Coinbase’s philosophy on account removal and content moderation(blog.coinbase.com)
blog.coinbase.com
Coinbase’s philosophy on account removal and content moderation
https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbases-philosophy-on-account-removal-and-content-moderation-c80d1aa452b7
111 comments
Is this so weird? In the context of crypto it certainly reads as predatory.
But let's look at Trading View for example. A social network built around trading software. They already have tight integrations with a few brokers, what if they did their own orders?
I'm no fan of Coinbase but this is a weak argument.
But let's look at Trading View for example. A social network built around trading software. They already have tight integrations with a few brokers, what if they did their own orders?
I'm no fan of Coinbase but this is a weak argument.
Yeah.
Coinbase is a business, and the primary goal of a business is to win ... financially.
Any tool or approach that furthers that is to be embraced.
It's not a moral or ethical argument, it's strictly financial.
And this isn't Coinbase's doing, it's the game that the Western world (particularly the USA) has dictated.
All Coinbase is doing is being better at playing that game.
This is simply one of the purest manifestations of the ethos of Corporate America ... voted into power by the good ol' citizens of the US of A.
Coinbase is a business, and the primary goal of a business is to win ... financially.
Any tool or approach that furthers that is to be embraced.
It's not a moral or ethical argument, it's strictly financial.
And this isn't Coinbase's doing, it's the game that the Western world (particularly the USA) has dictated.
All Coinbase is doing is being better at playing that game.
This is simply one of the purest manifestations of the ethos of Corporate America ... voted into power by the good ol' citizens of the US of A.
From a user perspective it seems like a bad idea to talk about finance and do trades using an account at single company? I wouldn't want my bank account connected to my Reddit account, or any other social media account. It seems excessively centralized?
[deleted]
This is all probably prep for their NFT platform, which will be instagram-like in social structure, but also allow for metamask-like (i.e. decentralized) logins. [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFYOe1Btf8A
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFYOe1Btf8A
Yeah, no, this is like a bank deciding they should become ebay. Just because trades happen on a blockchain doesn't mean they should do it.
Okay, whether or not you think they should do it (personally I think it's cool), I'm telling you the reasons why they're likely forming these policies now.
What makes this cool in your opinion?
I enjoy NFTs, so why would I not want them to be more broadly supported on other platforms that I use?
Plus, this helps decentralize in two ways:
Firstly, it lessens monopoly power over the NFT space by OpenSea.
Secondly, Coinbase itself is now introducing its first web product with decentralized logins.
This is good for decentralization, not bad.
Plus, this helps decentralize in two ways:
Firstly, it lessens monopoly power over the NFT space by OpenSea.
Secondly, Coinbase itself is now introducing its first web product with decentralized logins.
This is good for decentralization, not bad.
In the (good and bad) ways Gmail helps keep email relevant, yes.
It’s a web3 platform from an actual crypto company with a decent security track record and based in the US.
Feels much safer than open sea which is constantly hacked and I trust more than GameStop who says they are also launching and NFT store.
Feels much safer than open sea which is constantly hacked and I trust more than GameStop who says they are also launching and NFT store.
Makes me think about how the environment of casinos are designed - including pumping in higher levels of oxygen into the air, and makes me wonder if such environments like the one Coinbase is creating should have some regulations?
These relatively new technologies and structures have consequences that we're only just beginning to understand, so it's no wonder that laws are lagging.
These relatively new technologies and structures have consequences that we're only just beginning to understand, so it's no wonder that laws are lagging.
Sure, just like social media. Let's start with that.
People all in here claim to be "anti-authority" and "anti-fascist" but can't resist their impulse to control others' behavior.
People all in here claim to be "anti-authority" and "anti-fascist" but can't resist their impulse to control others' behavior.
? Tf
Trading-view does integration with brokers because it earns affiliate money.
Coinbase does sharing of orders or whatever to hype pump and dump and expose they did it through Coinbase.
