As far as I can see, most of offers for crypto on prominent sites (cryptojobslist, crypto. jobs, cryptocurrencyjobs, blockew, angel. co and many others) mostly focus on tech specialists: developers, moderators, etc. Such specialists are a core need for any crypto project, and much less offers are dedicated to, say, public communications, marketing, but even less on legal advise and monitoring. The latter seems to be understandable, since many crypto exchanges prefer not to work with fiat and be as little regulated as possible, or even decentralized at all. However, the seeming relative lack of demand is a bit confusing.

Some work seems to be outsourced on freelancers. Maybe such specialists are hired through personal contacts mostly. It also seems that several programs / products offered by AML/KYC services providers are generally getting the job done. Also, as far as I can see, there are several courses on crypto for AML specialists, which makes you think if they can offer some advise for crypto projects. However, I would not be surprised if those offer only general info on cryptocurrency and some specifics fit for more traditional financial institutions... you never know.

Which brings up the question: is hiring an AML specialist on permanent basis even a thing among centralized exchanges?

Maybe, there are some people out there who work with regulated crypto exchanges, who face the same problem. What would you recommend?

Disclaimer: this is not a job offer (not yet at least), just asking about your experience, which solutions / sites / services proved best for you.

Hi, fellow enthusiasts. Ran into this op-ed today, and I found it pretty interesting.

https://cryptopotato.com/the-cia-secretly-owned-crypto-ag-did-they-secretly-create-bitcoin-opinion/

I did see the OP earlier, although I didn't read WaPo article in details because it looks to be demanding paid subscription from everyone now & no way am I paying for this establishment propaganda mouthpiece with rare sparks of good content (he-he)  . However, the main revelation is clear: Crypto AG was secretly owned by CIA & sold equipment to various state actors (who were naive enough to fall for it), keeping lags allowing US & German govts to spy on the supposedly encrypted communications. * imagine our collective shock *   

(Here is some other article on topic; not like Guardian is pure & bright, but at least not paywalled. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/11/crypto-ag-cia-bnd-germany-intelligence-report).

Of course, encryption is pretty broad topic in general. Moreover, lots of tech products were developed or backed by intelligence (look no further than Tor, damn, even Internet in its initial form was an US intelligence product!). However, it's neither unrealistic nor surprising at this point to assume that if intelligence gives out smth to the world, it's not done out of generosity; or that intelligence offices are forwarding the technology to use in their respective states' geopolitical purposes & are okay with the fact this tech might be used against them in the future. Therefore, the math is above "all that", the product must be safe and no way any breaches are left for intl to at least try to control it. (If Edward Snowden's revelations in particular are any indicator).

Here are some particular highlights of the aforementioned op-ed that grabbed my attention (sorry if I'm unwillingly repeating some gospel):


_{(can anyone who speaks Japanese confirm please?.. Because... if so, it's one of the greatest levels of unabashed bait/open trolling I saw)}

What do you think?

And, if the assumption is legit, what would be the purpose?

p.s. I am not sure if this thread fits in Economic/Speculations thread, although economic consequences of cryptocurrency projects being state-backed from the start, are pretty broad to even imagine - still, it's rather vague subject. I don't think it fits into "Politics" or "News" section either. If anything, mods, feel free to move this thread to another section.

Well, it's "eat the rich" all the way, folks   

To topic: i don't think so, although I do feel that top 0,000...1% (those who are literally 30 persons vs 3,5 billion) did get their dough through good old "traditional" ways

That's batsh*t insane. So, that basically means, any US exchange that requires basic verification, is likely to do the same.

...and guess what, i guess, they won't ban a person from an "ally state" (even those ones where they do practice state sponsoring of terrorism) based off citizenship alone!

Recent logarithmic analysis by analyst Benjamin Cowen suggests that, by 2023, the capitalization of the cryptocurrency market could exceed $11 trillion.

