received email from bitstamp Mica Regulation

[bitmover]

I am impressed by this new regulations and obligations bitstamp is applying to users.

Now addresses must be verified before use., and you need to add counterpart information of third party addresses prior to deposit


https://www.bitstamp.net/faq/how-does-the-travel-rule-in-the-eu-affect-me/

What’s changing?

Every crypto transfer will require at least one new step, or two in some cases.

(1) Provide counterparty information (required for all withdrawals and deposits) 
(2) Verify ownership for your self-custody wallets (only for withdrawals and deposits over €1,000) 

So much crazy regulations nowadays...

Inherent more reason to stick with kyc free exchanges

[apogio]

I am impressed by this new regulations and obligations bitstamp is applying to users.

Now addresses must be verified before use., and you need to add counterpart information of third party addresses prior to deposit


https://www.bitstamp.net/faq/how-does-the-travel-rule-in-the-eu-affect-me/

What’s changing?

Every crypto transfer will require at least one new step, or two in some cases.

(1) Provide counterparty information (required for all withdrawals and deposits) 
(2) Verify ownership for your self-custody wallets (only for withdrawals and deposits over €1,000) 

So much crazy regulations nowadays...

Inherent more reason to stick with kyc free exchanges

In fact, this is something I 've seen happening in multiple KYC exchanges lately. Binance has it, Kraken has it. There was a similar thread which I can't find now, but anyways!

My general question in regards with that is, what happens to those users who have already withrawn their coins, before this absurd regulation applied? Will their real identities be flagged? Will anyone search for all their withdrawals and start doing chain-analysis? Will they just ignore the past and start thinking from today?

My take is that they will not care about the past, but from today, they will try to monitor everything that goes off of KYC exchanges.

[Orpichukwu]

My take is that they will not care about the past, but from today, they will try to monitor everything that goes off of KYC exchanges.

They might still care about the past if the transaction involves a large sum of money.

Another question I have to ask is, how will they verify the liveness check? Will they go the extra mile to ask for wallet security details, or will it just be a normal liveness check to verify if the person is real or not? And if it's sane liveness checks, exchanges are already doing that during KYC verification; why implement it again additionally when a withdrawal or deposit above £1000 is to be done?

My guess is they want to verify the person's location and possibly look at things in the environment, which could help them locate where the customer is. Every now and then, one is typically being watched and monitored for owning crypto – no privacy, right.

[Despairo]

With this regulations, making Bitcoin more private e.g. transferring from one self-custody wallet to another wallet is pointless because in the end you have to reveal your identity, you have to admit which address belong to you.

But, I get the idea why they did this, people might use this advantage for tax avoidance.

We only need to wait for every centralized exchanges require this.

[Faisal2202]

So much crazy regulations nowadays...

Inherent more reason to stick with kyc free exchanges

Yep, DEXs are the best option we have now, but there are not many with tools and features that we see on CEXs and the accessibility and availability of p2p trades in many regions is low due to the inability of local ads. That's one of the many reasons why people prefer centralized exchanges, even I prefer CEXs, not DEXs, while making P2P or trading funds, but when I have to hold, I prefer wallets.

Speaking of centralized no kyc exchanges, they should not be in the option list in the first place because authorities are making sure no one bypasses the law anyway and they are coming up with new rules day by day therefore, sooner or later they will make KYC the necessary step for any CEX.

Besides, these 2 rules are not a big deal either.

[Oshosondy]

I think €1000 is enough for me for each transaction to avoid this. I can not spend up to €1000 daily. But I do not like this kind of law. Another thing is that most of my coins are on noncustodial wallet which I have privacy for and will not link the wallets addresses of the exchanges. This is not yet a problem for me unless the amount to bypass it is reduced from €1000.

[Mia Chloe]

I am impressed by this new regulations and obligations bitstamp is applying to users.
Now addresses must be verified before use., and you need to add counterpart information of third party addresses prior to deposit
So much crazy regulations nowadays...
Inherent more reason to stick with kyc free exchanges

Just like these laws and news are constantly going against the idea of privacy each time the more we actually seem to be having more persons in the ecosystem that care less about privacy and Decentralisation.
Not only are CEX making the rules really crazy and KYC more intense, the DEX available that ought to be an alternative against these things are still being attacked. I honestly believe we need more decentralization enthusiasts.