That's literally not on the same league.
Trading-view does integration with brokers because it earns affiliate money.
Coinbase does sharing of orders or whatever to hype pump and dump and expose they did it through Coinbase.
That's literally not on the same league.
Several trading sites (years ago now) had chat features on the side. They started out great and had mild spam and vulgar conduct. Over a few months they became so bad I could only look at it for a few laughs.
They hired more moderators to no avail and ultimately shut them down.
They hired more moderators to no avail and ultimately shut them down.
Why would Venmo function as a social network?
On the other hand, the goal of it is market share, not some novel coin. They have a stable coin and that honestly leads me to give the company goals the benefit of the doubt. The investment they are encouraging, outside of the fees they generate through transactions, is tied 1:1 with the usd by design.
Building network effects of the underlying technology you've chosen to provide services on is one of the less evil things Coinbase is wrapped up in, wow.
Lots commercial services have their own internet forums. YCombinator, for example.
Isn't the Bloomberg terminal something like that?
Is the Bloomberg terminal a social network?
First ddg result for "bloomberg terminal chat".
> One of the most valuable features for institutions is the Terminal’s Enterprise IB Chat. This is essentially a Terminal-wide chat function that allows traders to chat with brokers, portfolio managers to talk with each other, or simply for intra-firm communication, perhaps to run something by compliance.
https://www.warriortrading.com/bloomberg-terminal/
> One of the most valuable features for institutions is the Terminal’s Enterprise IB Chat. This is essentially a Terminal-wide chat function that allows traders to chat with brokers, portfolio managers to talk with each other, or simply for intra-firm communication, perhaps to run something by compliance.
https://www.warriortrading.com/bloomberg-terminal/
Is a chat function a social network?
Of course, that's why MSN Messenger was such a mighty social network...
What doesn't have a social network, these days?
To be fair, most fiat currencies today are effectively pyramid schemes with how the 'assets' in question (paper bills or numbers on a screen) only have value because people think they have value and they think they'll be able to purchase goods with it. The only difference between fiat and crypto is that fiat is often backed by people that can print more money/manage the supply, and integrating crypto into daily lives is a tall ask when the transaction fees can cost more than the amount of currency traded via that transaction.
> The only difference between fiat and crypto is that fiat is often backed by people that can print more money/manage the supply
This is really not the only difference. As Elon Musk recently said, the government has a "monopoly on violence" and acts as an authority that arbitrates disputes (up to and including between countries), works to ensure proper controls and regulations through laws, etc., all of which helps to underpin the value of the currency. Cryptocurrencies are backed by no central authority with these powers.
This is really not the only difference. As Elon Musk recently said, the government has a "monopoly on violence" and acts as an authority that arbitrates disputes (up to and including between countries), works to ensure proper controls and regulations through laws, etc., all of which helps to underpin the value of the currency. Cryptocurrencies are backed by no central authority with these powers.
Note that "monopoly on violence" theory predates musk saying it by about 100 years
In substance, it goes back to the original philosophers of the modern state: Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes. That was in the 16th and 17th century.
Also important is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. It has social license by virtue of exercising violence to uphold social order. In the case of the economy that means its macroeconomic management to ensure stability and the public good. Clearly crypto woefully fails by that standard.
Also important is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. It has social license by virtue of exercising violence to uphold social order. In the case of the economy that means its macroeconomic management to ensure stability and the public good. Clearly crypto woefully fails by that standard.
It's true, although the fact that musk personally said it is still relevant in the sense that he is for whatever reason a major mouthpiece in the crypto space that some people seem to respect.
Please prove modern economy is a pyramid scheme.
I’m not OP, but they could simply ask you to prove the USD is backed by anything beyond confidence since the removal of the gold standard.
Not saying everyone should jump into crypto, just be aware that most things without physical value are based on confidence. Which I’m sure you understand.
