Operation Chokepoint 2.0 (Biden's administration quitet ban on crypto)

[franky1]

Good points but the problem is that the regulations are made by governments to monitor people's activities not to ensure their security. This is why they enforce a lot of restrictions on customers such as KYC which is not going to help with the business owner scamming its users but instead will give all your detailed information and your activities to the authorities.
We see that in the banking system too. Remember the disasters leading to 2008? All those banks were regulated and members of FDIC and yet they ruined the economy and in the end they were bailed out while their "customers" were crushed.

firstly some clarity
its not governments watching citizens. you wont see a politician sat at a computer looking at citizens daily activity

secondly
50-100-200year ago (country dependant, dates are different)

banks set up their business (property laws) allowed them to self regulate

when people handed over gold to banks the banks internal rules over its property was gold became the banks property and the bank made private property contracts with depositors to "promise them" a redemption rate if they handed back the contract.. (bearer bonds(first promissory notes) aka bank notes)

then banks had other people wanting to become banks. so the establishment set minimum standards for its competitors. and that started the bank standards charters (policies and requirements to be a bank)

such as having to use the established bank promissory notes and need to pay the established banks a licence fee. and so on
all of this lead up many things we still see now

over the years bad banks done bad things. which is where governments set up independant regulators. not a government, not a bank. but independant auditors..

banks then lobbied to get a bit of sway in what they can do with a regulator
and slowly banks became secretly the regulators
(again reminder, its not politicians sat at computers in regulator offices, its banks(well exbankers)

banks then had secret meetings with polititicians to change other laws. and eventually banks did not have to even honour its promises (gold/sterling silver de-peg)

few decades later we had the work around #disruptbanking "payment services" like paypal and venmo and union pay where they didnt need to have the minimum requirements banks set as policy/charter.
this then soon changed where payment services then too needed to meet standards, but not enough to earn a bank charter. so they became just "payment services"/"money service businesses" thus not competing with banks, but an underclass custodians

now we have alternative currencies like crypto. trying to disrupt banking again

banks dont want to give crypto exchanges a "bank charter" but dont want crypto exchanges to have less rules then payment services/money service businesses. and so bank regulators latched onto crypto by defining it as a currency so they then can declare businesses doing certain functions are defined as MSB


what you find in the middle of this century ago
banks wanted a bit more control. so they lobbied government to set up some middle man supervisor where banks can report on customers and competitors.
which is where these middlemen regulators were run by ex-bankers. not auditors nor politicians
these regulators favoured the banks not the citizen
and no they are not government politician managed.  they are endorsed by government but ran like a business with ex bankers as ceo

now for those wondering how to change this
well most countries have an election each year.
maybe form an idea of saying "we wont vote for you unless your election pledge includes:...."

and then do petitions for your local candidates. to let them know without a doubt what policies citizens want to see

so start with "regulation overhaul to be less business sheriff gold badge policing.. and more consumer protection related"

if you can get a large local population demanding that their representative does things in a certain way. and enough regions do the same thus making majority of representatives/candidates of next election are singing the same songsheet. then thats the way most political laws move towards what citizens want

[1714948675]

1714948675

[1714948675]

1714948675

[1714948675]

1714948675

[NotATether]

Ooh, scary stuff, I'm scared guys can someone post a ban appeal to the white house? We promise to be good from now on. Joe the sleepyhead.

You are actually using the wrong language here - the ban technically comes in when Biden's administration makes way in the 2024 elections.


Anyway, they can try all they want, and I'm sure Bitcoin Magazine will be able to include this as a reference in one of their cartoon strips about "attacks on Bitcoin".

[DaveF]

Good points but the problem is that the regulations are made by governments to monitor people's activities not to ensure their security. This is why they enforce a lot of restrictions on customers such as KYC which is not going to help with the business owner scamming its users but instead will give all your detailed information and your activities to the authorities.
We see that in the banking system too. Remember the disasters leading to 2008? All those banks were regulated and members of FDIC and yet they ruined the economy and in the end they were bailed out while their "customers" were crushed.

Drifting a bit OT but I will not say it's an apples to oranges comparison but rather a lemons to limes.
If you had money in an FDIC insured bank that failed. You got your money back, many people got their money back well above their insurance limits.

The stock / bond / mortgage holders who got crushed I would put more into the people who invested in all the scam coins that are out there that vanished in the middle of the night so to speak.

