Opinion The IRS Is Making Crypto Compliance Impossible

[bbc.reporter]

The whole goal is obviously making any OTC operative impossible at the regulatory level, to the point users feel asphyxiated and wouldn't even bother withdrawing their funds out of exchanges.
...

The only upside is not every country feels the same way about this issue. All of the giant surveillance state governments do (US, Russia, China), but there are some countries that have taken a more laissez-faire approach because they see Bitcoin as being able to help their people save money by not having to pay it to remittance companies like Western Union. For example, the Philippines has made it rather easy for e-wallet providers to support crypto -- why should they care if it takes a chunk out of profits for Western Union and Moneygram? If it can help their overseas workers send more money back home and into their own economy, they're all for it.

I very much doubt governments in any country would think in the way the you have described it. In many cases, it is the big companies that have funded much of the politicians' campaigns that have placed them in office. Corporate interests, the lobbying of this and bribery have become one of the accepted ways of politics. It is a customary practice for big corporations to gain their advantages over their competitors.

[1715186876]

1715186876

[1715186876]

1715186876

[1715186876]

1715186876

[1715186876]

1715186876

[1715186876]

1715186876

[1715186876]

1715186876

[nutildah]

I very much doubt governments in any country would think in the way the you have described it. In many cases, it is the big companies that have funded much of the politicians' campaigns that have placed them in office. Corporate interests, the lobbying of this and bribery have become one of the accepted ways of politics. It is a customary practice for big corporations to gain their advantages over their competitors.

Yes, I'm sure there's some of that but in several places around the world its far easier to become a crypto services provider than it is in the US. This is because some governments aren't as staunchly against it. The reason for this is (aside from extra tax revenue, kickbacks & bribes) the government doesn't mind if crypto usurps traditional financial service providers... it doesn't have as much of a vested interest in their success because they are foreign-owned companies. Although it is distant, there's possibly even the chance that they're crypto-friendly because it actually helps their own people.

[zasad@]

The whole goal is obviously making any OTC operative impossible at the regulatory level, to the point users feel asphyxiated and wouldn't even bother withdrawing their funds out of exchanges.
...

The only upside is not every country feels the same way about this issue. All of the giant surveillance state governments do (US, Russia, China), but there are some countries that have taken a more laissez-faire approach because they see Bitcoin as being able to help their people save money by not having to pay it to remittance companies like Western Union. For example, the Philippines has made it rather easy for e-wallet providers to support crypto -- why should they care if it takes a chunk out of profits for Western Union and Moneygram? If it can help their overseas workers send more money back home and into their own economy, they're all for it.

There are still no laws on cryptocurrency in Russia, so there is a lot of freedom with cryptocurrencies. The general law has been adopted, but it applies more to digital assets that are issued by banks and companies on centralized platforms (such as blockchain).
And the law on cryptocurrencies cannot work without instructions, clarifications, tax declaration forms, and so on. Therefore, you can work honestly and pay 4-6% tax after exchanging cryptocurrency for fiat.

[bbc.reporter]

I very much doubt governments in any country would think in the way the you have described it. In many cases, it is the big companies that have funded much of the politicians' campaigns that have placed them in office. Corporate interests, the lobbying of this and bribery have become one of the accepted ways of politics. It is a customary practice for big corporations to gain their advantages over their competitors.

Yes, I'm sure there's some of that but in several places around the world its far easier to become a crypto services provider than it is in the US. This is because some governments aren't as staunchly against it. The reason for this is (aside from extra tax revenue, kickbacks & bribes) the government doesn't mind if crypto usurps traditional financial service providers... it doesn't have as much of a vested interest in their success because they are foreign-owned companies. Although it is distant, there's possibly even the chance that they're crypto-friendly because it actually helps their own people.

You either might be correct or the traditional financial firms and bank in the countries might not yet experienced how disruptive the cryptospace is hehehe.

In any case, similar to what you have already mentioned, this shows how stupid this old grandma is. Senator Elizabeth Warren warns everyone of one company that might create a sandwich shop monopoly. A sandwich shop monopoly?



We don't need another private equity deal that could lead to higher food prices for consumers. The
@FTC is right to investigate whether the purchase of @SUBWAY by the same firm that owns @jimmyjohns and @McAlistersDeli creates a sandwich shop monopoly.

Source https://twitter.com/senwarren/status/1728810999355175212?s=12&t=fx2RmsbaS0qNJTJTdpNu2w