"we wont let crypto become the next numbered anonymous swiss bank account"

[samdan777712]

That was the threat of FATF. It's all out war on bitcoin first of all. Centralized exchanges must be abandoned. Bitcoin's entire point is to be a numbered anonymous swiss bank account. Not a named controlled privilege for hyper regulated hyper taxed first world nations. Bitcoin was meant to assume people needed protection from the government. It will not work with these centralized exchanges, and FATF has declared war on bitcoin with it's travel rule. The travel rule has to be resisted at all costs. Wallstreet, and venture capital, now silicon valley, have gotten too much power through investing into crypto, pulling it away from its original purpose. They want to sanitize it and sell it back to you as a different product while controlling you politically. Do you really think that if this KYC stuff is implemented in a place like Venezuela that people could use bitcoin, of course not it is a de facto ban on the unprivileged. There's no way to protect ourselves other than ultra mass civil disobedience, and that is not possible without appropriate decentralized liquidity on DEX.

[dothebeats]

The difference between Swiss bank accounts and bitcoin is that the former is still legally flourishing even up to this day no matter how many controversies were unearthed involving the said bank and the latter is being chased by regulators, hoping to contain it right before it even explodes. As much as most of us want to have a decentralized exchange, it wouldn't happen any time sooner as most people are still enjoying the benefits they are getting in trading centralized exchanges, and these services, in turn, acts as pets of the government since if they tried to disobey just once, they would see their license revoked, meaning an end for their business. DEX is pretty much the future of P2P trading, honestly, but the problem is the support and interest from the community and also enthusiastic devs working on the said project.

[Theb]

Let's dissect the news bit by bit before we classify this as an inevitable thing to happen in the crypto industry. This statement is quoted from FATF which is an international government organization that houses the G7 (Group of Seven) and the countries that are a part of it are Canada, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, and USA. You know what the majority of them have in common? All of them except for U.K. is a bitcoin/crypto friendly country so they outnumber them 6 to 1 make it 4 to 2 if you include USA in their side. I don't think those 6/4 countries will let this other countries bully then whe  obviously their crypto industry works well with their system.

[Kemarit]

Let's see how it goes, after the recent G20 meeting, they said it is didn't pose any significant threat to world economy, but on the other hand, they wanted more scrutiny hence, the "travel rule". However, there could be a tug-of-war, governments vs DEX or even centralized exchange. It's going to be a war of attrition, gonna be long and deliberate. But I just do hope that exchanges will not succumb to those governments compliant rule as per directed by FATF. We still love our privacy and (psuedo) anonymity, and this is what we are all in crypto.

[figmentofmyass]

Let's dissect the news bit by bit before we classify this as an inevitable thing to happen in the crypto industry. This statement is quoted from FATF which is an international government organization that houses the G7 (Group of Seven) and the countries that are a part of it are Canada, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, and USA. You know what the majority of them have in common? All of them except for U.K. is a bitcoin/crypto friendly country so they outnumber them 6 to 1 make it 4 to 2 if you include USA in their side. I don't think those 6/4 countries will let this other countries bully then whe  obviously their crypto industry works well with their system.

what does "bitcoin/crypto friendly" entail? i see burdensome licensing and tax regulations, and arbitrary controls on margin trading---at least in the USA and japan. japan even used its licensing scheme to get privacy coins de-listed from exchanges.

[jseverson]

Lol I wish them luck in implementing it. They're definitely going to be cracking down on centralized exchanges, but decentralized exchanges or not, there are still ways to cover your tracks with Bitcoin. The very people they're trying to target are going to be privy in these ways, and it's likely going to hurt the regular joe more.

I don't think those 6/4 countries will let this other countries bully then whe  obviously their crypto industry works well with their system.

All I really see them doing is heightening the level of implementation of existing KYC rules. This doesn't necessarily mean that the crypto industry will stop performing well, just that compliance is going to be more troublesome than it already is. There's no bullying happening, or at least among the states involved.

