guys but to those who will see the law as an avenue to commit atrocities at the detriment of those who wants to legitimately handle their activities. The regulation and compliance is also necessary to act as a catalyst against any one who might even be thinking of doing anything illegal thinking the law is open or silent about activities such as that in that locality.

Actually, it may have been a valid cause for concern, not necessarily restricted to Malta but to all these tiny "blockchain jurisdictions" formerly known as tax havens for complicated tax structures.

It's not really so much of a secret that the world stood by and allowed all the money to flow under their eyes and under the radar for so long. Now that they cracked down on it, it's only fair they extend that restriction to all forms of new money. For them bitcoin/crypto's just a new vehicle. They see it exactly as a new financial tech, and when you have clients now

I'm not necessarily against regulations and to some degree tighter policies, but the downside here is that these regulations are being used as weapon against people to exercise control over whatever it is that they are doing.

The narrative they are pushing that they are trying to combat illicit activities, is only used as smoke screen, because let's be honest, the more regulations there are, the more professional the illicit activities become.

I have never seen reports indicate that there has been a decline in the amounts concerned with these illicit activities, which just shows that it doesn't work. It may stop some small fishes, but the sharks are still not impressed.

Many businesses don't even have a choice, if they want to continue operating they have to relocate out of their own countries and move to friendlier jurisdictions where at least they'll be able to keep a bank account (you need to if you run a legit business that pays taxes or if you want to accept fiat currencies from your customers). The alternative is spending loads of money to provide a subpar quality of service.

Hhahaha
I was telling people for months that they change countries faster than some change underwear.

Once they have to flee Malta they will run out of serious options, only real off-shore countries will be a solution as everyone will keep an eye on them. And even if they will manage to set office in one their reputation will be tarnished.


And they should go back to their traditional economy that for sure will sustain all the loses from tourism.
What was that? Crusades?  ;D ;D ;D


And do you have any proof that Biance is contributing more than 0.01% on that increase?
Have they paid 1$ in taxes till now?

Lets blame everything on Eu, lol.

By leaving EU , they would lose a lot of financial perks, that includes SEPA payments.
I doubt that they would like to lose a big pie of their income in their 2 top niches.

 When they will be pushed to harsher regulation in finances, they will want to hold on their tourism.

This got me thinking, a country with less than what 1 million population pose a serious threat that EU has to put pressure of them because of EU is supposedly putting efforts to stop money laundering?

I think there's more to it, it could be that EU has more agenda behind, or are they single out because they just a tiny nation within their neighbourhood, but putting the rest of the EU to money laundering risk?

The fight against crime when using cryptocurrency of the state will be constantly used as a reason to limit its circulation and this is not a joke, and a great danger to the future of cryptocurrency.
For the time being, states do not consider decentralized cryptocurrency as a serious competitor for their national money. However, in the future the situation will constantly change.

I am not expecting any outright ban on crypto in any of the European nation but if they are not providing any favorable conditions for any companies to thrive they will move to places where the could handle their business without much government intervention and those situations might not look good for EU or US and they might implement strict regulations on these small countries and put financial pressure to shut these business, we have seen these situations in the past and hopefully we will not repeat those in the future.

A diverse community like ours cannot fight against powerful governments, having a mutual agreement and regulation is the best way to proceed things in the future. The next few years are crucial for the market as regulations are expected to be implemented and lets see how things will move and how they will view anon currencies.

Well there is Binance, but also Bittrex, Okex, Bitbay, Zebpay and others too. I'm not sure about taxes, but Malta's model is more about monetizing licensing fees. This goes in line with Malta's monetization of online gambling licenses, which represent ~12% of their annual GDP.

Exchanges require a Class 4 License. From what I can find, the application fee is €24,000 and the annual supervisory fee is dependent on annual revenue. For revenue up to €1 million, the fee is €50,000. €5,000 fees are added per additional €1 million tranche of revenue. For a small island nation, that's not an insignificant sum of money.

No big deal.
I live in Europe and I've closed all my bank accounts in the SEPA zone.
I pay with cash, cards or BTC. Sometimes, I have no other option but to make a Swift transfer, with a substantial fee, but that doesn't happen very often.

Malta's position gives it fantastic opportunities for tourism. Being in or out of the EU wouldn't change much. The only problem I see would be some prices would rise, making it more difficult for the few poor locals.

I feel like companies like  ciphertrace are trying to warn the entire world about the dangers of ignoring money laundering and not just Malta otherwise they wouldn't be in place

Why you would want to close SEPA accounts?

It could not change much but in perspective of country which has a lot of businesses based there it would be a deal breaker. Customers like to have fast and transfers with small fees.

It definitely would change a lot, the main thing being border and custom crossing.

The crypto community maybe raking profits but if there is no definite regulations imposed by the government there might not be no benefit for them (the government) But for the sake of awareness on money laundering in the part of the people. If this laxness in Malta will continue people from tightening countries might move to Malta to enjoy this freedom.