Not saying everyone should jump into crypto, just be aware that most things without physical value are based on confidence. Which I’m sure you understand.
The USD is backed by 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, 68+ nuclear submarines, 8725+ tanks, 1,359,685+ military service members, a police force and one IRS that makes damn sure taxes are paid in USD or "damn would be a shame if the governemnt took your home/car/freedom away"
That’s actually a really solid and novel argument and you might have changed my opinion here (give me some time to think about it). The USD is backed by the military not by gold.
The late David Graeber helped shape grounded ideas on money. His book entitled "Debt: The First 5000 Years" cover the topic, but he also discusses the core ideas in interviews freely available on YouTube.
Sure, but they could simply prove that the USD is backed by trillions of dollars of USD-denominated debt and tax bills which other people need to meet obligations. The confidence that implies is significantly different from the confidence implied in "number went up after going down last year"
Why does everyone get so hung up on the gold standard? What intrinsic value does gold have? 8% mined each year goes to technology and industrial use cases, that has value, and most importantly creates more value. The rest is people saying "Oh shiny", which has a less real connection than a paper note where obligations are traded and met.
Gold has several properties that make it useful as a store of value.
- Gold is a naturally occurring substance and, while not abundant, exists in many parts of the world.
- Gold is inert.
- Gold is not radioactive
- Gold is durable, but malleable.
- Gold is a naturally occurring substance and, while not abundant, exists in many parts of the world.
- Gold is inert.
- Gold is not radioactive
- Gold is durable, but malleable.
[deleted]
I just had my bank account terminated by Block (Square) because it was easier to boot their customer than deal with my support request which was outside of their pre-written script.
Their ToS of course allows them to terminate an account at any time for no reason. Their support staff keep saying that I violated the ToS, but they can't specify which one because of course they have no option in their system for someone who was terminated for NO violation of their ToS.
Their ToS of course allows them to terminate an account at any time for no reason. Their support staff keep saying that I violated the ToS, but they can't specify which one because of course they have no option in their system for someone who was terminated for NO violation of their ToS.
I would say your next step is a complaint here: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
Generally those get treated seriously by financial entities.
Generally those get treated seriously by financial entities.
I did. I got a response very quickly. The response said absolutely nothing of value. It just said "We responded to your support request then terminated your account" but used 1000 words to say it.
[deleted]
I had 40K+ taken from me by US Bank after a payday in 2020. Writing the CFPB basically generated a response that "We're returning your money to the processors who send you money" from US Bank.
Guess who never reached out to me to ask why my bank was returning transactions? My employers.
When I called them to ask what had happened, their "Fraud Research & Gap Analysis" VP was shocked that this only caused a mild inconvenience to me (mainly because I split my payroll between a bank and a local credit union) and then pressed me to get the name of my credit union.
Guess who never reached out to me to ask why my bank was returning transactions? My employers.
When I called them to ask what had happened, their "Fraud Research & Gap Analysis" VP was shocked that this only caused a mild inconvenience to me (mainly because I split my payroll between a bank and a local credit union) and then pressed me to get the name of my credit union.
> When I called them to ask what had happened
But what happened?? The suspense!
But what happened?? The suspense!
Simple:
They closed my accounts, which, is something that they can do in the terms and conditions that you agree to when you sign up for an account. They did not disclose to me where the money in my checking account went to, because, according to them, they did not have to.
I realize that 40K isn't a lot to some folks on here, but, it was the money that I had set aside to go and do a fun project after COVID-19 had subsided (here we are, two years later): if the bank does something with your money that it doesn't have to a.) disclose what they did with it, and b.) be judge, jury, and executioner with it, I'm not sure a lot of folks would really appreciate that.
In the end, I was out 40K-ish, a few hours of my time, and a reply from the CFPB that didn't really solve my issue.
I can make more money.
I can't make more time.
They closed my accounts, which, is something that they can do in the terms and conditions that you agree to when you sign up for an account. They did not disclose to me where the money in my checking account went to, because, according to them, they did not have to.