When you had places lending 110%+ of STATED (not appraised) property value those of us watching who had seen the dot com implosion knew what was going to happen. The only question was when.

Either way, it's what we have now. So although we can keep sitting here and complaining about it, without getting peoples support behind it nothing is going to happen.
And here is the kicker that nobody want's to hear. Most people WANT more regulation of things like this. Because *most* people don't want to know or care about how BTC works they just want to make money off of it somehow, and regulation makes them feel safe. IF they actually are or not safe is a different story, but they just want to feel safe.

We here are not in the most people category,  so we have a different view.

-Dave

[pawel7777]

They should. It will help decentralized exchanges

Decentralised exchanges don't operate with fiat money. They could replace it with stablecoins, but at the end of the day, stablecoin issuers also would need access to banking to hold fiat deposits and process transactions.

We need people to be able to buy/sell for fiat.

US is trying to ban Bitcoin, not only the centralized exchange!

They won't ban it outright, the time for that has passed a long time ago. Now, when crypto is pretty much mainstream, they can only slowly cripple trading and other crypto-projects to keep it contained and not pose a threat to the financial system.

[bbc.reporter]

Good points but the problem is that the regulations are made by governments to monitor people's activities not to ensure their security. This is why they enforce a lot of restrictions on customers such as KYC which is not going to help with the business owner scamming its users but instead will give all your detailed information and your activities to the authorities.
We see that in the banking system too. Remember the disasters leading to 2008? All those banks were regulated and members of FDIC and yet they ruined the economy and in the end they were bailed out while their "customers" were crushed.

Agreed! Every move made by governments that impose strict rules and regulations on the people are only made to protect itself and those who financially support their political campaigns. I am not quite certain why there are still people who are not very skeptical on the actions of the government. Everyone should be concerned everytime there is a new bill that passes into law.

[Darker45]

But it was also late in 2013 when Bitcoin made an all time high. It was probably a strong enough statement that Bitcoin doesn't care at all. Whether it was more of the effect of the first halving in 2012 isn't the point. It still means Bitcoin is stronger than the development under Obama's administration.

If Obama failed a decade ago, Biden will fail more today. But the point is Bitcoin doesn't care. It's interesting to note that Bitcoin creates an ATH in every administration. It had one during Obama, another during Trump, and another during the current administration.

[Kakmakr]

We have seen this coming for a while now and we know they are doing this to pave the way for a "cashless" economy, where they can fully track all transactions on their digital cash technologies.

We know most criminal activities are not done with Crypto, but rather with physical cash. (How many drug dealers on the street are accepting crypto as payment for their drugs.... right?)

So, they will eliminate their competition and replace it with their own centralized digital version of cash, which they control. 

[franky1]

what people are calling "bidens law"
is not about "banning bitcoin"

its about businesses operating as financial services without registering they are:
a business
  -this affects the personal bank account holders that do too many wire transfers on
   localbitcoins and de-fi, breaching their personal banking terms&conditions
   - yep processing say 100k a year for random strangers has been a personal bank
     account red flag for many many years before bitcoin even existed

a financial business
  - this affects both personal and business accounts where they dont have a
    MSB/PSP/PF licence to operate as a financial service. again a rule that predates bitcoin

the detail people forget is that bitcoin became a currency in 2013 thus standard banking policy
began applying to bitcoin businesses after 2013

which isnt about biden/obama. it was the "mainstreaming" of being defined as a currency

yep it was the "bitcoin got allowed" celebrations by many that caused the jurisdictions to then get their fingers into deciding what certain entities can do in crypto
as daveF said. if your just doing $100(small amounts) to friends or strangers infrequently. its not going to hit thresholds of red flags

doing the banking limits thresholds of $1k+ $10k+ $xxk+ expect questions
wire transfer thresholds existed pre-bitcoin
but became applicable for bitcoins doing wire transfer. when bitcoin became a currency

[NotATether]

If they won't unbank Coinbase and Binance, Bitcoin will be fine. If they do, the price will instantly plummet, adoption will either slow down significantly or turn negative. But it seems like the chance of them doing the latter are very low, since this is a very unofficial rumored crackdown on smaller businesses rather than a total ban on crypto.

They can't unbank Coinbase because they are a publicly traded company and that would hurt the US stock market as well (and at this point they might as well be talking about unbanking Kraken as well).