Assuming Binanace does the predicted 1 billion in revenue, that's a  5m, plus 50, plus 24.
Five million euros in taxes compared to 4 billion revenue in taxes
https://mfin.gov.mt/en/The-Budget/Documents/The_Budget_2019/Budget_speech_English_2019.PDF
is a 0.1 of their taxes income. And it's 0.03% out of the GDP.

Seems like I pretty much nailed it even not knowing the tax scheme.
Btw, this doesn't mean they have actually paid any taxes yet, right?
I'm willing to bet they have got a large tax cut when moving there, with all the hype politicians, were welcoming them.

Where are you getting this "predicted €1 billion in revenue?" Binance was aiming at (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/crypto-exchange-binance-profitable-despite-bear-market-cfo-says.html) net profit of $500M-$1B in 2018. We don't know their profit margin or revenue, but revenue should be much higher than that. It could easily be 500% of your estimate or more.


Have you now? :)

We haven't even discussed taxes. The corporate tax rate for companies who are resident and domiciled in Malta is 35%. I haven't researched whether there are taxes specific to cryptocurrency services, as there are with Malta-regulated gaming services. I was just talking about about licensing fees.

Also, this is what you said:


You said that Binance contributed no more than 0.01% of GDP. Now you're asserting that the licensing fees Binance pays = their total effect on GDP. These are apples and oranges. Licensing fees constitute a small percentage of Binance's operation. We don't have enough data to know their true effect on GDP, from either an income or expenditure point of analysis. But suffice to say, it's much larger than you thought. Even just looking at their profit (not income) we're talking about a 100-fold difference.

The gaming industry constitutes 12% of Malta's GDP and 5-6% of their tax base now. Do you really think Malta would institute a cryptocurrency regulation scheme where they get nothing out of it?


They probably have, but that's not public information.

Revenue of 500% would mean binance would have a cost of 80% out of their revenue.
I doubt it very much, intermediaries are never getting close to that, plus imagine the share size, 4 billion in operating costs? What is this, Stuttgart plant?
Alphabet's entire business (google, yt, android, etc) had 87 billion in operating costs, can you even compare them?

But let's see the some real numbers:
What he aims is one thing, what he does in revenue a different story.
Besides, profits are also made from their investments, which will be exempt from tax.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-06/world-s-largest-crypto-exchange-eyes-1-billion-profit-amid-rout
Q2 in 2018 was 300 million in revenue! From the man himself!
The first half of 2018 was far better than the first half of 2019.

Look at the volume binance reported themselves and this thing
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/tiny/binance-brought-in-78-million-in-profits-in-q1-up-66-quarter-on-quarter/



If you don't have data how can you claim something?
How else would Binance contribute to the GDP, by having 10 employees located there and paying for a 100 sq foot office?


Again...probably.

Because based on net profit alone (https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2019/02/06/analysis-binance-brought-in-446-million-in-profits-in-2018-despite-the-bear-market/) -- not accounting for expenses -- effect on GDP (based on income) is €400 million + expenses. This is compared to your €5 million number.


GDP = actual total output (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp). Binance would be irrelevant from a tax perspective if their effect on GDP was limited to a small office and a few employees.


From that angle, Binance already constitutes a significant portion of Malta's GDP. That's why if Binance is subject to Malta's corporate taxes -- and I don't see why they wouldn't be since they are domiciled there -- they also constitute a significant portion of the tax base. If they maximize all tax breaks, their tax rate drops from a maximum of 35% to a minimum of 5% (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40026826). On €400 million net profit, that still comes to €20 million in taxes, or another 0.55% of Malta's total tax revenue (https://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_Unit/Unit_A2/Public_Finance/Documents/2018/News2018_175.pdf). This is not including licensing fees which we agree could constitute (conservatively) another €5 million, or 0.14% of total tax revenue.

One single business comprising 0.69% of national tax revenue doesn't seem like a big deal to you?


I think it's fair to assume that Binance is paying taxes, otherwise Malta has no reason to continue sanctioning them. It's also fair to assume they are paying the lowest corporate tax rate possible, which is why I am assuming the 5% rate rather than the normal 35% rate.

There's no logical reason to assume they aren't paying taxes.

GDP, if we talk about untaxed money is quite irrelevant.
Take Ireland for example.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/is-ireland-s-booming-economy-just-an-illusion-1.3444645
The GDP has grown by 50% even ahead of China, the government budget...by 16%.

To the people in Malta, it means zero that a company is making 500 trillion if they pay 10 cents in tax.
Just as Google did in Ireland.


