Member Of The E.U. Parliament Says Crypto Transactions Shouldn’t Be Anonymous

[Coinshots]

Paul Tang, a member of the E.U. Parliament, believes that transferring cryptocurrencies should require information about the sender and the receiver, just like bank transfers.

Paul Tang, a member of the E.U. Parliament, believes that transferring cryptocurrencies should require information about the sender and the receiver, just like bank transfers.

Tang, who heads the E.U. Parliament’s Subcommittee on Tax Matters, called the pushback against the upcoming crypto AML regulation “another social media storm by crypto bros.”

The crypto industry in Europe is set to fight yet another battle in its war against stifling regulation. This time, the fight is aimed against the European Commission and its latest proposal to extend AML requirements for cryptocurrency wallets.

The revision of the Transfer of Funds Regulation (TFR), first proposed in July 2021, will extend the obligation of financial institutions in the E.U. to accompany transfers of funds with information about who is sending and who is receiving the transaction. The proposal itself represents the practical implementation of the existing FATF travel rule that requires crypto service providers to KYC their customers and is set to be amended in a vote on Thursday, March 31st.

As the bill provides no guidance as to how a crypto service should verify unhosted wallets, this will mean that many will decide to forego transacting with them altogether. Those that continue transacting with unhosted wallets will be required to report all transactions over €1,000.

This caused a stir in the crypto community, with many calling this a blatant violation of privacy. Those backing the bill, however, seem undeterred by this.

Paul Tang, a member of the E.U. Parliament serving as the chair of its Subcommittee on Tax Matters, called the public outcry “another social media storm by crypto bros.”

“Just like bank transfers, transferring crypto like Bitcoin should be accompanied with information about the person sending and receiving the funds,” he wrote on Twitter earlier today.

Tang compared holding cryptocurrencies to holding cash, saying they’re both stored without the involvement and knowledge of anyone else—including the government. But, unlike cash, cryptocurrencies are extremely mobile and operate in a borderless world, which increases the likelihood they’ll end up “in the wrong place,” he explained.

“So the identity of unhosted wallet-holders needs identification—just like you need to identify yourself when you deposit money at the bank. And we want authorities to be notified in case any one person receives a total of €1,000 from unhosted wallets. That is a red flag.”

He said that the threshold of €1,000 in total is an attempt to disable “smurfing” when tracking crypto transactions. Smurfing refers to the act of sending transfers smaller than the limit required by AML regulation, which usually stands at around $10,000. The varying price of cryptocurrencies means that thresholds like these are hard to enforce, which is why the E.U. believes it would be more productive to cover basically all crypto transfers.

Tang says that despite what members of the crypto industry say, these are important tools to fight money laundering and terrorist financing.


However, the future of the crypto industry in the E.U. might not become as bleak as Tang wants it to. Previous attempts to introduce regulation as stifling as this one was rejected by the E.U. parliament and there’s a high likelihood we could see this happening again.

Source: https://www.coinshots.com/news/member-of-the-e-u-parliament-says-crypto-transactions-shouldnt-be-anonymous

[fiulpro]

If they would require information just like the bank transfers then what would be the difference between transferring cryptocurrencies and transferring the money through banks since information would eventually need:

1. Third parties
2. Documentation
3. Government involvement to get the information straight

This would convert it into nothing but fiat now, this is something that we cannot just shoot aside. You can already see that we do need KYC everywhere which is already jumping on the government involvement as well. They just might to try and dominate the market one way or the other which I do think is not something any crypto user would want.

[Beerwizzard]

It is pretty logical if he is talking regarding businesses accepting crypto as payment. For some people it is pretty naïve to believe that companies start accepting thousand $ worth of crypto. It doesn't work like this with fiat and there is absolutely no reason to change it for crypto. Seriously, try to take lots of cash and try ty make an expensive purchase somewhere in US or EU. Lovely visit to the police is guaranteed.

This guy is talking about KYC for crypto services which we already have and €1,000 threshold for it which is a fairy high number ( at least better than complete KYC for all crypto transactions).