And they also cannot unbank Binance because they already did that when they banned Binance from operating in the US a long time ago. The only thing they actually can regulate is their US arm which is irrelevant to the rest of the world.

[justdimin]

But it was also late in 2013 when Bitcoin made an all time high. It was probably a strong enough statement that Bitcoin doesn't care at all. Whether it was more of the effect of the first halving in 2012 isn't the point. It still means Bitcoin is stronger than the development under Obama's administration.

If Obama failed a decade ago, Biden will fail more today. But the point is Bitcoin doesn't care. It's interesting to note that Bitcoin creates an ATH in every administration. It had one during Obama, another during Trump, and another during the current administration.

It is obvious that crypto is a global thing and doesn't care what US government wants to do or not. I get that they want to control it or at least control the citizens who use it, but that doesn't mean that they will be capable of doing that, they will most likely end up with nothing at all on their hands if they tried to pressure the public too much about this.

People in crypto care about their freedom from the government and that means they are not going to let the government get involved too much, they may do something about it, but they won't let it get that further down the line. Even if there were laws about it, they would just find ways to work around it.

[Captain Corporate]

I agree with others that it is not as big of a deal as people make it out to be. However, my main counterpoint to this is the fact that big banks and all those rich folks control USA, from media to politicians to many other industries, look at how they still allow oil companies to get paid help, when they make billions, all because of narrative control and bribery to politicians. So nothing bad could happen to crypto, since these banks are involved with crypto as well and they want it to be left alone, so they can easily pay billions to politicians to make it as legal as possible and go with our direction, which for the first time ever, would help us too.

[darkangel11]

Much ado about nothing is what I'd call this article.

Last month, the Federal Reserve rejected crypto bank Custodia's application to join its ranks, casting doubt over whether the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency will give final approval to crypto companies Protego and Paxos' applications for national trust bank charters.

"The U.S. government is using the banking sector to organize a sophisticated, widespread crackdown against the crypto industry," Carter wrote.

A crypto "bank" that nobody in the space seems to need, wanted to become an officially recognized bank, join the ranks of the masters of fractional reserve and was denied. Who would've thought that they won't like an entity that deals in as they call it "sound money" to become one of them. Bitcoiners and banks don't use the same principles.

A crypto company that wants to become accepted by the Federal Reserve money printer must be nuts.

[stompix]

A crypto "bank" that nobody in the space seems to need, wanted to become an officially recognized bank, join the ranks of the masters of fractional reserve and was denied. Who would've thought that they won't like an entity that deals in as they call it "sound money" to become one of them. Bitcoiners and banks don't use the same principles.

2009 Banks are evil and need to disappear!!!!
2023 We need access to banks and to have our own government regulated banks !!!!

Seems like the witch hunting is back, is always this irresponsible blame game from people that seek attention every single moment, on one side we have the ever-triumphant march of the government being unable to stop us, of crypto defying every obstacle and the next day like a bunch of pussy crying over one line of regulation that foils their mastermind plans.
Oh for god's sake, just stop with this.

I agree with others that it is not as big of a deal as people make it out to be. However, my main counterpoint to this is the fact that big banks and all those rich folks control USA, from media to politicians to many other industries, look at how they still allow oil companies to get paid help, when they make billions, all because of narrative control and bribery to politicians. So nothing bad could happen to crypto, since these banks are involved with crypto as well and they want it to be left alone, so they can easily pay billions to politicians to make it as legal as possible and go with our direction, which for the first time ever, would help us too.

So in short, you have no problem with blood money as long as it's not your blood and the money is in your pocket not somebodies else!
You hated the government and politicians because they weren't throwing a bone, that's what it was?

[B1-66ER]

BAN all "crypto" keep "Bitcoin"

--Coffeezilla

[Smartprofit]

No surprises there! Same has been done in my country as well.  This is a well thought-out move by the world leaders. Every government understands that crypto market has not yet reached to an extent where they can survive on its own. A seamless integration is needed with fiat for the crypto market to survive and grow. So the governments are cutting the access to banking services for the crypto related businesses.

In my country, the government did the same to a company called Zebpay. Now they have moved to Singapore and operate in 30 countries except my country. Options will be there but now the crypto businesses will have to go through a lot of regulatory hassles.

In my opinion, the governments of almost all countries are not interested in the development and prosperity of Bitcoin.

Satoshi Nakamoto created the first cryptocurrency as an antagonist to the traditional financial system of his time.  

