Verification of identity compulsory on transactions over $1000

[o_e_l_e_o]

In the case of most exchanges without KYC/AML like Binance, you can take advantage of this by simply creating multiple accounts.

At the moment, sure, but when these new laws come in to place doing so will be a crime, and Binance will be fined if they allow it to happen. Even if they don't go down the route of full KYC, which I suspect they will, they will definitely start clamping down on multiple accounts doing this using the same deposit or withdrawal addresses or coming from the same IP address.

[Nalbo]

In the case of most exchanges without KYC/AML like Binance, you can take advantage of this by simply creating multiple accounts.

At the moment, sure, but when these new laws come in to place doing so will be a crime, and Binance will be fined if they allow it to happen. Even if they don't go down the route of full KYC, which I suspect they will, they will definitely start clamping down on multiple accounts doing this using the same deposit or withdrawal addresses or coming from the same IP address.

$1000 limit would destroy the trading business of crypto. That's the reason we move to decentralized exchanges, the real decentralized ones that does not asks for KYC. Unless we need to deposit from or withdraw as fiat, we would not require to follow the law of FATF if we use decentralized exchange. Withdrawing and depositing would be fine with $999 a day.

[RomanPetrush]

I bet this regulation is just a start. But still, we have coins such as monero. I am really interested in how everything will work in the future. On the first side is regulation, on the second crypto technology what makes possible to work without regulation.

[metalglowd]

If they will implement it, people will still do everything to avoid and get rid of passing the verification requirement that they want. It's fine that they have a limit amount but I don't think everyone is willing to comply with it. Money laundering is everywhere and they couldn't stop it by asking everyone to pass a certain KYC.

Sometimes it must be in this way to make people truly obey the rules and code of ethics in crypto. It might be possible for them to trick a fake identity or borrow someone else's identity. (This is the most confusing thing). But as long as one of the parties feels that it benefits from this it is not a problem.

[cheezcarls]

Does this mean that they’re trying to take away the power of the people? And to possibly end decentralization? If that would happen, it may not be sooner or in a few years. It’s because they’ve seen that we are starting to store our funds into crypto more than in banks.

I think it would take several years before this goes in full effect, because we are talking not just one country, but a lot of countries worldwide. Correct me if I’m wrong though.

This is just my own point of view regarding this news. I would rather support regulation of running ICOs or token sales than regulating crypto trading and withdrawing.

But still, withdrawing $999.99 a day would be no problem for me whatsoever (unless if its a big emergency or so).

P.S. I would believe they have the power to do this if they’re in full control of the whole blockchain tech in the world. But in reality, they can’t control or stop blockchain transactions.

[bitbunnny]

We can see that more and more rules that are aplicable in traditional financial world are also implemented in crypto world. KYC is one of them.
It's interesting though how many users complain about increasing number of frauds and misuse of cryptocurrencies but on the other hand they extremly hard accept mechanisms that could help in dealing with such issues.

[mk4]

Yep exactly. While I don't think Binance is quite strict with this right now, I think they will be quite soon. I think they will start locking up accounts with incomplete account information or something(assuming they aren't locking up accounts right now).

Unfortunately, we really don't have a 100% decentralized exchange right now. Moving to those partly "decentralized" exchanges won't save us forever. Remember when IDEX introduced KYC? It's because while they call these exchanges "decentralized", companies still run them. And these companies can always be pursued by the government.

[akamit]

A proper decentralized or good P2P exchange would be nice.

And this will never happen anymore imo. If a new one borns then the authorities will force them to implement KYC, otherwise they will crack it down for sure.

What would be even nicer is to spend your bitcoin directly.

It's like a dream for me as of now, maybe after a decade or two later it will happen. Currently I don't have any option to spend directly locally except online usage.

I very rarely sell bitcoin for fiat - I much prefer to support bitcoin's growth and fuel its adoption by spending it directly, taking my business to places I can spend it directly, and asking every company I like which doesn't accept it yet to consider accepting it.

Truly speaking, I have never sold any of my hodling since I started my journey in cryptoverse.
All my hodlings, trading capitals are kept intact - you can say I have never tasted honey which I got from investment or earned by trading.

