FATF meeting about crypto

[Leviathan.007]

According to cointelegraph, In less than two weeks (24 June 2020) there will be a FATF meeting. In this meeting the states parties to the special financial action task force will start discuss about forcing all the crypto related services to ask for KYC. According to this rule, If several financial institutions or companies are involved in a monetary exchange, identity information and transaction information must be shared with all parties involved. In this case, digital currency exchanges will also be required to provide users' identity information to other relevant exchanges and institutions. A year ago in June 2019, the Financial Action Task Force called for the implementation of anti-money laundering guidelines on digital currencies [like other currencies]. These guidelines are known as the law of information transfer and require exchanges to prevent the illegal use of digital currencies in order to prevent the illegal use of digital currencies.
Although these guidelines do not have a legal requirement, they are essentially enforceable. Any country that does not comply with the rules by the end of the allotted time will be blacklisted. Can't be sure, But in my own idea, soon, every single user should provide the exchanges KYC information otherwise they will easily block their funds. Crypto is progressing and here all the governments are just trying to control it in order to avoid money laundry and economic corruption. But don't forget usually the governments are economic corrupter due to printing money without of any legal reason.

Resource:
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/calendar/eventscalendar/?hf=10&b=0&s=asc(fatf_date1)
https://cointelegraph.com/news/fatf-meeting-scheduled-to-discuss-vasps-compliance-with-travel-rule

[jackg]

Can we name an exchange that hasn't been hacked?

How is this information with exchanges not going to interfere with gdpr in Europe? This is actually quite a problem as the fatf will do this for people with more than $1000 in balance at once (based on current guidance) meaning the large exchanges might see people turning away from their services in favour of local vendors who can transfer smaller amounts...

[cryptoperkele]

I am pretty sure that travel rule will cause some serious problems. And how exactly would they deal with coins with the unclear or suspicious origin? Just freeze them? Or flag them as not legal, to be used ever again?

[stompix]

Although these guidelines do not have a legal requirement, they are essentially enforceable. Any country that does not comply with the rules by the end of the allotted time will be blacklisted.

Common let's not believe everything that cointelegraph writes just to make their article a little spicier.
There are only two countries on the FATF blacklist and those, Iran and NK are not mainly there because of KYC or AML.

FATF is a cooperation force, it simply issues guidance, it has zero legislative powers.

How is this information with exchanges not going to interfere with gdpr in Europe?

Little, GDPR is about protecting personal data, not about preventing companies to collect or requesting it.
KYC works fine with GDPR, it does so with banks it will work with exchanges, some people have a misconception that with gdpr companies are not allowed to ask for personal information or store it, and that is not true.

[figmentofmyass]

Can't be sure, But in my own idea, soon, every single user should provide the exchanges KYC information otherwise they will easily block their funds.

exchanges don't answer to the FATF. the travel rule relies on governments implementing it via national legislation. first comes national regulation, then come government crackdowns on non-compliant exchanges.

based on the FATF's usual MO, they will probably just issue a report saying the vast majority of countries are currently outside of compliance. big deal!

i do expect that exchanges will gradually become more stringent with AML/KYC in response to an increasingly restrictive regulatory atmosphere, but this doesn't happen overnight. this meeting is definitely NOT a reason to rush into giving KYC documents, especially where it's not required.

[Leviathan.007]

exchanges don't answer to the FATF. the travel rule relies on governments implementing it via national legislation. first comes national regulation, then come government crackdowns on non-compliant exchanges.

based on the FATF's usual MO, they will probably just issue a report saying the vast majority of countries are currently outside of compliance. big deal!

i do expect that exchanges will gradually become more stringent with AML/KYC in response to an increasingly restrictive regulatory atmosphere, but this doesn't happen overnight. this meeting is definitely NOT a reason to rush into giving KYC documents, especially where it's not required.

Yes, exchanges won't answer FATF, But they usually answer the governments, unfortunately. So, if the FATF start convincing governments and force them to ask the exchanges for KYC this will happen. There is a little chance, but still there is a chance for it. I recommend everyone to don't hold their main and long term investments on the exchanged since they can easily block our funds. KYC violates crypto's nature, we use crypto usually because of privacy and because we are not interested to share our personal information.

