Mixer restrictions

[Obiavelliii]

Does this change anything?

As stated in the July 2025 report by the President’s Working Group on Digital
Asset Markets established by Executive Order 14178 (E.O. 14178), Strengthening
American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology, “the Trump Administration
supports the ability of lawful users of digital assets to privately transact on a public
blockchain.”10

The report also acknowledged that although illicit actors “use mixers to
obfuscate and launder funds … lawful users of digital assets may leverage mixers to
enable financial privacy when transacting through public blockchains.”11 The report
recommended that Treasury should consider next steps regarding its proposed rulemaking
concerning CVC mixing.12

FinCEN is withdrawing its finding that international CVC Mixing is a class of
transactions of primary laundering concern, and the proposed rule, published on October
23, 2023, seeking to impose special measure one regarding international CVC Mixing.

While FinCEN maintains that illicit actors continue to use mixers and other tools and
methods to hinder law enforcement investigations, this withdrawal is informed by the
concerns from commentors that the expansive definition of CVC mixing in the proposed
rule could have a chilling effect on legitimate activity and place a large reporting burden
on covered financial institutions. However, FinCEN will continue to monitor activity
involving CVC mixers for indicia of money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit
finance activity, and may take appropriate steps in the future to mitigate any such
activity.

This is actually a pretty huge deal for anyone who cares about privacy.
‎The most interesting part is the language they're using now. For years now the government was talking about mixers like they were only hackers and money launderers. Seeing an official document explicitly state that, "lawful users may leverage mixers to enable financial privacy" is a big change.
‎
‎

[Lucius]

~snip~
Most members in the forum are most probably not even interested in who or what is banned, they are only looking at ways to monetise their activity in the forum and as mixers provided the biggest pay, they are hoping the mixer restrictions are removed.

Even if mixers were to return to the forum, I doubt they would offer much higher pay rates than what we currently have on the forum. Mixers have found some other ways to advertise themselves, and for that they pay 5-6 times less than what was the case here.

[bitmover]

~snip~
Most members in the forum are most probably not even interested in who or what is banned, they are only looking at ways to monetise their activity in the forum and as mixers provided the biggest pay, they are hoping the mixer restrictions are removed.

Even if mixers were to return to the forum, I doubt they would offer much higher pay rates than what we currently have on the forum. Mixers have found some other ways to advertise themselves, and for that they pay 5-6 times less than what was the case here.

I think that all of these other ways to advertise combined are not even half efficent as bitcointalk advertising. The exposure and the domain authority here are enormous

They pay less because those places are less effective

[JollyGood]

Even if mixers were to return to the forum, I doubt they would offer much higher pay rates than what we currently have on the forum. Mixers have found some other ways to advertise themselves, and for that they pay 5-6 times less than what was the case here.

Upon reflection I have to agree. It does seem as though with the advent of other forums that are heavily advertising and promoting mixers, there would be no logical reason for mixers to pay the highest rates (or even high rates) to those participating in their signature campaigns (if they were allowed to use the forum again).

I think that all of these other ways to advertise combined are not even half efficent as bitcointalk advertising. The exposure and the domain authority here are enormous

They pay less because those places are less effective

This is probably true but are those members (that are hoping for mixers to return to the forum) expecting huge payments for participating in campaigns?

[PrivacyG]

This is probably true but are those members (that are hoping for mixers to return to the forum) expecting huge payments for participating in campaigns?

I would personally be fine even if they were simply allowed again here with no Signature Campaign advertisement.  Having multiple ways to enhance the Privacy level of UTXOs with out making some of the ways look like tools of crime is never a bad thing.

[Lucius]

~snip~
I would personally be fine even if they were simply allowed again here with no Signature Campaign advertisement.  Having multiple ways to enhance the Privacy level of UTXOs with out making some of the ways look like tools of crime is never a bad thing.

I have already written that the privacy offered by most mixers is very expensive today and that few would agree to pay $50 or $60 + 3-5% of the amount they mix to get coins that they may have a problem with because some bot will detect them as coming from a mixer. The most successful mixer has a "pay what you want, if you want" policy, and it was extremely profitable, and a lot has changed since then to today.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I would personally be fine even if they were simply allowed again here with no Signature Campaign advertisement.  Having multiple ways to enhance the Privacy level of UTXOs with out making some of the ways look like tools of crime is never a bad thing.

Would you ever trust a mixer again, after what's been happening in the past few years, though? I don't think I would, and frankly, I don't find the reason to ever forfeit the custody and privacy of my coins to some unknown entity, when there are solutions like Wasabi that offer significant levels of privacy for near zero cost.

I think that allowing mixers to be advertised again would do more harm than good, because it would trick people into thinking mixers are legitimate, when we all know they would be turned down one after the other sooner or later, and it would direct users into custodial solutions when there are already fantastic non-custodial solutions.

[examplens]

I would personally be fine even if they were simply allowed again here with no Signature Campaign advertisement.  Having multiple ways to enhance the Privacy level of UTXOs with out making some of the ways look like tools of crime is never a bad thing.

Would you ever trust a mixer again, after what's been happening in the past few years, though? I don't think I would, and frankly, I don't find the reason to ever forfeit the custody and privacy of my coins to some unknown entity, when there are solutions like Wasabi that offer significant levels of privacy for near zero cost.

It's a good thing there’s never been a problem with a known entity, so we only have issues with unknown ones.
The use of Wasabi for the purpose of anonymisation is easily recognised, and Coinjoin necessarily raises the AML score. At the same time, you have a mixer that has been working for years and delivers exchange-based coins to the user, which have no mixer origin.
The cost of mixing is not always a decisive parameter, but the degree of anonymisation that is achieved.

[NotATether]

Would you ever trust a mixer again, after what's been happening in the past few years, though?

Yes.

Actually I am more likely to trust a platform that has been around longer than some random no name.

Heck I even trust Kruw's coordinator. They'd have to physically arrest the guy to damage anyone's custody. (Not that he's doing anything wrong btw)

All of the scam reports I deal with on BitMixList were from services less than 90 days old.

Scammers have simply become impatient, and want quick gains now. I think it's because they've watched so many other scammers on crypto Twitter do the same with memecoin launches and pumpfun.

Waiting for 1-2 years to go rouge is not profitable anymore.