Metamask Implemented Crypto Tax on their ToS

[cryptoaddictchie]

So is anyone seen the pop up on their app regarding the newly changes terms and conditions services?

A post here on Twitter emphasized that metamask would withhold taxes on users. As a decentralized non custodial wallet, I think this would break its concept means they are gonna do kyc to identify wallets for taxation or they just gonna cut some tax based on trasaction made on metamask swap? Have anyone tried or seen an option when using it? Its not also clear on how they are gonna do this per country with different taxation regarding cryptocurrency.



Image source:
https://twitter.com/Ashcryptoreal/status/1660160399998689281?s=20

I think many would be alarm on this but Im thinking they are doing this to suffice their partners on the industry to avoid being targeted to violations by SEC.  Anyway metamask is a business after all. Any thoughts?

[1714119592]

1714119592

[1714119592]

1714119592

[1714119592]

1714119592

[Nwada001]

As a decentralized non custodial wallet, I think this would break its concept means they are gonna do kyc to identify wallets for taxation or they just gonna cut some tax based on trasaction made on metamask swap?

I don't think those taxes will be implemented on all users crypto transactions, for it would be unwise of them since they don't know the country in which the users who are performing transactions are based or how their tax law is being explained.

But what I think is that Metamask might gradually move from being a decentralized wallet to more of a custodial wallet since they have already implemented a few payment gateways to their system, so users can now use their credit or debit card to purchase crypto directly using their wallet. This will, at some point, link the user's card and other verifications to an individual wallet that the government can keep track of. So this form of transaction I believe is the way they plan to be charging their customers since anyone who wants to use those options is also showing their identity, which they can use to justify which country the person is using their wallet from and charge them based on the country's tax law. This is just my guess and suggestions.

Anyone who cares about his or her privacy will be strongly advised to avoid using those newly integrated purchase options.

[vv181]

Withhold taxes requires the wallet to effectively control the transactions. I believe MetaMask won't do that further, or even migrate MetaMask into a custodial wallet as the above comment said. On the contrary, I believe such kind of clause is required in order for Consensys to not get into legal trouble.

On the other hand, it seems that it has something to do with their buying cryptocurrency feature[1]. We know that recently cryptocurrency regulations getting tighter, Consensys, as US based company, might add that to play the safe side on their wallet developments.

[1] https://metamask.io/buy-crypto/

[coin-investor]

So is anyone seen the pop up on their app regarding the newly changes terms and conditions services?

Its not also clear on how they are gonna do this per country with different taxation regarding cryptocurrency.

I miss this one when reading the pop-up but this is something new and I also wonder how will the implementation be being a noncustodial wallet they only have it in their terms but there's no formal announcement and how it will operate
and guidelines for implementation, there's a lot of confusion in the community on these new terms.

All I know is it's the investors who have control when it comes to paying taxes to their respective countries.
if they are planning to have a custodial wallet then we will read an announcement and this taxation is just a prelude to that.

[DeathAngel]

I saw it & it sucks. It’s probably forced on them due to regulatory pressure. Just be aware though that this isn’t going to happen to the majority of people. They are just making users aware that if they are a criminal or something & the wallet gets subpoenaed by authorities for information on a person then they will pass the information to the feds. This is not going to happen to 99.999999% of normal, law abiding citizens. 

[jacafbiz]

The issue now is that these so-called DEFI apps are the ones doing the bidding of the Centralised governments, Uniswap and MetaMask are pure evil and I am surprised that people are not turning against them, things have really changed in this space maybe people have made money and are comfortable with this, so,  if you decided to withhold my funds but you claim you are a DEX then this is crazy since they started monitoring people's transaction and I believe they give this information to IRS or other government agencies, we need a truly decentralized wallet that is not tracking you

[o48o]

The issue now is that these so-called DEFI apps are the ones doing the bidding of the Centralised governments, Uniswap and MetaMask are pure evil and I am surprised that people are not turning against them, things have really changed in this space maybe people have made money and are comfortable with this, so,  if you decided to withhold my funds but you claim you are a DEX then this is crazy since they started monitoring people's transaction and I believe they give this information to IRS or other government agencies, we need a truly decentralized wallet that is not tracking you

Ok, hold your horses. What part of this is "pure evil"? The fact that they offered the service to buy with credit card? I guess that makes every shop out there pure evil. Or is it the fact that they follow regulations because they are a technology company based in NYC and have to follow rules or possibly get jailed for not doing so?