[figmentofmyass]

exchanges don't answer to the FATF. the travel rule relies on governments implementing it via national legislation. first comes national regulation, then come government crackdowns on non-compliant exchanges.

based on the FATF's usual MO, they will probably just issue a report saying the vast majority of countries are currently outside of compliance. big deal!

i do expect that exchanges will gradually become more stringent with AML/KYC in response to an increasingly restrictive regulatory atmosphere, but this doesn't happen overnight. this meeting is definitely NOT a reason to rush into giving KYC documents, especially where it's not required.

Yes, exchanges won't answer FATF, But they usually answer the governments, unfortunately. So, if the FATF start convincing governments and force them to ask the exchanges for KYC this will happen.

right, so we're in the exact same situation we were in a year ago when the travel rule was originally published.

the FATF and national regulators are no doubt coming, but they move at a snail's pace. my comments were a direct response to this:

every single user should provide the exchanges KYC information otherwise they will easily block their funds.

i would never give up my ID documents unless it was absolutely necessary.

suggested reading: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221497.0

[malevolent]

Common let's not believe everything that cointelegraph writes just to make their article a little spicier.
There are only two countries on the FATF blacklist and those, Iran and NK are not mainly there because of KYC or AML.

FATF is a cooperation force, it simply issues guidance, it has zero legislative powers.

Being blacklisted is the worst the can happen, but there are steps in between that can be taken and that can affect the country's economy or competitiveness, such as various 'high-risk' labels.

right, so we're in the exact same situation we were in a year ago when the travel rule was originally published.

the FATF and national regulators are no doubt coming, but they move at a snail's pace. my comments were a direct response to this:

Binance causing problems to users withdrawing to Wasabi wallets, more exchanges asking about source of funds, I wouldn't say we're in the same situation as a year ago.

[figmentofmyass]

right, so we're in the exact same situation we were in a year ago when the travel rule was originally published.

the FATF and national regulators are no doubt coming, but they move at a snail's pace. my comments were a direct response to this:

every single user should provide the exchanges KYC information otherwise they will easily block their funds.

Binance causing problems to users withdrawing to Wasabi wallets, more exchanges asking about source of funds, I wouldn't say we're in the same situation as a year ago.

all of that was happening a year ago. bitstamp began EDD with source of funds questionnaires in 2015, with more exchanges doing so every year since then. and the binance.SG incident simply went viral on crypto twitter, that's why people are aware of it. here is another instance from over a year ago where a bitfinex user was questioned about coinjoin transactions and subsequently had his account closed: https://www.reddit.com/r/WasabiWallet/comments/beqj8r/bitfinex_lock_account/

i feel like you're taking me out of context. i'm not saying "literally no exchange has changed their AML/KYC policies in the past year". i was responding to someone who said 1. this FATF meeting in 2 weeks is a good reason to now verify on exchanges, and 2. implied this FATF meeting will immediately catalyze major changes across the industry. the june meeting last year certainly did not do that, although i was shitting bricks at the time.

[malevolent]

all of that was happening a year ago. bitstamp began EDD with source of funds questionnaires in 2015, with more exchanges doing so every year since then. and the binance.SG incident simply went viral on crypto twitter, that's why people are aware of it. here is another instance from over a year ago where a bitfinex user was questioned about coinjoin transactions and subsequently had his account closed: https://www.reddit.com/r/WasabiWallet/comments/beqj8r/bitfinex_lock_account/

i feel like you're taking me out of context. i'm not saying "literally no exchange has changed their AML/KYC policies in the past year". i was responding to someone who said 1. this FATF meeting in 2 weeks is a good reason to now verify on exchanges, and 2. implied this FATF meeting will immediately catalyze major changes across the industry. the june meeting last year certainly did not do that, although i was shitting bricks at the time.

Bitstamp actually started with invasive KYC questions already in early 2014 (possibly even earlier but not 100% sure on this one as that was quite long ago).

I can't prove to what extent are all these changes are specifically related to FATF (or AMLD, banks, something else etc.), but with the direction we're heading FATF is just another nail to the coffin of general BTC usability, even if it had no influence on so-called VASPs' increasing hostility towards their users' privacy, there's no telling it won't get any worse (it likely will).