[EarnOnVictor]

-snip-
So much crazy regulations nowadays...

Inherent more reason to stick with kyc free exchanges

Are you sure this is the right place for this discussion? Perhaps you did that in error, the Exchange section is the best fit for it. Well, just pointing it out to you.

About the regulation, I am happy that I've talked about this many times when the no-regulation campaign was even louder, but people often forget that "where there is no law, there is no crime." But it's the opposite we see, crimes are everywhere, so there must be some laws interpreted into regulations. I've never had any issue with that.

[bitmover]

In fact, this is something I 've seen happening in multiple KYC exchanges lately. Binance has it, Kraken has it. There was a similar thread which I can't find now, but anyways!

I don't use exchanges from europe, just bitstamp, so i never saw this regulation before.

In Brazil, binance doesn't ask for such information regarding addresses.

My general question in regards with that is, what happens to those users who have already withrawn their coins, before this absurd regulation applied? Will their real identities be flagged? Will anyone search for all their withdrawals and start doing chain-analysis? Will they just ignore the past and start thinking from today?

My take is that they will not care about the past, but from today, they will try to monitor everything that goes off of KYC exchanges.

That's is very crazy.

I have already even asked to third party to deposit straight to my binance account in the past.

Crypto is about freedom, kyc for each address is basically inpossible.....

[hugeblack]

Even banks don't require these regulations unless you receive a transfer of an unusual amount or from a country classified as high-risk.

The problem with these platforms is that they try to prevent you from withdrawing to your wallet, even though there's no guarantee your coins will be safe if hacked. Therefore, stopping using them is the best solution.

[lovesmayfamilis]

With this regulations, making Bitcoin more private e.g. transferring from one self-custody wallet to another wallet is pointless because in the end you have to reveal your identity, you have to admit which address belong to you.

But, I get the idea why they did this, people might use this advantage for tax avoidance.

We only need to wait for every centralized exchanges require this.

I think those who come up with such innovations understand this. Control, which seems impossible to them, will be successful if people agree to their conditions. On some exchanges, it is difficult to change the address; it is the only one, and the fact that the regulatory authorities seem to want to know all the real owners of large sums just fits into the uniform statistics, collecting the addresses of such persons with documents. The question is, how many will agree to this?

[SmartGold01]

Even banks don't require these regulations unless you receive a transfer of an unusual amount or from a country classified as high-risk.

Yeah you are right!
Though it must not be from a country that is classified as a high-risk country, even within the country and if such amount hasn't gotten to such person account there could be a call for interrogation to know if such amount was authorized by you or were mistakenly sent to your account, and if it was from you they wouldn't going further asking for what purpose is the money sent to your account, and if there are no clear evidence or proper reason then they calls for account restriction asking EFCC for investigation to know where the money is coming from.

[Cryptohygenic]

My take is that they will not care about the past, but from today, they will try to monitor everything that goes off of KYC exchanges.

They might still care about the past if the transaction involves a large sum of money.

Another question I have to ask is, how will they verify the liveness check? Will they go the extra mile to ask for wallet security details, or will it just be a normal liveness check to verify if the person is real or not? And if it's sane liveness checks, exchanges are already doing that during KYC verification; why implement it again additionally when a withdrawal or deposit above £1000 is to be done?

Maybe after thorough scrutinization, there was indication which some users may have been ignoring the KYC processes which I think some exchange may give utterance to navigate through the platform with limited access to use the p2p.
Who knows maybe in a high security order it is reformed on operation follow due Kyc processes.

[arabspaceship123]

If it's regulation it's different because govt's have rules & laws so exchanges stay inside the law. If exchanges ask for additional info about why you're depositing or who's sending the funds it's becoming authoritarian. I don't know why users accept policy changes.

[apogio]

That's is very crazy.

I have already even asked to third party to deposit straight to my binance account in the past.

Crypto is about freedom, kyc for each address is basically inpossible.....

I 'd go about it the following way:

I would maintain everything I 've bought from KYC exchanges in the past in a wallet until the financial / taxation regulations are clearer.

