Biden’s Treasury Secretary pick - Cryptos Used Mainly for Illicit Financing

[bitquad]

https://news.bitcoin.com/janet-yellen-bitcoin-cryptocurrencies-illicit-financing/

Janet Yellen, Joe Biden’s pick for the Treasury Secretary, has revealed her policy for cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin. She claims that cryptocurrencies are mainly used for illicit financing and their use needs to be curtailed.

Janet Yellen Reveals Her Plans for Cryptocurrencies
In the Senate hearing to consider Janet Yellen’s nomination as Secretary of the Treasury on Tuesday, Yellen was asked about cryptocurrencies. She is Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Treasury Department under his administration.

The crypto question was asked by Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH), who talked about “the importance of treasury programs to combat the financing of terrorists and criminal organizations.” She said she had raised the issue in previous hearings with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

“The bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act passed earlier this month and it included a provision led by Senator Warner that established an advisory group with Treasury to counter new ways that terrorists use emerging financial technology,” she began. “One area of growing concern, for example, is the potential for terrorists and criminals to use cryptocurrency to finance their activities.”

Senator Hassan proceeded with her question: “So Dr. Yellen, can you outline some of these emerging technological concerns and how Treasury should combat new forms of terrorists and criminal financing?”

Yellen replied: “Senator, I think you are absolutely right that the technologies to accomplish this change over time and we need to make sure that our methods for dealing with these matters with tech terrorists financing change along with changing technology.” The incoming Treasury Secretary elaborated:

Cryptocurrencies are a particular concern. I think many are used, at least in a transactions sense, mainly for illicit financing and I think we really need to examine ways in which we can curtail their use and make sure that anti-money laundering (sic) doesn’t occur through those channels.

Bitcoiners React to Yellen’s Remarks
Following Yellen’s Senate testimony, the crypto community pointed out several flaws in her statements. Russell Okung, the pro football star who recently became the first NFL player to get paid in bitcoin, commented: “Treasury Sec nominee Yellen says bitcoin is a concern for terrorist financing, money laundering … as if the USD isn’t. Don’t be distracted. The things of old are passing away, fight for your future.”

Dan Held, Growth Lead at crypto exchange Kraken, pointed out: “0.3% of all cryptocurrency activity in 2020 was illicit. 90% of US dollars have cocaine on them. Which one is ‘used by the bad guys’ again?”

Morgan Creek Digital partner Anthony Pompliano similarly described: “Janet Yellen stated today that cryptocurrencies are concerning because of terrorist financing and money laundering. She forgot to mention that the US dollar is the choice currency of criminals around the world.” He added:

"The large banks launder more money than the entire bitcoin market cap."

Some people referenced the “bitcoin sign guy,” who rose to fame when he held up a sign that says “buy bitcoin” behind Yellen as she testified in a previous Senate hearing as the Federal Reserve chairman. Perhaps she “missed the sign,” some bitcoiners suggested. Ivan on Tech tweeted Wednesday: “Janet Yellen promises to go after bitcoin in a recent interview. She is still salty for that bitcoin sign incident.”

Yellen is not the only one suggesting recently that most crypto activities are for illicit purposes. Last week, the president of the European Central Bank (ECB), Christine Lagarde, said that bitcoin “has conducted some funny business and some interesting and totally reprehensible money laundering activity.” However, a famous economist quickly contradicted her, calling the ECB chief’s statement “absolutely outrageous when we all know that the vast majority of money laundering globally is conducted in fiat currencies, particularly in U.S. dollars and euros.”

[Obito]

I have to disagree with the Treasury Secretary's claims, according to an article that I have read, only 1% of bitcoin seems to be used for money laundering and other illicit activities.
Putting the issue in a pedestal to be examined by many and claiming that it is the most prevalent medium of choice for money launderers will only make this matter worse which is making bitcoin a prospect for criminals (who previously did not know about it) to use it as a money laundering medium. Also, if they try to use bitcoin, the public ledger will see irregularities that will make get the other observers attention.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/technology/bitcoin-black-market.html

[bitquad]

I have to disagree with the Treasury Secretary's claims, according to an article that I have read, only 1% of bitcoin seems to be used for money laundering and other illicit activities.
Putting the issue in a pedestal to be examined by many and claiming that it is the most prevalent medium of choice for money launderers will only make this matter worse which is making bitcoin a prospect for criminals (who previously did not know about it) to use it as a money laundering medium. Also, if they try to use bitcoin, the public ledger will see irregularities that will make get the other observers attention.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/technology/bitcoin-black-market.html

You may disagree but that might not stop them. Or they could say you know what we agree with you Bitcoin is a store of value. So it is a security after all. Governments can do anything they want - that is what history has taught us.

[Lorence.xD]

You may disagree but that might not stop them. Or they could say you know what we agree with you Bitcoin is a store of value. So it is a security after all. Governments can do anything they want - that is what history has taught us.

