Or the dip from $400 to $320 was a bear trap?

so is everybody expecting a crash here?

knowing that verification is required is de facto forfeiture, when one does not verify

basic logic

Did they think Stamp were just gonna turn round at some point and be like "Ok, no verification required anymore"? How else do you get your usd or btc back without withdrawing?

folks people have known about this for 1 year now.  any half smart criminal would have done this long, long ago.  or like during that 30 day period last year when one could still withdraw without even providing an ID.

use your common sense ...

It's not possible, therefore:

Wha are the possible outcomes here & what effect will they have on the price?

Bitstamp criminals have only 3 days left to buy BTC and GTFO before money is seized.

https://www.facebook.com/Bitstamp/posts/670469009737035

Since it seems that the official bears are taking a nap:

That lengthy document basically says "Hey banks, please do NOT close the accounts of EVERY money service business; evaluate case-by-case, and close only the accounts of the fishy ones."

E.g., those that deal with cryptocoins.  

Very bullish for OTC traders.  

November 10, 2014

Statement

FinCEN Statement on Providing Banking Services to Money Services Businesses

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), as the agency primarily responsible for administering the Bank Secrecy Act, is issuing this Statement to reiterate expectations regarding banking institutions’ obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act for money services businesses.

Money services businesses (“MSBs”),1 including money transmitters important to the global flow of remittances, are losing access to banking services, which may in part be a result of concerns about regulatory scrutiny, the perceived risks presented by money services business accounts, and the costs and burdens associated with maintaining such accounts.

MSBs play an important role in a transparent financial system, particularly because they often provide financial services to people less likely to use traditional banking services and because of their prominent role in providing remittance services. FinCEN believes it is important to reiterate the fact that banking organizations can serve the MSB industry while meeting their Bank Secrecy Act obligations.2

Currently, there is concern that banks are indiscriminately terminating the accounts of all MSBs, or refusing to open accounts for any MSBs, thereby eliminating them as a category of customers. Such a wholesale approach runs counter to the expectation that financial institutions can and should assess the risks of customers on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, a blanket direction by U.S. banks to their foreign correspondents not to process fund transfers of any foreign MSBs, simply because they are MSBs, also runs counter to the risk-based approach. Refusing financial services to an entire segment of the industry can lead to an overall reduction in financial sector transparency that is critical to making the sector resistant to the efforts of illicit actors. This is particularly important with MSB remittance operations.

FinCEN, the IRS, and state regulators have all taken steps to increase the effectiveness of their oversight of MSB Bank Secrecy Act compliance. In 2005, FinCEN issued guidance to MSBs to explain their Bank Secrecy Act regulatory obligations and to notify them of the type of information that they may be expected to produce to a bank in the course of opening or maintaining an account. In 2008, FinCEN, working with the Internal Revenue Service and the states, issued an examination manual for MSB examiners to strengthen the examination process and make it more consistent nationally. In 2010, the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council BSA/AML Examination Manual provided updated information in connection with the examination of banks for, among other things, providing services to money services businesses.3 In addition, state efforts to coordinate supervision and examination practices have increased. States have expanded their use of the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS) for collecting and storing information on MSBs.4 FinCEN and the IRS will continue to work with state regulators, consistent with the Money Remittances Improvement Act of 2014, to strengthen examination and oversight of the MSB industry with respect to Bank Secrecy Act compliance by leveraging appropriate state efforts.

FinCEN does not support the wholesale termination of MSB accounts without regard to the risks presented or the bank’s ability to manage the risk. As noted, MSBs present varying degrees of risk, and not all money services businesses are high-risk. Therefore, when deciding whether to provide services to an MSB customer, financial institutions should assess the risks associated with that particular MSB customer. A financial institution’s risk assessment should include considering whether customer risks can be managed appropriately and the financial institution should maintain levels of controls commensurate with the customer risks presented. Banks that can properly manage customer relationships and effectively mitigate risks are neither prohibited nor discouraged from providing services to MSB customers, regardless of any MSB’s specific business model.

A banking organization’s due diligence should be commensurate with the level of risk presented by the MSB customer as identified in the bank’s risk assessment. If a banking organization’s risk assessment indicates a heightened risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, then the organization should conduct further due diligence in a manner commensurate with the heightened risk. A bank needs to know and understand its MSB customer. To do so, it should understand the MSB’s business model and the general nature of the MSB’s own customer base, but it does not need to know the MSB’s individual customers to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act. This is no different from requirements applicable to any other business customer.

Banking organizations are expected to manage the risk associated with all accounts, including MSB accounts. However, the Bank Secrecy Act does not require, and neither does FinCEN expect, banking institutions to serve as the de facto regulator of the money services business industry any more than of any other industry. FinCEN recognizes that, as a practical matter, it is not possible for a bank to detect and report all potentially illicit transactions that flow through an institution.5 But where an institution follows existing guidance and establishes and maintains an appropriate risk-based program, the institution will be well-positioned to appropriately manage such accounts, while generally detecting and deterring illicit transactions.