[Cryptions]

There now coming in very fast pace news about intentions & will to tighten "crypto rules". As i've stated on various posts, it's going to be a nightmare from the privacy point of view. It's going to kill innovation or at least set so high barrier of entry that bootstrapping teens can't anymore launch projects which disturbs technology. That's bad in general, and the crypto community should try to push some really decentralized solutions that simply can not controlled. The orginal idea how to get Bitcoins, i.e. mining, is nice... it wasn't nice years later to get bank account closed because of transfering money to some crypto exchange and so on. So, there's coming a lot more not nice things with increasing regulation.

[CaVO32]

It is pretty logical if he is talking regarding businesses accepting crypto as payment. For some people it is pretty naïve to believe that companies start accepting thousand $ worth of crypto. It doesn't work like this with fiat and there is absolutely no reason to change it for crypto. Seriously, try to take lots of cash and try ty make an expensive purchase somewhere in US or EU. Lovely visit to the police is guaranteed.

This guy is talking about KYC for crypto services which we already have and €1,000 threshold for it which is a fairy high number ( at least better than complete KYC for all crypto transactions).

This is already happening to some extent. But for some p2p services and if you are using a trusted platform, there's no need of full KYC. There are some instances that you do need to disclose your identity especially if you are using a legal 3rd party service provider that are operating under their government's jurisdiction. And most centralized exchanges are now also asking for compulsory KYC, so this is not new anymore. Though there are still services that we can pay anonymously but the number of merchants requiring KYC for crypto services are now growing.

[palle11]

Is there a possibility for what he is asking for to happen? He is visibly asking for regulation and I don't know how he intend to achieve this except he will legislate that exchange around his country or operating with his country people begin to register with KYC with the exchange. If he wants to monitor the transactions made, he would better read bitcoin white paper and understand the working.

[mikeywith]

This guy is talking about KYC for crypto services

It doesn't say so.

"Just like bank transfers, transferring crypto like Bitcoin should be accompanied with information about the person sending and receiving the funds,” he wrote on Twitter earlier today."

They are talking about all transfers, just like the last regulation of Coinbase, if you reside in Canada, Japan, or Singapore you are required to provide information about the recipient even if you were sending them to an individual.

And most centralized exchanges are now also asking for compulsory KYC, so this is not new anymore.

There is a difference between doing your KYC on the exchange once vs having to write the name and/or physical address of the person you are sending your crypto to.

[odolvlobo]

Paul Tang, a member of the E.U. Parliament, believes that paying in cash should require information about the sender and the receiver, just like bank transfers.

Would he also say that?

[Moneyprism]

“Just like bank transfers, transferring crypto like Bitcoin should be accompanied with information about the person sending and receiving the funds,” he wrote on Twitter earlier today.

just like your members of parliament as usual,, they just want to control other people like the world is theirs ... the choice to transact with crypto is the right of people because they want security and anonymity, is it wrong when people choose to transact using crypto to protect their privacy? now is a free era, where people are free to choose what they will do with their assets and the government has no right to intervene in that

[Kakmakr]

Bitcoin and Crypto currencies are an alternative to Cash ..... so is Paul Tang saying that all cash transactions should also not be anonymous? The pseudo anonymity are not designed to protect the criminals.. it was designed to protect the user of the technology.

Just imagine a scenario where every owner of a wallet (Bitcoin address) was public... Criminals would have had access to all the names of the wealthy Bitcoin whales and owners of a lot of coins. (Your neighbor will know all your spending habits and how many coins you have)

Nobody would be using the technology if ownership of all coins was public knowledge.... and once it is centralized, people lose control over their ownership of their tokens. (Exchanges have control over your Private keys) 

[lovesmayfamilis]

Source: https://www.coinshots.com/news/member-of-the-e-u-parliament-says-crypto-transactions-shouldnt-be-anonymous

OP, I'm about to ask you more than once why you copy forum posts from your site, and post a link to them, at a time when the original information was taken by you from other sources?
In this way, you promote your site, which has nothing original, by regularly providing news, copying from the Internet.
It's not exactly the right business.

