It is already at the point. Very soon we will witness the migration happening. It may start from moving offices and branches and lead to total exit of the US market. We all understand how formidable the US market is, but immediately one discovers how to do without the market, others will follow.
I'm not sure I get it. You say it is already happening but then the migration is yet to happen. Do you happen to know which business is leaving the US completely that was based in the US from the beginning? I can only recall Bitrexx and other exchanges that were based overseas like Binance. Personally, I don't think a business like Blackrock will do that. I guess we'll just wait and see if the US crypto market will be dead completely or if will it stay with stricter regulations in the future. Can a crypto casino die in the US? Tax legislation in the United States works great in the field of cryptocurrencies, which means that after regulation there will be a new entry of crypto companies into this market. Therefore, new crypto exchanges will soon appear on the US market, and unnecessary competitors will be kicked out. |
|
|
|
I do not think that anyone who buys or trades bitcoin for $10,000 will refuse to compete basic KYC verification. Whoever wants to buy bitcoin without spending it does not require to pay tax or prove his identity, but when he wants to sell, he will be asked for it.
Data such as the name, address, and government ID are data that some give to social networking applications such as Facebook, (which are known for selling data) in exchange for his page to return to work or to restore the Instagram account.
Tax evasion is a crime and many would be afraid not to try to tell the authorities what they have in Bitcoin.
In the US, you are required to declare your purchases of cryptocurrencies and pay tax on capital gains and tax on the sale of cryptocurrencies. But I know that in Miami you can exchange cryptocurrencies for cash dollars without asking private money changers. Therefore, not everyone is afraid of the tax, or only tourists do it. I don't know. |
|
|
|
https://www.theblock.co/post/244015/jury-trial-dates-set-for-next-year-in-long-winded-ripple-case"Judge Analisa Torres ordered a trial by jury last month for Ripple’s CEO Brad Garlinghouse and Executive Chairman Chris Larsen over whether they are liable in illegal securities sales to institutional investors who bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of XRP. Dates are beginning to be set for a jury trial in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s case against Ripple Labs. The court is planning to schedule a jury trial for the second quarter of next year in the Southern District of New York, Judge Analisa Torres said on Tuesday in a pretrial scheduling order. "
|
|
|
|
I do not know if that's real or not, but there will not be any developer who would be willing to do that because after they release it, it's no longer their problem. It is purely ran by the people and there won't be any dev that can control it. That's why it's called defi, it's decentralized, so there can never be anyone who can ask us KYC in the logic of it, it's just not possible.
Of course you can try, but the simplest result would be people picking an non-American nation to build it, and just release it, then they will not care about what SEC or anyone else says about it, they do not even have to share their own KYC, which means that USA wouldn't even know who started it, could be an American as well and they wouldn't know.
You can create any DeFi project, but you will not attract investments into it if you are anonymous and do not pass mandatory audits. Most likely, you will be forced to build a fallback shutdown into the smart contract to pause or slow down the project if there is a hack. DeFi projects are no longer decentralized. |
|
|
|
|
Поздравляю light_warrior с новым рангом Hero Member!
|
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain/status/1688483493217710080"Hong Kong Securities Commission warns that derivatives and Earning services on cryptocurrency exchanges are not allowed. Companies operating during the transition period may not be granted licenses if they violate the regulations. Trading platforms that have not applied for a license should stop operating in Hong Kong, otherwise it is a criminal offense."
|
|
|
|
https://www.dlnews.com/articles/regulation/crypto-privacy-battle-started-by-words-inserted-in-2021-law/In 2024, US businesses will have to collect the name, address, and government ID of anyone who uses more than $10,000 crypto to buy stuff. Crypto think-tank Coin Center sued the government, arguing the rules equate to illegal financial surveillance. A judge recently tossed the lawsuit, saying it wasn’t ripe. Coin Center has appealed the decision. Time is running out for the crypto industry to fight a new law that will force US businesses to collect personal information on people who use digital assets worth more than $10,000 to buy stuff. The new rules will snap into action on January 1, 2024.
|
|
|
|
@zasad@. However, there might be a problem with that definition because uncle Gary can declare any project that has issued a token a fraud and a ponzi scheme. Ethereum, Uniswap, Sushiswap, Curve, Convex and many projects in DeFi issued a token but they never scammed the buyers. Is it right for Gary Gensler to crackdown on them because for the old holders of those coins to profit, new buyers must come in?