Binance has 300 employees, the development team is still in Singapore, the support is god knows where so how many are left and for what? So, again what impact?
Here are the words of the great CZ himself:



Yeah, this is the problem.
They will not be taxed for 35% unless that profit is made from selling coins to fiat and earning a profit.
That was the whole deal, to avoid taxation if Binance's profit is in BTC they won't be taxed!
They can simply elude the law by earning their revenue in the form of satoshis from % fees until they will sell those they WON'T be taxed.

And what do you know:
As long as they don't sell those tokens they won't be taxed a penny!!!!

Do you think that and exchange who changes countries every year is going to pay up willingly millions?
Be serious!



If 2 months before them fleeing Japan I would have said that Binance is not able to cope with Japanese rules and they will flee in the middle of the night while lying to everybody that everything was right, I would have been digitally pitchforked here!!  ;D
We have an exchange who fled the most friendly country, and that been the second runaway, that lied about regulations, that choose tax heaven, WHY should I believe them?

And, just to make things sure, because I know that people have a tendency to defend crypto business just...because
If Deutsche Bank would also flee from Germany to Malta, would you say it's so damn good for Malta?  :P ::)

Oh, and yeah, I would trust more DB, GS, and probably even first Rothschild himself than CZ and Binance.
They have a history of avoiding regulations and lying and manipulating and faking, no way in hell I'm going to believe in him giving away a penny if he could avoid it.

That was due to tax special deals Ireland gave to multinationals and it's ending now due to pressure from the EU.


Then they'd probably have to move again if they decided to pull such a trickery. Moving companies isn't the same thing as buying a new domain name if a previous one is gets freezed, and Malta is relatively business-friendly place, at least as far as developed countries go, it wouldn't be smart to burn their bridges there.

I'm talking about taxed money.


What is that supposed to prove?


How do you figure? The Income Tax Act defines profits made from a trade/business as taxable. It doesn't exempt cryptocurrency.


Why do you think that would work under Maltese tax law? ???

Why seek out the lowest corporate tax rates in the world, only to egregiously cheat on taxes anyway? Why repeatedly announce such huge profit targets -- and transparently burn BNB based on actual profits -- only to claim to Malta they made $0?

They've built the biggest exchange brand in the world and are now going the "legitimate" route with segregated markets and licenses. You think they would risk publicly losing their Maltese license and burning their bridges over €20 million in taxes? Let's keep in mind that CZ is personally a billionaire, and he owns Binance -- an actual cash printing machine.


How is Japan friendly at all? They are by far the biggest nanny state regulator in the world regarding cryptocurrency. CZ was stupid to set up shop there and risk operating without a license. They were apparently trying (at least as of January 2018) to obtain an FSA license and were operating illegally in the meantime. That was Binance's only mistake re: "jurisdiction hopping" -- thinking they could operate under the noses of the FSA in the middle of a regulatory crackdown.

Let's not forget that all exchanges were run out of China, not just Binance. OKCoin, Huobi, BTCC and dozens of other exchanges left at the same time. So you have only one example of a "runaway."


I'm not defending Binance so much as defending Malta. You make it seem like Malta operates as a haven for criminals, while being so incredibly stupid that they reap no economic benefits from it. Color me skeptical!

This is a quid quo pro and Malta is benefiting handsomely, just like they have been from shelling out online gaming licenses.

I'll strat with this so further discussions won't be pointing in this direction.
I have no problems with Malta's model, they could benefit a lot from it, the only problem is the other party, Binance and the others.
It's like starting a farm, arranging a beautiful plot, a well-built barn, getting rid of all the coyotes, seeing your cows grow and when it's milking time you put your glasses on and you see you have a bunch of donkeys and no sign of cows.

If we would have been talking about Coinbase or Bitstamp who have a past that is like a care bears story compared to binance, yeah probably they would have seen some money. From Okcoin and Binance, nope, I don't believe it.


3 in one this time:



Yeah, why would they do this...
If they are already in crypto heaven why opening two "offices" let's call them in Bermuda and the BVI?

Guys who are we talking about, seriously!!!

We talking about a guy that was in charge of developing software for trading, a guy that worked for OKcoin exactly at the point when Okcoin began faking volume, trades, everything.
He runs away from China, stayed in Singapore, runS to Japan, runS from Japan, every time lying everyone in their face that everything is ok, he is in talks, he is negotiating, this while packing his bags.
And how he fled Malta and he is planning to set offices in the most dubious places on earth.
If this is not a rat digging more escape holes I don't know what this is.


That actually makes things worse.
Billionaires and millionaires (in the hundred) are the ones that are doing the worse tax evasion.
You don't see a football player from the 4th division doing tax evasion, but Neymar and Messi who were making 40 millions a year.

The binance story will end badly, so will the bitfinex one, I just hope it won't affect us, but it will probably be more than a slap on the wrist.

Anyhow, at this point you have your opinion, I have mine, doesn't seem like anything but time will change them.  :D
And we're derailing a bt from the topic also, it was more about Malta's trouble with the EU.