If you think they are pure evil by developing free services then by all means find a copypaste dex with anon devs that only offer pure dex services. Preferably one that doesn't rug you and is audited by same company who did uniswap v3. Or build your own one.

I really don't get this hate.

[goaldigger]

Withhold taxes requires the wallet to effectively control the transactions. I believe MetaMask won't do that further, or even migrate MetaMask into a custodial wallet as the above comment said. On the contrary, I believe such kind of clause is required in order for Consensys to not get into legal trouble.

On the other hand, it seems that it has something to do with their buying cryptocurrency feature[1]. We know that recently cryptocurrency regulations getting tighter, Consensys, as US based company, might add that to play the safe side on their wallet developments.

[1] https://metamask.io/buy-crypto/

This could be their way to prevent being sued in the future, hope its not too late for them though.
I’m just thinking what kind of transactions they are going to impose taxes, is it for buying, swapping or transferring of money? Metamask have to be clear on this so users can decide if they will continue to use the platform or they will just look for alternatives, looks like many wallets will ended up to have the same clause and follow the regulations.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

People are still paranoid about this wallet, especially when they decided update their terms and conditions about collection of user data

Anyway about a few hours ago, they tried to clarify on what was actually going on. I still wonder what took them so long to respond to the issue

This is the thread >> https://twitter.com/ConsenSys/status/1660353688446050304

📢 We are aware of tweets circulating with inaccurate information about ConsenSys' terms of service.

Let's clarify one thing upfront: MetaMask does NOT collect taxes on crypto transactions and we have not made any changes to our terms to do so.

This claim is false.

The tax section in our terms of service falls under the "fees and payment" section, and it exclusively pertains to products and paid plans offered by ConsenSys. For example, Infura has credit card developer subscriptions which include sales tax.

[poodle63]

I think many would be alarm on this but Im thinking they are doing this to suffice their partners on the industry to avoid being targeted to violations by SEC.  Anyway metamask is a business after all. Any thoughts?

I can't agree with this. Mostly of crypto related projects who have been targeted by SEC always issued the security. As long as consensys will not try to sell the security to its users and there's nothing to be worried.

Consensys was just updating the TOS for its API. Consensys is now able to suspend account too.

[Hispo]

It kinda sounds like an additional extract in there Terms of Services, so they won't get in trouble with the SEC and the treasury of the United States.

I assume they would not go all in with the leaking of private keys, but I assume it would be just matter of time before Metamask is asked by the government to stockpile as many master public keys as possible, so the agencies can track the movements of each American citizen or suspected American citizen, to evaluate or not if that person is using crypto to evade taxation.

Anyways, with this and the Ledger news on management of Seeds, it seems our community is currently under pressure by regulators. Let us wait and see what happens next...

[wxa7115]

Withhold taxes requires the wallet to effectively control the transactions. I believe MetaMask won't do that further, or even migrate MetaMask into a custodial wallet as the above comment said. On the contrary, I believe such kind of clause is required in order for Consensys to not get into legal trouble.

On the other hand, it seems that it has something to do with their buying cryptocurrency feature[1]. We know that recently cryptocurrency regulations getting tighter, Consensys, as US based company, might add that to play the safe side on their wallet developments.

[1] https://metamask.io/buy-crypto/

This could be their way to prevent being sued in the future, hope its not too late for them though.
I’m just thinking what kind of transactions they are going to impose taxes, is it for buying, swapping or transferring of money? Metamask have to be clear on this so users can decide if they will continue to use the platform or they will just look for alternatives, looks like many wallets will ended up to have the same clause and follow the regulations.

I agree they added this as a way to protect themselves from whatever pressure they are receiving from governments, but now they are facing a well-deserved backlash as the community is realizing they are close to capitulating completely to the governments, and now they are trying to do some damage control and avoid the bad publicity that is coming their way.

I have not used metamask in years but I recommend to those that do to stay away from it or one day they may receive a very nasty surprise.