I reckon that you are one of the people in this forum who knows that a project that has issued a token should not be automatically declared a ponzi scheme.
I don’t understand why you compare cryptocurrency projects with a Ponzi scheme. Projects like StepN are like a Ponzi scheme, but there are a lot of legal issues. The SEC is fighting the illegal sale of shares, and the main question now is which token is a share and which token is not a share. There is a court practice that says that the company will pay fines and penalties from the amount received at the ICO. For projects like Ethereum, this is a ridiculous amount, but it is not certain that the SEC will sue Ethereum. I am not comparing or implying that DeFi projects are ponzi schemes. I am saying that because of the SEC's broad definition of what a ponzi scheme is, uncle Gary can use this definition to declare many projects in the cryptospace as ponzi schemes and crackdown on them. The SEC's fight against the cryptospace by using the howey test has become questionable after Ripple won their case. Uncle Gary's next fight will be about ponzi schemes and as already mentioned, their definition is broad and they will apply this as much on the cryptospace as possible. I appreciate your opinion, but in my opinion you are overcomplicating the situation. The SEC has a lot of work to do in the coming years, because a lot of projects have collected investments on ICOs and, with a sane amount of a fine, they are all ready to pay money without courts. But Gary Gensler doesn't stand much of a chance of staying in office after next year's US presidential election. |
|
|
|
@zasad@. Agreed and it appears Paypal's entry in the stablecoin market might encourage other leaders in the traditional payment processor industry to create their own stablecoins also, which will certainly be enough to take away the influence of Tether and takeover much of the volume in the cryptospace market.
I have speculated that Tether might bring the crypto edition of the Big Short, however, should we really celebrate if Paypal and other traditional payment processors have taken over the stablecoin market? This might be a similar situation as Binance and the take over of traditional finance, the real criminals.
I have studied PYUSD. https://coinmarketcap.com/community/articles/64d3a7987491e75ef9a15c6dThe prospect is very doubtful due to the risk of high fees for ERC-20 tokens. USDC capitalization has fallen by 30 billion over the past year because the crypto community does not trust the American regulator and companies. Tether looks more secure, but they will also have problems due to new regulations. ___ 💩💩💩 https://twitter.com/pashovkrum/status/1688591468498239496 |
|
|
|
But the consequence is that many viable businesses will have to leave the US to other countries. It's also good news to other nations that these businesses will move to.
I honestly doubt it will go to that point, especially if the business is based in the US, to begin with. It is likely that they will move some offices to other countries or use other means to bypass the regulation that slows down their business, but unlikely to move outside the US completely unless they can go to Europe or China. Paying a fine once in a while is probably more profitable for the business involved compared to losing access to the US market altogether. CMIIW. All crypto companies open business in other countries and try to make sure that there are no legal ties between related companies, because these are big risks for the whole business. Now in this business there is a lot of regulation and a very expensive threshold for entering such a business, so there will be few newcomers. |
|
|
|
What made you go through the KYC procedure?
There are a lot of scammers in the cryptocurrency sector in the US, Canada and Europe, although many users think that these countries are safe and there are fewer scammers there.
In order not to be deceived, you need to wait for the company to prove itself in the market and earn a reputation, so that it would not be profitable for it to disappear with money or user data.