Everything else from decentralized platforms, payments, P2P trading etc. would go to another fully separated wallet.

I wouldn't mix the coins by any means.

I don't avoid taxes! I just want to maintain my privacy from institutions and corporations, which is a must for me.

I think those who come up with such innovations understand this. Control, which seems impossible to them, will be successful if people agree to their conditions. On some exchanges, it is difficult to change the address; it is the only one, and the fact that the regulatory authorities seem to want to know all the real owners of large sums just fits into the uniform statistics, collecting the addresses of such persons with documents. The question is, how many will agree to this?

Apart from financial institutions and entities who are mandated to have strict regulations, I don't think any other entity will gain anything from this.
Thus, their weapon against us is their ability to cause fear.
If they succeed in this, they will most likely manage to reach their goal, which is to control Bitcoin via traditional measures.

[Darker45]

Regulations are becoming more and more unreasonable. I can only hope centralized exchanges would implement much stricter measures so that people would finally decide to leave them once and for all.



By the way, how can this be a wallet verification? A liveness verification-- which is a video of your face-- to confirm that the wallet is yours? How does it prove that? Why not a signed message instead?

If this is so, then there's no difference between a user verification and a wallet verification.

[Zwei]

I think €1000 is enough for me for each transaction to avoid this. I can not spend up to €1000 daily. But I do not like this kind of law. Another thing is that most of my coins are on noncustodial wallet which I have privacy for and will not link the wallets addresses of the exchanges. This is not yet a problem for me unless the amount to bypass it is reduced from €1000.

not a problem for you yet. as the saying goes "give them an inch and they will take a mile".
today the limit is €1,000, but they can lower it at anytime in the future, and who know what other absurd regulations they will add once this door is open.

By the way, how can this be a wallet verification? A liveness verification-- which is a video of your face-- to confirm that the wallet is yours? How does it prove that? Why not a signed message instead?

If this is so, then there's no difference between a user verification and a wallet verification.

that's the thing, it doesn't.
and calling it a wallet verification is misleading.

my guess is that they want to link each address you use to your PII, so that if the address does something they don't aprove of, they know who to go after.

[hugeblack]

By the way, how can this be a wallet verification? A liveness verification-- which is a video of your face-- to confirm that the wallet is yours? How does it prove that? Why not a signed message instead?
If this is so, then there's no difference between a user verification and a wallet verification.

Maybe your picture next to your Bitcoin wallet address.
The strange thing is that many will agree with such legislation, considering that most of them would prefer to keep their coins on exchange and not withdraw them to their wallets (assuming they do not use closed-source wallets).

[arabspaceship123]

I don't believe €1000 is enough. When we're in the middle of the next pump we're going to see worthless empty coins having value. €1000 won't help ppl bend rules which exchanges put on. If it's €1000 today we've opened the door so tomorrow they'll make it €500 or €100.

I think €1000 is enough for me for each transaction to avoid this. I can not spend up to €1000 daily. But I do not like this kind of law. Another thing is that most of my coins are on noncustodial wallet which I have privacy for and will not link the wallets addresses of the exchanges. This is not yet a problem for me unless the amount to bypass it is reduced from €1000.

not a problem for you yet. as the saying goes "give them an inch and they will take a mile".
today the limit is €1,000, but they can lower it at anytime in the future, and who know what other absurd regulations they will add once this door is open.

[bitmover]

That's is very crazy.

I have already even asked to third party to deposit straight to my binance account in the past.

Crypto is about freedom, kyc for each address is basically inpossible.....

I 'd go about it the following way:

I would maintain everything I 've bought from KYC exchanges in the past in a wallet until the financial / taxation regulations are clearer.

Everything else from decentralized platforms, payments, P2P trading etc. would go to another fully separated wallet.

I wouldn't mix the coins by any means.

I don't avoid taxes! I just want to maintain my privacy from institutions and corporations, which is a must for me.

I fully agree. This is what I do as well.

I have some addresses which goes to cex and some that won't (that I use in casinos and swap services and forum for example).

This doesn't mean tax evasion. I just don't trust some services (like exchanges) that could just freeze my legal funds and take them hostage for whatever reason demanding very  personal and sensitive information which i am not willing to give, because I don't trust they can handle my data secure enough.