History also taught us that governments can't do whatever they want, remember the Boston Tea Party? French Revolution? Bolshevik Revolution? EDSA Revolution? If the consensus were to oppose this kind of regulation, I think that they will think otherwise when it comes to this regulation, USA is a democratic after all so they might be able to respect the decision of the masses.

[acquafredda]

I think she is asking some sort of revenge because nobody knew her before the above!
That was some epic happening, it went viral everywhere and Yellen probably needs to use bitcoin again to be recognized.

[dothebeats]

I think she is asking some sort of revenge because nobody knew her before the above!
That was some epic happening, it went viral everywhere and Yellen probably needs to use bitcoin again to be recognized.

I remember this picture going out in the open. Idk that she is some important figure in the politics, and it is only today that I recognize her again.

As for her opinion with cryptocurrencies -- I wouldn't blame her. The news regarding cryptocurrencies during Trump's tenure isn't one of the best in crypto's history. A lot of hacks and and criminal-related incidences have surfaced here and there. Anyone would really take this on the surface level and not go deeper to change their opinion whatsoever, as they believe on what they only believe. I just hoped that a lobbying group to pass some pro-crypto regulation continues to exist during Biden's administration, so that the Treasure Secretary's bias against crypto won't prevail.

[kryptqnick]

This is sad news because she's new on the job and already making such strong anti-crypto statements. I'm not sure if she's actually right about illicit financing, though. Is there data on how Bitcoin is used (in percentage for each key purpose) versus how dollar is used?
In any case, the previous Treasure Secretary Mnuchin also called for stricter crypto regulations and believed that Bitcoin was used for money laundering. And yet the big advantage of Democracy is that big decisions can't be made by one person. So even if she calls for tough regulations, but the Congress doesn't support them, it'll never become the law.

[Kakmakr]

You know politicians make strong statements and then they sit around the table and they see what impact those statements will have when they are implemented and then when they see the impact... they turn around and do the opposite. She is definitely still butt hurt over the "Bitcoin Guy" ....so there will be some revenge for that.... but when they see the backlash when the voters turn against them (Bitcoin Supporters) and the legal tax paying companies go underground.... then they will feel the heat.

There are regulation and over regulation ....like with the New York fiasco with the Bitcoin License thing.... so let's see what direction she wants to go in. If they over regulate... more things will start going the decentralized route. (P2P)  

[bitquad]

You may disagree but that might not stop them. Or they could say you know what we agree with you Bitcoin is a store of value. So it is a security after all. Governments can do anything they want - that is what history has taught us.

History also taught us that governments can't do whatever they want, remember the Boston Tea Party? French Revolution? Bolshevik Revolution? EDSA Revolution? If the consensus were to oppose this kind of regulation, I think that they will think otherwise when it comes to this regulation, USA is a democratic after all so they might be able to respect the decision of the masses.

USA is becoming communist like China. Censoring free speech. How well does a revolution work in China? Hong Kong? The Bolshevik Revolution was a Communist Revolution. The Deep State = Communism

https://drrichswier.com/2020/10/04/corporate-communism-and-the-deep-state/

[bitquad]

This is sad news because she's new on the job and already making such strong anti-crypto statements. I'm not sure if she's actually right about illicit financing, though. Is there data on how Bitcoin is used (in percentage for each key purpose) versus how dollar is used?
In any case, the previous Treasure Secretary Mnuchin also called for stricter crypto regulations and believed that Bitcoin was used for money laundering. And yet the big advantage of Democracy is that big decisions can't be made by one person. So even if she calls for tough regulations, but the Congress doesn't support them, it'll never become the law.

She is not right about illicit financing. More money is laundered with fiat currencies. Terrorists have used fiat currencies for a long time.

But with communists whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant. They will just say YOU are wrong. So facts will not matter for her. If they want to ban Bitcoin they will find a way. They banned gold before.

[bitquad]

You know politicians make strong statements and then they sit around the table and they see what impact those statements will have when they are implemented and then when they see the impact... they turn around and do the opposite. She is definitely still butt hurt over the "Bitcoin Guy" ....so there will be some revenge for that.... but when they see the backlash when the voters turn against them (Bitcoin Supporters) and the legal tax paying companies go underground.... then they will feel the heat.

There are regulation and over regulation ....like with the New York fiasco with the Bitcoin License thing.... so let's see what direction she wants to go in. If they over regulate... more things will start going the decentralized route. (P2P)  

Since they can steal elections they don't care if voters turn against them. They don't need voters. Their machines can vote for them.

[bitgolden]

Do not be worried, Biden has always been supportive of pro-crypto people and had many in his transition team as well. Treasury could literally be against crypto and considering the rights of the states, the only thing treasury could do is disallow banks to work with the crypto exchanges in a federal level, like weed companies and weed dispensaries, which will make it harder, which will create issues, but it is not going to happen because let's face it wall street is in tens of billions of dollars for this now and they are not going to just let the people they bribed a billion dollars ruin that for them, Biden is the president with the most billionaires donated in history so far, dude is friends with all the rich people, and he will do what they say which is going to be keep bitcoin on the friendly side. There won't be any problems at all for sure.