You said it rightly. Haven verified that the company was based in UK, I had some level of believe in the project. I had thought that SEC was effective and hard on them. It was based on this believe of mine that I went deep into the project and in the end I lost much. The reason I completed KYC was this; KYC was not said to be a prerequisite, but when they claim the bond is matured, I was then forced to complete KYC as a compulsory requirement for the investment exit. I had acquaintances who opened companies in the UK, but they had never been to this country. Maybe now there are more serious requirements for the opening of firms, but for a long time I do not believe that in these countries the interests of non-citizens will be protected.If I want to invest in companies, then it is better to use the stock market, where there is very tight control. You are right! Even when I tried to take a legal action in UK and I had a representative, the gesture was that the case won't be treated as important. It will need my presence in UK to facilitate hearing or whatever. I finally gave up. I had counted it as a mistake, it is better to invest in a decentralized project like bitcoin where everyone is treated equally or also in stock where there is tight control. Thanks for your advice. Nothing new in scam schemes. Fraudsters take advantage of the fact that the cost of legal fees and the costs of the applicant are much higher than the amount of lost funds. And if personal presence is still required, then the costs increase. And a lawyer cannot guarantee a 100% result, because it is unethical. Have you tried filing a fraud report in your country? Most likely there will be no result, but this will complicate the life of scammers in the future. |
|
|
|
Не знаю таких услуг, потому что банк никак не может распоряжаться этими рублями.
У каждого гражданина должен быть только один счет. Если его открыть в приложении сбера, то можно ли цифровым рублем распоряжпться а приложении другого банка?
Этими рублями банк распоряжаться не сможет, а втюхать другие услуги может.  Что касается счёта и доступа к нему, то, исходя их имеющихся анонсов, доступ можно будет получать через любой банк, в котором пройти соответствующие авторизацию, т.е. необязательно работать только через один, можно и через несколько, одновременно. А как получится в итоге на практике, увидим. Я думал об этом. С физлицами тарифы фиксированные, а значит зарабатывать на бизнес счетах, и скорее всего все коммерческие организации обяжут принимать цифровые рубли с 2025 года или раньше. И здесь схемы оптимизации налогов не будут работать. |
|
|
|
https://www.theblock.co/post/243464/curve-exploit-identity-bounty"Злоумышленник, который атаковал пул alETH-ETH Alchemix на Curve, вернул все 22 миллиона долларов. Возвращено более 12 000 ETH. Кроме того, вмешательство «белых шляп» успешно предотвратило ограбление сумму 13 миллионов долларов. Лицо, ответственное за взлом пула pETH-ETH компании JPEGd, вернуло 90% украденных активов на сумму 5 495 ETH (11,5 млн долларов США). Кроме того, средства, незаконно присвоенные из пула sETH-ETH Metronome и основного пула CRV-ETH Curve Finance, в общей сложности около 7 миллионов долларов, были возвращены оператором бота MEV под именем c0ffeebabe.eth. PeckShield указала, что украденные средства в размере 19,7 млн долларов еще не возвращены."
|
|
|
|
CBDC это очень большой конфликт интересов. Банки участвуют в тестировании, но они с этого не получают интереса. Цифровые рубли не могут быть на баллансах, и банки не в состоянии этими рублями распоряжаться. Получается что банки активно участвуют в испытании сркдства для их уничтожения.Крупные банки остануться операторами а мелкие разорятся.
Поэтому они и спешат поучаствовать: кто успеет первым заманить клиентов открыть кошельки крипторубля именно у них, возможно, сумеют дольше какие-то услуги предлагать посетителям, а кто окажется последним в очереди, уже и посетителей не увидит, потому что их сманит ЦБ. Ситуация, когда любой шаг хуже для них. Но в этом-то и сила принуждения государства, что решить как-то иначе банки фактически будут не в силах. Они могут попытаться мягко бойкотировать ЦВЦБ путём предложения пользователям каких-то других услуг по более привлекательным условиям, но и тут их ЦБ, скорее всего, подрежет тоже. Не знаю таких услуг, потому что банк никак не может распоряжаться этими рублями. У каждого гражданина должен быть только один счет. Если его открыть в приложении сбера, то можно ли цифровым рублем распоряжпться а приложении другого банка? |
|
|
|
Another good news article for people who think that the government are creating laws to serve the people better and protect the consumers hehehe. After you read the news, if your argument is that the government is only treating cryptocoins similar to the laws that they have created for cash, then it appears that because of this law, the government has been surveilling on everyone who has made a $10k cash transaction or more. Time is running out for the crypto industry to fight a new law that will force US businesses to collect personal information on people who use digital assets worth more than $10,000 to buy stuff.