In summary, FinCEN, as the agency primarily responsible for administering the Bank Secrecy Act, expects banking organizations that open and maintain accounts for MSBs to apply the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, as they do with all accountholders, based on risk. Banking organizations must have appropriately designed policies and procedures to assess an MSB’s money laundering and terrorist financing risks. As with any category of accountholder, the levels of risk will vary; therefore, MSBs should be treated on a case-by-case basis. FinCEN and its regulatory colleagues will continue to monitor trends with respect to the provision of banking services to MSBs and are committed to taking steps to address the wholesale de-banking of an important part of the financial system.

This amount seems to double at each retelling, like my crypto holdings.    I think I saw 70 million in an article yesterday.

Anyway, many bitcoin services now seem to be making enough money to justify that much investment:

* By my estimates, SMBIT has collected 2--5 M$ in fees from its clients, so far.  When it started in Sep/2013, it also sold some 18'000 old BTC that belonged to its founders, which may have netted them another 2 M$

* Bitpay claimed to have processed 100 M$ of payments in 2013.  I don't know how much they processed in the last 12 months, but they must have made several M$ in fees and trading margins.

* Bitstamp clients trade over 10'000 BTC per day.  Assuming 0.3% average trading fee, that is 30 BTC/day, or ~3.5 M$/year.  Exchanges may also make money from deposit/withdrawal fees, interest on leveraged trading, arbitrage, trading against their clients, etc.

* Large mining enterprises may earn hundreds of BTC per day, and their costs (including equipment) may be 50% of that, or less.  Thus, their net profit may be in the tens of M$/year.

So, there does seem to be enough revenue sources in the bitcoin ecosystem to justify 100 M$ VC investment -- even if it will not grow beyond its present size.

(All the revenue of those companies, by the way, comes out of the pockets of those who are buying and/or using bitcoins now.)

The last paragraph in my quote above is not mine, of course; it was inserted by @walsoraj.

A weird sense of humor, or the desperation of a bag-holder?  

But it is true: I did sell all my BTC to invest in XRP, months ago.  And I have been doubling my XRP holdings every day since then, as I did before with BTC.

Bitcoin was meant to be an e-payment method (decentralized, trutless, etc.).  A fixed bitcoin supply is not necessary for that goal.  Indeed, bitcoin is being used in that role, in spite of still having 10%/year inflation (and even higher in the past).  And dollars and euros work fine as payment methods, in spite of their "horrendous" 1-2%/year inflation rate.

Thus, the argument that "raising the emission limit would destroy the value of bitcoin" does not sound convincing.  Hoarders would be very unhappy, of course.  Miners, however, may someday find it advantageous, especially by the time they are expected do depend on transaction fees instead of block rewards.  Block reward is steady and predictable, whereas fees depend on transaction volume -- which will probably shrink substantially if fees became mandatory.   People who use bitcoin for payments may not care, or may prefer block rewards because they provides "free" transactions.

It has been argued that, if some miners tried to change the protocol, the rest of the network would stick to the old one.  However, this correction mechanism has never been tested, and it seems difficult to predict what would happen, in all possible scenarios.  (After all, it was "proved", with the same certainty, that altcoins would die as soon as they were born.)  What if those "some miners" had 70% of the hash rate?  What if a large subset of the users became convinced that the change was necessary for the health of the network, or got some immediate benefit from it (such as no-fee transactions)? What if payment processors and merchants accepted only the "new" bitcoin?  

(By the way, some bitcoiners seem to be trying to convince people to adopt bitcoin by telling them that money sucks.  I sense a problem with that marketing strategy: it seems that many people have used money sometime in their lives, and may even have enjoyed the experience -- unlikely as that may sound.  )

All of this leads me to the conclusion that Ripple is the future of cryptocurrency. In fact, I am currently in the process of selling all of my assets to invest solely in XRP.

Please show some heart for the criminals @ Bitstamp and don´t pump the price too high too fast, thx. Bitstamp ask side really is empty as fuck.

Bitstamp cannot allow unverified accounts to trade or offer any other services, as doing so would violate our AML and KYC policies.

In who's dreams exactly? It amazes me how some people here can be so dead certain on such unsure future situations.

Nobody gives a fuck about ripple.

TAS Group is specialised in software solutions for electronic money, payment systems, capital markets and ERP. It has been listed on the Italian Stock Exchange since May 2000.

Italian market leader for card management, payment networks access and order management, TAS also operates as key partner in the international market, acting through its subsidiaries: TAS France, TAS Helvetia, TAS Iberia and TAS Americas.

TAS Group serves major commercial & central banks and the main Financial Services centres in Italy and Europe, and the main global broker dealers of the Global Fortune 500.

In recent years TAS Group has diversified its offerings and today its solutions are adopted in the Italian Public Sector (Ministries, Regional Government and other Local Bodies) and by Corporates.

• Over 60 million Cards managed internationally
• Present in 6 countries, with over 150 clients in the world
• The biggest payments carrier in the entire Europe
• Over 100 financial institutions use TAS capital markets solutions
• Certified for Conformity to UNI EN ISO 9001:2008
• ERP solutions adopted by large utility companies and public sector entities