Why would this financial system destroy itself?  

Governments are forced to put up with bitcoin because they fear that if they ban the first cryptocurrency, more anonymous and private protocols (such as Monero) may come to the fore.  It is dangerous to ban Bitcoin, it is much more profitable to slowly deprive it of its ideological appeal and the possibility of development and scaling.  

In particular, one of the tactical goals may be its maximum isolation from the modern banking system.

[pawel7777]

And here is the kicker that nobody want's to hear. Most people WANT more regulation of things like this. Because *most* people don't want to know or care about how BTC works they just want to make money off of it somehow, and regulation makes them feel safe.

Most people don't have strong convictions about anything really. You can shift their "opinions" just by phrasing the question differently. If you present a question of more regulations emphasising safety etc, they'd be for it, but if you point that the banks/authorities will limit their freedoms and have ability to censor them - they'd be against it.

Another black pill is that what people think is completely irrelevant to what type of legislation is being passed. As evidenced by a "Gilens' flatline", aka "The most terrifying graph on democracy" (a big study compiling nearly 2,000 US polls, conducted in 2014).

[bbc.reporter]

And here is the kicker that nobody want's to hear. Most people WANT more regulation of things like this. Because *most* people don't want to know or care about how BTC works they just want to make money off of it somehow, and regulation makes them feel safe.

Most people don't have strong convictions about anything really. You can shift their "opinions" just by phrasing the question differently. If you present a question of more regulations emphasising safety etc, they'd be for it, but if you point that the banks/authorities will limit their freedoms and have ability to censor them - they'd be against it.

They also use other tactics to divide the people and create a setting where communities will fight against each other to make it much harder to see the real enemy. A divided community is easier to manipulate because they only think that their enemy is from the opposite side of the argument, however, the real enemy is the one creating the division.

This is very head shaking because there might be such occurences in the cryptospace community.

[jostorres]

Most people don't have strong convictions about anything really. You can shift their "opinions" just by phrasing the question differently. If you present a question of more regulations emphasising safety etc, they'd be for it, but if you point that the banks/authorities will limit their freedoms and have ability to censor them - they'd be against it.

They also use other tactics to divide the people and create a setting where communities will fight against each other to make it much harder to see the real enemy. A divided community is easier to manipulate because they only think that their enemy is from the opposite side of the argument, however, the real enemy is the one creating the division.

This is very head shaking because there might be such occurences in the cryptospace community.

That is basically roman times tactic and has worked for 2 thousand years. When romans failed to beat an enemy, they would create chaos somewhere else to get their attention to that. Biggest example has been Hannibal, when he was roaring through roman empire, and beating everyone, they caused him to go back to Africa and beat him there, and created chaos within his consul. Because they couldn't beat him on open field.

All in all, I would guess that for the past 2 thousand years, this has been used a lot, and media does the same thing now. I can rephrase a news topic 10 different ways to make you think 10 different things about the same subject, all depends on how you write it.

[darkangel11]

2009 Banks are evil and need to disappear!!!!
2023 We need access to banks and to have our own government regulated banks !!!!

Seems like the witch hunting is back, is always this irresponsible blame game from people that seek attention every single moment, on one side we have the ever-triumphant march of the government being unable to stop us, of crypto defying every obstacle and the next day like a bunch of pussy crying over one line of regulation that foils their mastermind plans.
Oh for god's sake, just stop with this.

I'm still stuck in that 2009 rhetoric, but that's probably because in my early days I read and watched a lot of Andreas, Max, and now Michael Saylor and a few others.
I think that shitcoins like XRP that call themselves bridges between traditional finances and bitcoin managed to fool a lot of people into believing their "2023" logic.

[pawel7777]

They also use other tactics to divide the people and create a setting where communities will fight against each other to make it much harder to see the real enemy. A divided community is easier to manipulate because they only think that their enemy is from the opposite side of the argument, however, the real enemy is the one creating the division.

I think the problem is deeper than "them" creating divisions. That would suggest that if "they" (however you define them) stopped doing that, everything would be fine.
What we witnessed in recent decades is a massive erosion of what used to be common values that kept societies and communities together.
To not be divided means to be united, and for that, you need to unite around something. If people can't agree on basic values or agree on any principles and on what's right or wrong - you're ending up with a low-trust society where everyone cares mostly about themselves. Such a society is very easy to control.