The new rules will snap into action on January 1, 2024.
Last year, crypto think-tank Coin Center sued the Treasury Department and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, which have been charged with implementing the regulation, arguing the new rules are tantamount to “unconstitutional financial surveillance.”Source https://www.dlnews.com/articles/regulation/crypto-privacy-battle-started-by-words-inserted-in-2021-law/This is a predictable move. The most dangerous regulation could start with stablecoins, and all address holders with more than $10,000 could be given a deadline to go through the Know Your Customer process. Cirсle is an American company, and its stablecoins are used all over the world. It is also dangerous to store savings in stablecoins now. |
|
|
|
"- То есть любой владелец цифрового кошелька сможет «подкрасить» свои рубли и проследить, чтобы их тратили только на благие нужды? - Да, например, даете деньги ребенку, который идет в школу, оговариваете при этом, что деньги можно потратить только на завтрак, покупку книг или учебников, но никак иначе. Соответственно, как ни велико было бы желание пользователя денег применить их не по назначению, сделать это будет невозможно. То есть будет прописано целевое использование выделенных родителями ребенку денег." Подробнее в ПГ: https://www.pnp.ru/economics/anatoliy-aksakov-deti-ne-smogut-potratit-cifrovye-rubli-na-chto-popalo.html___ Мамочки будут делать смарт контракты для детей, а регулятор с Росфинмоном, ФСЬ и налоговыми органами будут за этим следить. Только вот в роли мамочки будет государство, а в роли детей граждане. И тоже будут "благие" цели, но в разрешенных пределах - не забываем про углеродный след. У экошизиков как раз была идея везде этот след тоально учитывать и при превышении норм блокировать возможность человека пользоваться собственными деньгами. И судя по тому, что я везде (например проверьте на авито) вижу эти ебнутые цифры углеродного следа процесс идет. CBDC это очень большой конфликт интересов. Банки участвуют в тестировании, но они с этого не получают интереса. Цифровые рубли не могут быть на баллансах, и банки не в состоянии этими рублями распоряжаться. Получается что банки активно участвуют в испытании сркдства для их уничтожения.Крупные банки остануться операторами а мелкие разорятся. |
|
|
|
I didn't mean to protect the project, but what's the scam here?
You got the NFT that they claimed can be worth for $1250 USDC, then what's the difference with the bounty project that claimed they have 500.000 token share and the token will worth $5 during the distribution date.
If it's scam, every bounty project should be scam too.
If you use a brand new wallet and mint nft, then you can then see what permissions you have given to access your wallet. In the case of a new wallet, you will only lose commission on mint nft. It is worth taking part in similar projects only from a new wallet with no coins. Then scammers won't steal anything from you. |
|
|
|
Chinese + Blackrock doesn't sound good to US authorities, hehehe. Specially that the government of US seems to be anti crypto and Blackrock involving themselves into bitcoin could be a giveaway as to why they are going on a witch hunt. And Lo and behold, after further digging, they could have found a connection between them and the Chinese, hence as quick as they snap their fingers, there is going to be a congressional probes. And for sure those who are going to probe are included in the memo. ( https://twitter.com/EleanorTerrett/status/1656362002577772544?s=20) This probe will definitely have an adverse effect to their proposal for the approval of Spot Bitcoin ETF. It might be a well-planned plot to deny BlackRock's request. If they are indicted, it will become a ground for the ETF denial. The public will support because it will be seen that the company is anti-US and working against national interest. Futures Bitcoin ETF is already running and Spot Bitcoin ETF will also be approved. But the company has to seek these permits in the US through the courts. And another point, what to do with a dozen other requests for the Spot Bitcoin ETF? Accuse each company of violating the law, and then refuse on this basis? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