[PrivacyG]

Those that continue transacting with unhosted wallets will be required to report all transactions over €1,000.

They keep lowering down the numbers and it is starting to get annoying and frustrating.  Anti Money Laundering limits on bank accounts, threshold for anonymous precious metal orders, the US looking to investigate all transactions over $400, trying to make Cryptocurrency transactions over €1,000 non anonymous.  They are full on against us and our rights which only makes me want to love Bitcoin more.

These are not sums they would need to investigate for Money Laundering, Terrorism Funding and whatnot.  The real sums going through these crimes are impressively massive but they get a pass.  Who does not get a pass is us, the peasants they do not want or need to be rich or free.  After €1,000 Cryptocurrency treshold for reporting they will start asking for reports of transactions over €500.  Then for all of them.  Does anyone ever notice how sly they are in doing this?

Was it Germany that kept decreasing the threshold for anonymous precious metal purchases all the way down to €1,000 or €2,000 and after cumulative purchases worth €10,000 you get reported to the Anti Money Laundering guys?  The bad guys move millions and billions but are never caught.  You move $1,000?  You have to be monitored and controlled.

They seem to try generalizing and normalizing the idea that you are suspect of crime for sending $100 to your family or paying $1,000 on a peaceful vacation.  No thank you, I rather have a free life.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[Beerwizzard]

It is pretty logical if he is talking regarding businesses accepting crypto as payment. For some people it is pretty naïve to believe that companies start accepting thousand $ worth of crypto. It doesn't work like this with fiat and there is absolutely no reason to change it for crypto. Seriously, try to take lots of cash and try ty make an expensive purchase somewhere in US or EU. Lovely visit to the police is guaranteed.

This guy is talking about KYC for crypto services which we already have and €1,000 threshold for it which is a fairy high number ( at least better than complete KYC for all crypto transactions).

This is already happening to some extent. But for some p2p services and if you are using a trusted platform, there's no need of full KYC. There are some instances that you do need to disclose your identity especially if you are using a legal 3rd party service provider that are operating under their government's jurisdiction. And most centralized exchanges are now also asking for compulsory KYC, so this is not new anymore. Though there are still services that we can pay anonymously but the number of merchants requiring KYC for crypto services are now growing.

Even p2p platforms are having KYC today. There is almost no way to buy crypto without leaving your data. At the best case you will still have to pay with your card which would still reveal your identity. It shouldn't harm the normal users but is someone is trying to cheat KYC then most likely this person needs this btc for illegal activities.

This guy is talking about KYC for crypto services

It doesn't say so.

I guess he means so.
I just highlighted the general topic since many people are imaging crypto apocalypse when reading something about possible restrictions.

"Just like bank transfers, transferring crypto like Bitcoin should be accompanied with information about the person sending and receiving the funds,” he wrote on Twitter earlier today."

They are talking about all transfers, just like the last regulation of Coinbase, if you reside in Canada, Japan, or Singapore you are required to provide information about the recipient even if you were sending them to an individual.

This actually seems like one of the possible KYC options.

Hardly imagine this would somehow apply for non-custodial wallets and their transactions.

[davis196]

Should we keep paying attention to every politician/clerk,that makes such statements.
It's pretty clear that the politicians/clerks of the EU(and many other countries) want zero anonymity and full transparency of all financial transactions(both crypto and fiat),in order to maximize tax revenue and "to fight money laundering".
They clearly want to turn cryptocurrencies into fiat money,or even worse.You can be anonymous by paying with paper cash,but they want to break this 'last line of defense'.
They want the people and business owners to do the work for the lazy government officials,by declaring all their financial transactions.
When the bureaucrats are lazy,the businesses are going to suffer.

[stompix]

Paul Tang, a member of the E.U. Parliament, believes that paying in cash should require information about the sender and the receiver, just like bank transfers.

Would he also say that?