This is "medium case" scenario, while "extreme case" scenario offers the total capitalization of $32 trillion, with prices boost up to 150 times. While Bitcoin exchange rate at this scenario is at ~ $141K for 1 BTC, its total market share will drop to 23%, leaving space for "altcoin bubble" (which is plausible in both scenarios).

The analysis is performed based on weekly data on the price movements of Bitcoin and altcoins.

Source: https://icolink.com/ico-news/benjamin-cowen-predicts-a-cryptocurrency-bubble.html

What do you think? Will altcoins be the future of the cryptocurrency market, or is it too distant and insignificant future to consider? Is the market too volatile for any sort of longterm predictions, or does it sound plausible to take into account such researches while investing?

Exactly this.

Guns are tools, of course, and many people sort of lose it when they receive these tools... which we can definitely see in mass shootings statistics in countries where gun control laws are strict vs countries where govts are on gun manufacturers' payroll but masquerade it as "protecting 2nd amendment". (And don't even start with "checking mental health" of potential customer, because when was the last time someone did so?) This is the real harm, not some imaginary "protect ourselves from oppressive government" (when was the last time any of folk who said this took the gun & "protected himself" from a govt official? We can drown in semantics if we want, we can speak about "governmental control" being "inherently bad" whatever we want, but since we don't have more effective and urgent counter policy to offer, I thing gun control measures definitely should be applied.

I think it's uncertainty (and fear of uncertainty) primarily. Then, there must be some popular bias about crypto in general (that you are required to be "geek", "tech expert", you have to be "rich" to enter, that it's "less serious" than traditional methods, that it's predominantly filled with "frauds" and "criminals" and is "not trustworthy"). Speaking of the latter... there are plenty of interested players who'd argument you why such prejudice/fears are completely rational & factual 100% just so you won't enter any competitor sphere.

Besides, you can see governments taking part in contributing to crypto's semi-legal indefinite status as well, by either delegitimizing it or seeking to control it.

And, as someone above correctly put it, crypto projects developed by big corporations (re: Libra) don't exactly add up some "trustworthy" image to crypto, being seen as marketing tool of the richest & further power establishing mean by them (while being simultaneously trashed by centralized govts seeking financial hegemony... how ironic).

Why we are to even believe such basic “predictors” if the market is believed to be volatile and uncertain? Because sometimes they randomly get the point right? Genuine question

Personally, it's never a media vs reported target question for me: media are untrustworty whatsoever, especially mainstream ones. As Corbyn excellently put it the other day, "we believe in free press... now we pray for press to free itself from its corporate shareholders' agenda".

_{Sure, we're talking about interpretations/narrative actively built by mainstream media w/o basis, while reports on extreme climate events belong to "science" more... I'd ask to offer more plausible example to highlight the point of media lie/bias. From the OP & such topic as climate emergencies, you'd think, media purely report objective facts & aren't participating in active narrative construction on behalf of interested parties}

I still barely understand. For example, if I want to give "thumbs up"/"bookmark"/(give merit) to someone, at which point can I do it? How do I receive sMerit for that, which are requirements for that? Like, I’ll quote 10 underappreciated new posts in Meta thread, and what gives - someone kind (with his own limited sMerit to spend) gives me sMerit or?.. Also, as far as I’ve understood, when I spend sMerit (half of Merit received), the former half of goes untouched, but the latter is spent whatsoever, or how exactly does that work?

Typical bunch of "argumentation"... maybe the OP does need to follow his own alleged advice & google definitions of both first...  

Everybody loves "Firefly"

This thread's title is pure gold 

She's doing what needs to be done - popularizing such a crucial and urgent topic (and, of course, backlash would be inevitable at this point)

Nope 

now that's interesting  (more difficult for brand new/masquerading for other companies in other spheres tho, which adds irrelevant info up in research, tbh)

Thank you for the link!

That does sound fishy however you put it

I was coming for a Terry Pratchett's books discussion...