[timerland]

That was the threat of FATF. It's all out war on bitcoin first of all. Centralized exchanges must be abandoned. Bitcoin's entire point is to be a numbered anonymous swiss bank account. Not a named controlled privilege for hyper regulated hyper taxed first world nations. Bitcoin was meant to assume people needed protection from the government. It will not work with these centralized exchanges, and FATF has declared war on bitcoin with it's travel rule. The travel rule has to be resisted at all costs. Wallstreet, and venture capital, now silicon valley, have gotten too much power through investing into crypto, pulling it away from its original purpose. They want to sanitize it and sell it back to you as a different product while controlling you politically. Do you really think that if this KYC stuff is implemented in a place like Venezuela that people could use bitcoin, of course not it is a de facto ban on the unprivileged. There's no way to protect ourselves other than ultra mass civil disobedience, and that is not possible without appropriate decentralized liquidity on DEX.

You're right in the regard that if a large scale, global restriction on bitcoin ever does occur, it'll have the equivalent effect of driving bitcoin out of fulfilling one of its primary functions, which is to help the unbanked, who often cannot pass KYC with sufficient standards to begin with.

I don't think that this stance of the FATF is anything new, however, and I certainly don't see how they are capable of enforcing such a blanket ban that they seem to be pushing globally, if it ever does get implemented.

Decentralized exchanges could be an alternative, but even technology today doesn't solve the primary problem of how to conduct fiat to crypto (or vice versa) transactions while staying decentralized, although that is already fulfilled by p2p exchanges (which seem to be tightening their KYC stance as well, probably due to these new looming regulations).

[Theb]

I don't think those 6/4 countries will let this other countries bully then whe  obviously their crypto industry works well with their system.

All I really see them doing is heightening the level of implementation of existing KYC rules. This doesn't necessarily mean that the crypto industry will stop performing well, just that compliance is going to be more troublesome than it already is. There's no bullying happening, or at least among the states involved.

Yeah that's probably be it but when I say “bullying” it will be a series of talks and debates before this imrpoved KYC enforcement happen. With various international oganizations tackling the topic of crypto I don't expect the FATF will be a walk in the park for the countries involve. They'll probably talk about bans and restrictions but I know not all vountries part of it will follow what the group wants.

[jseverson]

-snip-

I don't expect the FATF will be a walk in the park for the countries involve. They'll probably talk about bans and restrictions but I know not all vountries part of it will follow what the group wants.

The FATF (Financial Action Task Force) is actually the name of their task force. That most likely means that all the member countries have already signed off on the new rules. It's sad, but this is happening.

[squatter]

That most likely means that all the member countries have already signed off on the new rules. It's sad, but this is happening.

More or less. Everyone in the G20 has already pledged to implement the rules.

Then again, even in the member countries, new legislation -- subject to the political process -- will be required to enact the rules. This could take time and there may even be political opposition. And that's only a few dozen countries. The rest of the world doesn't bow to the FATF so easily. Most monitored countries have been failing to meet their standards for decades. The blacklist largely hasn't forced compliance.

[samdan777712]

as long as arther fixes his order submission errors and continues to run a shady ass exchange in the seychelles im hardly heart broken by uncle sam's hellbent notion to keep me poor

[avikz]

That was the threat of FATF. It's all out war on bitcoin first of all. Centralized exchanges must be abandoned. Bitcoin's entire point is to be a numbered anonymous swiss bank account. Not a named controlled privilege for hyper regulated hyper taxed first world nations. Bitcoin was meant to assume people needed protection from the government. It will not work with these centralized exchanges, and FATF has declared war on bitcoin with it's travel rule. The travel rule has to be resisted at all costs. Wallstreet, and venture capital, now silicon valley, have gotten too much power through investing into crypto, pulling it away from its original purpose. They want to sanitize it and sell it back to you as a different product while controlling you politically. Do you really think that if this KYC stuff is implemented in a place like Venezuela that people could use bitcoin, of course not it is a de facto ban on the unprivileged. There's no way to protect ourselves other than ultra mass civil disobedience, and that is not possible without appropriate decentralized liquidity on DEX.