I realize that 40K isn't a lot to some folks on here, but, it was the money that I had set aside to go and do a fun project after COVID-19 had subsided (here we are, two years later): if the bank does something with your money that it doesn't have to a.) disclose what they did with it, and b.) be judge, jury, and executioner with it, I'm not sure a lot of folks would really appreciate that.
In the end, I was out 40K-ish, a few hours of my time, and a reply from the CFPB that didn't really solve my issue.
I can make more money.
I can't make more time.
You hit a flag for suspicious behavior and they can't tell you exactly what was suspicious because this allows fraudsters and criminal networks to adjust their operations accordingly.
People don't just get terminated for no reason.
Either you were doing something sketchy or you were acting in a behavior that is similar to previous fraud/criminal behavior.
I'm a legitimate customer and my credit card has been flagged for fraud numerous times at large companies (Steam, PayPal, eBay etc). Often temporarily, however.
(source: have worked in various fraud/risk departments)
People don't just get terminated for no reason.
Either you were doing something sketchy or you were acting in a behavior that is similar to previous fraud/criminal behavior.
I'm a legitimate customer and my credit card has been flagged for fraud numerous times at large companies (Steam, PayPal, eBay etc). Often temporarily, however.
(source: have worked in various fraud/risk departments)
I bought an item online. It was shipped, but never delivered to me and FedEx returned it to the merchant. The merchant does not reply to any communications. I had already asked Square for a refund before the package shipped (as it shipped 6 weeks late). It took Square three months to even respond to my chargeback request. They asked for copies of all communications and the shipping logs. I gave them everything. They said they could not do a chargeback since the package shows as "delivered" and their script does not allow them to deviate from this. We went back and forth because I thought they were confused about me receiving the package. They confirmed they were not confused and that they fully understood that the package had been delivered back to the merchant and was never delivered to me, but it was still technically "delivered" so it is not possible for them to do a chargeback.
After that all their support would tell me is that I need to call FedEx and trick them into changing the status on the package to "undelivered" and they would happily do a chargeback for me.
Once we had gone back and forth on this a few times they said they had decided it was better to just terminate my account.
After that all their support would tell me is that I need to call FedEx and trick them into changing the status on the package to "undelivered" and they would happily do a chargeback for me.
Once we had gone back and forth on this a few times they said they had decided it was better to just terminate my account.
I hear this argument all the time. What I never hear is anything that actually helps to judge the trade-off. How often is a flag incorrect? How often is a legitimate user able to recover from the flag and how much effort does it take? I notice you say your flags have only been often temporary, i.e. sometimes permanent.
Are we really ok with throwing away due process because it might help the criminals? Sure nobody needs that game but access to money services is a bit different. And what you also never hear about is being refunded for all the content paid for in the blocked account.
Are we really ok with throwing away due process because it might help the criminals? Sure nobody needs that game but access to money services is a bit different. And what you also never hear about is being refunded for all the content paid for in the blocked account.
The justice system has thousands of false positives and throws innocent people in jail for decades sometimes. As a whole, society accepts some level of error margin in every facet of society.
After working in risk and fraud, I've seen some truly horrifying stuff. An elderly woman threatened physically if she didn't let the attacker drain her bank account. Huge scams for thousands of dollars. Organized crime rings fleecing millions of dollars. Identity theft. On and on.
I would wager that society would accept some level of errors in exchange for drastically reduced criminal activity that actually hurts people.
Legitimate people getting blocked inadvertently are rare, and often of the stories you hear on HN and Reddit and other places, a good portion of these "innocent victims" are actually doing sketchy stuff when you dig into it.
Justice isn't and cannot be an exact science. Society agrees and accepts the risk.
After working in risk and fraud, I've seen some truly horrifying stuff. An elderly woman threatened physically if she didn't let the attacker drain her bank account. Huge scams for thousands of dollars. Organized crime rings fleecing millions of dollars. Identity theft. On and on.