We are in the same boat, we are both trying to support crypto, but any time in the future we may need a way to cash our hodlings.
I say cash because crypto spending still has to go a long way. Maybe within the next 5-8 years, I will retire and I don't think crypto will get much adoption within this time (at least for my place).

What I have converted to fiat so far is from my sig earnings and other tiny incomes.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Unless we need to deposit from or withdraw as fiat, we would not require to follow the law of FATF if we use decentralized exchange.

To begin with maybe, but as mjglqw says, laws, regulations, and KYC will likely reach them too before long. I'm not big in to altcoins, but any time I have wanted to buy or trade altcoins I've just done it peer to peer. Even with peer to peer platforms like localbitcoins also introducing KYC, there is no shortage of methods to find people to trade with.

Withdrawing and depositing would be fine with $999 a day.

It you are regularly depositing or withdrawing >$900 a day, your account will be flagged up for potentially evading the rules. Behavior like this will quickly be clamped down on.

[Tylev]

I bet this regulation is just a start. But still, we have coins such as monero. I am really interested in how everything will work in the future. On the first side is regulation, on the second crypto technology what makes possible to work without regulation.

It seems that crypto through the regulation of the procedure for its use will almost completely lose its anonymity. Indeed, this is only the beginning and this was to be expected. After that, other restrictions will follow, which citizens will try to circumvent. However, I would not say that it is definitely bad. It is necessary to regulate this process and it is inevitable.

[mr.robot8]

i do not believe that this fatf has jurisdiction in my country where the limit for the use of cash is 3000 euros, but even if this new restriction arrives in the future, it is enough to make transactions of 1 cent below the limit

[Vishnu.Reang]

Only the smaller players are going to get affected. The bigger ones usually hire someone to do the KYC for them (obviously using the stolen documents which are available in the dark markets). And expect these guys to get more active, as there has been a big spike in the exchange rates for all the cryptocurrencies, during the past 2-3 months.

[mk4]

The bigger ones usually hire someone to do the KYC for them (obviously using the stolen documents which are available in the dark markets).

It's probably the other way around.. as the small players wouldn't even probably reach the $1000 threshold.

The bigger ones usually hire someone to do the KYC for them (obviously using the stolen documents which are available in the dark markets). 

That's quite an assumption. I'm pretty sure a big player wouldn't risk using stolen KYC documents. They catch you? Say goodbye to your funds.

[pushups44]

Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF), a global organiztion working to prevent Money Laundering is enforcing a law for any exchange or services to ask for full identity verification for anyone who transacts over $1000 at once. Rules made by FATF are obligatory.

Here's a TNW's article explaining it
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2019/06/12/bitcoin-cryptocurrency-fatf-regulation/

I believe this will be a problem, because lots of law-abiding people and businesses don't want to be inconvenienced with breaking their transactions into parts - it would add to costs, for one thing. The article even mentions that compliance with these new rules will be a costly headache for businesses. It seems the industry and regulators will be butting heads soon, and this will either be resolved through the courts or with maverick legislators creating a more favorable regulatory environment for the industry, or both. At least governments are finally acknowledging that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and must be addressed.

[ralle14]

The bigger ones usually hire someone to do the KYC for them (obviously using the stolen documents which are available in the dark markets).

It's probably the other way around.. as the small players wouldn't even probably reach the $1000 threshold.

The bigger ones usually hire someone to do the KYC for them (obviously using the stolen documents which are available in the dark markets).  

That's quite an assumption. I'm pretty sure a big player wouldn't risk using stolen KYC documents. They catch you? Say goodbye to your funds.

True, most whales would rarely do such thing knowing exchanges have this in their terms and conditions, they could easily punish anyone if they get caught. It's better to go with the safer option and submit your documents than to rely on the documents of someone else if you're making transactions above the threshold.

[qtronix]

These rules are useless. People will always find a way around them. I agree with the commentator above that $ 1000 is too small an amount for such a limitation. It would be better if they paid attention to a larger turnover of money.