The ruling makes it clear that both my operations as well as those of Lab_Rat would be considered to be Money Transmitters, requiring FIN-Cen registration as well as licencing as a money transmitter in each and every state that has money transmitter laws in which we would do business.
Toldja.
I feel you are being unfair, biased and a bit broad in these statements... as I also feel the Final Rule is also still a bit broad and needs to be further defined... here is what I see...
An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person.
Two things here... 1) LRM only accepts virtual currencies from users as part of the buy in process to participate in the mining operation... LRM only transmits those funds to pay bills and buy equipment as a USER by definition and then 2) the definitions above do not take into consideration the POOL aspect of minting... this deficiency is the main reason why there is still need for clarification of what is an MSB... if LRM was not using a pool then it would be clear... LRM never ACCEPTS virtual currency in its day to day mining... it MINTS IT. I see no place where minting is defined properly. FinCen is lacking substance here.
FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.
Here I clearly see that without defining the difference between receiving payouts from a pool or solo mining, or defining that they are both technically the same mnting process AND NOT money transmission, LRM never takes currency from one person to send to another... LRM is involved in the MINTING of said currency and is the original owner (other than the lacking pool definition aspect) and therefore is not accepting the payout currency from anyone... it OWNS it and then PAYS it which should clearly be an exception in the eyes of FinCen.
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.
Again, here FinCen attempts to define all methods of de-centralized minting, but fails miserably because they do not understand the entire process... LRM is a pool mining participant and receives payouts from the pool itself so by this bad definition would seem to be an MSB, but it will eventually be redefined after someone is litigated to reflect that mining operations, rather by pool or solo, are minting and thus OWN the coins before they distribute them, and the distribution is not resale in any way.
This may get flipped on us soon and pools and mining operations will become MSBs one day... but as it stands now, LRM is in good standing and NOT an MSB as FinCen has yet to satisfactorily define how a pool or mining operation that rewards its participants is to be treated as neither fall under the definitions as they have been presented.