[Godday]

I am a Metamask user and I am very comfortable with the user experience of Metamask. It would be a shame if I had to switch to another wallet. But yes of course this is what metamask should do because they have to avoid a fine from the SEC. I think they will change their concept to be a custodial business.

[vv181]

📢 We are aware of tweets circulating with inaccurate information about ConsenSys' terms of service.

Let's clarify one thing upfront: MetaMask does NOT collect taxes on crypto transactions and we have not made any changes to our terms to do so.

This claim is false.

The tax section in our terms of service falls under the "fees and payment" section, and it exclusively pertains to products and paid plans offered by ConsenSys. For example, Infura has credit card developer subscriptions which include sales tax.

That is now crystal clear. Though, they also address how complex documents such as Terms of Service or Policy Policy. The complexion of legal terms that are mainly made and is tied to a specific regular user is a burden for them. Let alone even if they bother to read and comprehend it.

It is also worth noting, some people did not know that MetaMask's parent company is ConsenSys. Two things that I also did wrong in my post above, I thought the updates were recent, but it is not. Lastly, it is specifically for other ConsenSys products, not MetaMask.

[yazher]

I am a Metamask user and I am very comfortable with the user experience of Metamask. It would be a shame if I had to switch to another wallet. But yes of course this is what metamask should do because they have to avoid a fine from the SEC. I think they will change their concept to be a custodial business.

They already clarified that their terms are still the same and it might be a sign for their users to take some actions regarding their reliance on Metamask because anytime they could change their terms and might going to cause some trouble to others. That's why it's nice to have your own personal wallet and only use 3rd party wallets when you really need to. That's to avoid some technical issues such as this one and also remain as unanimous as you want because right now the SEC is not slacking about further expanding their terms until they have full control of the crypto industry.

[cryptoaddictchie]

They already clarified that their terms are still the same and it might be a sign for their users to take some actions regarding their reliance on Metamask because anytime they could change their terms and might going to cause some trouble to others.

I wonder how powerful the social media. Since it came to their attention the circulating tweets. Now they clarified it easily and push a pedal on the issue. For sure if they push this idea nevertheless the metamask users will totally decrease without a doubt. People dont like to be treated liks some sort of prisoners. Well taxes are due but not in a decentralized space. For sure OGs are tweeting a lot now about metamask craps.

[judeafante]

It is also worth noting, some people did not know that MetaMask's parent company is ConsenSys. Two things that I also did wrong in my post above, I thought the updates were recent, but it is not. Lastly, it is specifically for other ConsenSys products, not MetaMask.

So we are worrying about something that is not there, if that is the case then its better to lock this thread because all the other early posts are specifically mentioning that the taxes are for meta mask users when it turns out to be on ConsenSys products, or better change the title too.

[dimonstration]

I think many would be alarm on this but Im thinking they are doing this to suffice their partners on the industry to avoid being targeted to violations by SEC.  Anyway metamask is a business after all. Any thoughts?

As understand the full context of that update. They will charge as requirements of the law that means it depends on the country you are residing before they apply taxes on your assets. AFAIK metamask track our personal info including our IP to determine our country.

It’s really bad news for all user that using crypto to avoid tax but somehow that update is good for audit purposes since you will automatically pay your taxes automatically when IRS audit you.

[Apocollapse]

Metamask now become a less decentralized wallet where they restrict few jurisdictions and now they would withhold their users token due to tax need.

Trust wallet is closed source and sometime have a terrible fee measurement.

Ledger aka hardware wallet has a problem of sharing private key to third party, we have other options, but we don't know if they might turn be like ledger.

Now what's the good wallet to use for altcoins?

I guess Myetherwallet (MEW)?

[Coyster]

Metamask now become a less decentralized wallet where they restrict few jurisdictions and now they would withhold their users token due to tax need.

Metamask have debunked the news as being false, a user already posted that some posts above mine. When i initially saw this i couldn't wrap my head around the procedure they were going to use to achieve this, it is centralized services that are known to do stuffs like this, that's why i'm not surprised it turned out to be false.

Now what's the good wallet to use for altcoins?

I guess unstoppable wallet is good, i haven't personally used it because i mostly only buy/use Bitcoin, but i have seen some users recommend it.