[exstasie]

Keep in mind, Yellen's position is just a reflection of her new role as Treasury Secretary. It's the consensus position among the establishment.

This is what Trump's Treasury Secretary (Steve Mnuchin) had to say about Bitcoin:

“I want to be careful that anybody who’s using bitcoin — regardless of what the price is — is using it for proper purposes and not illicit purposes,” he added. “And there are billions of dollars of transactions going on in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for illicit purposes.”

Mnuchin was also asked if bitcoin’s use in illegal transactions disqualifies it as a legitimate currency, given that the U.S. dollar is often used by bad actors for illegal purposes.

“I don’t think that’s accurate at all, that cash is laundered all the time,” Mnuchin replied. “We combat bad actors in the U.S. dollar every day to protect the U.S. financial system.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/mnuchin-says-us-will-ensure-bitcoin-doesnt-become-like-anonymous.html

See a pattern? Bitcoin is laundered more than cash, he says.....

[mindrust]

And people thought Trump was bad for crypto and Xiden was going to make crypto great again.

Haha.

Crypto has no friends from the government because crypto (as long as it stays decentralized) is the anti-thesis of a government. Both of them cannot simply exist in the same space.

[atjiat]

And people thought Trump was bad for crypto and Xiden was going to make crypto great again.

Haha.

Crypto has no friends from the government because crypto (as long as it stays decentralized) is the anti-thesis of a government. Both of them cannot simply exist in the same space.

You are really right, and I believe that in the future, all cryptocurrency exchanges that have a real address will be forced to demand mandatory KYC from their users, if they have not yet demanded it from their users. The government in any case will try to get all the information about the transactions of users and about the income and expenses of its citizens. nevertheless, there is no way for the government to impose a ban on the use of cryptocurrencies and the trading of these assets. They will have to accept.

[mindrust]

And people thought Trump was bad for crypto and Xiden was going to make crypto great again.

Haha.

Crypto has no friends from the government because crypto (as long as it stays decentralized) is the anti-thesis of a government. Both of them cannot simply exist in the same space.

You are really right, and I believe that in the future, all cryptocurrency exchanges that have a real address will be forced to demand mandatory KYC from their users, if they have not yet demanded it from their users. The government in any case will try to get all the information about the transactions of users and about the income and expenses of its citizens. nevertheless, there is no way for the government to impose a ban on the use of cryptocurrencies and the trading of these assets. They will have to accept.

That's one way to control crypto and Bitcoin is not making their job harder with those public addresses. They can already track your credit card transactions and when they go full KYC on you they will be watching your crypto transactions as well.

On the other hand those filthy physical bank notes is something they cannot track, surprise.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The crypto question was asked by Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH), who talked about “the importance of treasury programs to combat the financing of terrorists and criminal organizations.” She said she had raised the issue in previous hearings with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

That's a bunch of crap, and it's not the real reason she wants to "curtail" crypto use.  My best guess is that the IRS is concerned about tax evasion (also a bunch of crap, since most of that comes from business owners) and has influenced her opinion on crypto. 

I can't say I long for the days of Trump's presidency, but I would have preferred a libertarian candidate winning, or another republican--though I realize that would have been impossible in the 2020 election.  The government keeps those printing presses running 24/7 and even on Christmas, yet they don't want the average citizen to have any control over the purchasing power of their money.  Fuck those democratic goons, especially a hypocrite from New Hampshire, the motto of which is "Live Free or Die".

[jaberwock]

Fiat is being used the most for illicit activities more than they do with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, they don’t really have time for making use of crypto, although I do know that there have been really bad incidents that took place where they  used cryptocurrency.

As for what I think, I don’t think they have plans to stop cryptocurrency, they are not going to stop cryptocurrency, but they won’t stop looking for ways that they will regulate and fully control it. They are already doing all that and they have started with centralized exchanges and wallets, and those are the ones that a lot of people make use of the most.

[el kaka22]

This is not a preparation for banning bitcoin or anything like that, it would be very very difficult to ban bitcoin at this stage, american companies have over half a million bitcoins, tens of billions of dollars in bitcoin, if they do that, that money will go to other nations regular citizens and that is not something USA would want, no matter what is the case is about.

So, what this is about is the fact that they want to make sure they can follow your crypto, who owns how much and all, and they are going to make harsher regulations. That women probably didn't know about bitcoin at all until someone flashed "buy bitcoin" behind her, and bitcoin made like 5x return since that moment, so I do not know why she thinks it has anything to do with illicit financing when it is obvious that it is a profitable investment. However harsher regulations will probably happen.