Do you want bitcoin to remain just as illegal drugs?? Without regulation, bitcoin will never grow! It bitcoin remains illegal, mass adoption will never become a reality! FATF guidelines are there for a good reason and might just mitigate the risk that comes from anonymity. You certainly would not want ISIS to declare bitcoin as their main currency!!

[eaLiTy]

what does "bitcoin/crypto friendly" entail? i see burdensome licensing and tax regulations, and arbitrary controls on margin trading---at least in the USA and japan. japan even used its licensing scheme to get privacy coins de-listed from exchanges.

This is the future we are expecting when there is regulation being implemented, the authorities will hit hard against privacy coins and they will get rid of those from legal trading and will drive the market underground, realistically if we want the bitcoin community to thrive we need government regulation to get rid of the bad actors and scammers and then the all too familiar exchange hacks where the end user looses their coins and the exchange will run away bankrupt and with regulation we could sort these issues.

[gentlemand]

As it stands things are easily kept in line. Most people have no interest in hiding their money for the sake of an easy life. Most businesses are desperate to stay on the right side of the government so there'll come a time where in most first world countries you won't be able to find anywhere that's not compliant even if you want to.

What really needs to happen is for the loop to be closed and the need for fiat and conventional banking to fall away. There'll always be tax bills to pay but there may be large enclaves of people who use their borderless unstoppable money to lead borderless unstoppable lives.

[malevolent]

Do you want bitcoin to remain just as illegal drugs?? Without regulation, bitcoin will never grow! It bitcoin remains illegal, mass adoption will never become a reality! FATF guidelines are there for a good reason and might just mitigate the risk that comes from anonymity. You certainly would not want ISIS to declare bitcoin as their main currency!!

So far most cryptocurrency regulation is about erecting new barriers of entry towards users and businesses, and no it isn't illegal (yet), so why are talking about it 'remaining illegal'? FATF guidelines are there to exert control over people, and it's disappointing to see non-Newbies fall for boogeyman memes.

[audaciousbeing]

Let's see how it goes, after the recent G20 meeting, they said it is didn't pose any significant threat to world economy, but on the other hand, they wanted more scrutiny hence, the "travel rule". However, there could be a tug-of-war, governments vs DEX or even centralized exchange. It's going to be a war of attrition, gonna be long and deliberate. But I just do hope that exchanges will not succumb to those governments compliant rule as per directed by FATF. We still love our privacy and (psuedo) anonymity, and this is what we are all in crypto.

There is not going to be any war in my opinion. If there is going to be war, then it means we have two sides that are close to each other in terms of powers and might but not in this case. The moment the governments where the exchange sites have agreed on a particular course of action there is absolutely nothing that would stop them. Most of the exchange sites would want to be seen or perceived to be legal which means they have to still be working within the confines created by government for them to operate within and to enjoy that privilege, it means you have to comply with the dictates of the government... Its as simple as that...

[buwaytress]

So far most cryptocurrency regulation is about erecting new barriers of entry towards users and businesses, and no it isn't illegal (yet), so why are talking about it 'remaining illegal'? FATF guidelines are there to exert control over people, and it's disappointing to see non-Newbies fall for boogeyman memes.

Exactly! The whole outcry from these VASPS against FATF is that it's already hard enough as it is for anything remotely crypto related to get the same recognition as a regular business or a regular user. Businesses and people want to pay tax. They want to do good by the books. They want to comply. But (among many) the point is, FATF must make it so that they can do just all that.

On the bright side, at least some aspects of FATF guidelines are also trying to make it so that banks do not unfairly deny service to businesses/users simply because they transact or have crypto-related links, so I suppose the squeeze is being distributed to the old system too.