Wait a few more years.
Cash is already dying here, you already have limits on the amounts you can pay, there are limits everywhere.
For example, ING won't allow you to deposit cash in someone else bank account at a bank, you would have to go to the ATM to feed those bills to your own bank account and transfer the money to your friend. One of the few kiosks that are still round for paying bills has just gone through a "modernization" it no longer accepts cash, you can only pay your utility bills with a card.
Cash is slowly dying and there is nothing that can save it.

This guy is talking about KYC for crypto services

It doesn't say so.

I guess he means so.
~
Hardly imagine this would somehow apply for non-custodial wallets and their transactions.

Hihi, let's hear from the guy himself:
https://twitter.com/paultang/status/1508375282712993792

So the identity of unhosted wallet-holders needs identification - just like you need to identify yourself when you deposit money at the bank. And we want authorities to be notified in case any one person receives a total of €1000 + from unhosted wallets. This is a red flag. 4/

So, in case I send 1000$ to mikeywith, I need to identify myself, he needs to do the same.
It's not about crypto services, it's about transfers between every! single person.

[Beerwizzard]

Hihi, let's hear from the guy himself:
https://twitter.com/paultang/status/1508375282712993792

So the identity of unhosted wallet-holders needs identification - just like you need to identify yourself when you deposit money at the bank. And we want authorities to be notified in case any one person receives a total of €1000 + from unhosted wallets. This is a red flag. 4/

So, in case I send 1000$ to mikeywith, I need to identify myself, he needs to do the same.
It's not about crypto services, it's about transfers between every! single person.

Oh lol. Then I wish him a good luck with non-custodial wallets. I'm pretty sure he will fail with them or at the worst case they would be somewhere outside of EU jurisdiction. Nothing can be seriously changed there.
But with custodial services there is nothing new, they all already have KYC (some of them have $ threshold and another require KYC just to use their service). Government would probably try to enforce some extra regulations but I can hardly expect anything game changing.

[tbterryboy]

This news is nothing new any longer. We have all gotten to know about this before now. From now on, custodial wallets and exchanges are going to be requiring that users enter the information of the recipients of the transactions they are about to make. We’ve seen this news for long, and I think that the best thing we can all do for ourselves is to start making use of non custodial wallets or peer to peer exchanges.

As long as there are so many people in the cryptocurrency community who continues to make use of centralized exchanges and wallets, the government will always have everything in their hands and will try to control it. But when majority of us shifts to make use of non custodial wallets, then I believe it’s going to be a successfully won battle against the government.

[Hydrogen]

I would contend offshore tax havens do not publicly disclose the identity of transactions made to them. They're commonly used by corporations, the rich and powerful to hide funds and avoid taxes.

Regulators in the united states recently proposed bank transfers of $600 be monitored. Now european regulators are proposing that crypto transactions over $1,000 be monitored. These restrictive policies appear to target poor to middle class earners.

While transactions made by the wealthy are wholly deregulated and not subject to scrutiny.

If equality is the goal, the rich and powerful should make transactions to offshore tax havens transparent and open to public scrutiny. Before asking the same of the other 99.9% of the population.

[Coinshots]

Source: https://www.coinshots.com/news/member-of-the-e-u-parliament-says-crypto-transactions-shouldnt-be-anonymous

OP, I'm about to ask you more than once why you copy forum posts from your site, and post a link to them, at a time when the original information was taken by you from other sources?
In this way, you promote your site, which has nothing original, by regularly providing news, copying from the Internet.
It's not exactly the right business.

We are a news aggregator and we distribute crypto news as and when it happens, earlier we were just posting the snippets but some BTCtalk users asked us to post links too hence we are adding links.
do let us know if posting links is against forum rules.
Our mission is to distribute updates as they happen.

[Darker45]

Are they saying like, "Bitcoin is good, but just do things the way banks do?" Wait a minute, the way banks do things is exactly the reason why people prefer Bitcoin. That's why it's an alternative, right? This guy is like somebody who's trying to find a healthier alternative diet but not compromising the soda and the bacon and the chips and the burgers and everything.

But, well, it's already implemented right now. People are using centralized platforms with complete KYC so the one sending and the one receiving are known as well as their addresses, emails, phone numbers, faces, and all.