I would wager that society would accept some level of errors in exchange for drastically reduced criminal activity that actually hurts people.
Legitimate people getting blocked inadvertently are rare, and often of the stories you hear on HN and Reddit and other places, a good portion of these "innocent victims" are actually doing sketchy stuff when you dig into it.
Justice isn't and cannot be an exact science. Society agrees and accepts the risk.
I'm not asking for exact numbers. But let's have some numbers, because otherwise how can we agree to something when we don't know what we're agreeing to?
According to some studies, up to 1% of prisoners in the U.S. are innocent. That would mean 23,000 people wrongfully imprisoned.
In my experience, false positives in fraud and risk models are lower than 1%.
In my experience, false positives in fraud and risk models are lower than 1%.
They should at least tell you that a flag for fraudulent activity has been raised. At the same time I'd like for there to be some way to have an external auditor validate that it's not due to some bug or overzealous filter.
With GDPR such automated decision making can be stopped, and entities fined if not. Unless there's a big ol' exception for anything that falls under banking security & fraud.
With GDPR such automated decision making can be stopped, and entities fined if not. Unless there's a big ol' exception for anything that falls under banking security & fraud.
Can't do that. "Tipping off" is a crime.
Imagine if we were writing our laws like this, or court rulings would go like this.
“We can’t tell you what evidence we used to convict you because that would mean criminals can adjust their operations accordingly”
And then you hear someone say “people don’t get convicted for no reason”
I have no idea if the OP did or did not act fraudulently and I’m aware that we are talking about a private and not a government entity here.
“We can’t tell you what evidence we used to convict you because that would mean criminals can adjust their operations accordingly”
And then you hear someone say “people don’t get convicted for no reason”
I have no idea if the OP did or did not act fraudulently and I’m aware that we are talking about a private and not a government entity here.
When your account was terminated, what happened to your funds? Recovered? Lost?
Eventually managed to exfiltrate it. I didn't have another bank account outside of Square, so I had to go and open one and was eventually able to get the money out.
Funny though - I tried to transfer the funds to my other Square account and it said "We cannot transfer funds to Square because of their excessive fees." WTF.
Funny though - I tried to transfer the funds to my other Square account and it said "We cannot transfer funds to Square because of their excessive fees." WTF.
Ugh. Glad you got your money out.
It sounds like they don’t have a good understanding of the First Amendment.
* The first amendment does not consider “hate speech” to be fighting words.
* The first amendment does protect falsehoods. The case mentioned from the 1970s was recently overruled.
The exceptions to the first amendment they mentioned are narrower than they are portraying them as.
It’s fine to use the first amendment as “inspiration” or a starting point. But please create your own list of exceptions.
Those exceptions are the point where you can be imprisoned, not kicked off a platform.
* The first amendment does not consider “hate speech” to be fighting words.
* The first amendment does protect falsehoods. The case mentioned from the 1970s was recently overruled.
The exceptions to the first amendment they mentioned are narrower than they are portraying them as.
It’s fine to use the first amendment as “inspiration” or a starting point. But please create your own list of exceptions.
Those exceptions are the point where you can be imprisoned, not kicked off a platform.
There’s something deeply funny to me about the world’s largest vendor of unregistered securities claiming to base their decisions on the rule of law.
My wallet's philosophy on account removal and content moderation:
Sounds like they aren’t willing to go to bat for you if one of their “partners” (not just AppStore and payment processors, but also cloud service providers) pressure them. Very easy out to censor anything.
They said they disable that content or that user, in relation to that partner, so it seems like if they get told by apple that your nft violate ios guidelines, you may find your nfts stop showing up on the ios app when searching.
I don't see how they have any other choice, and only having the walled garden effect the walled garden is more than a lot of other platforms are willing to do.
I don't see how they have any other choice, and only having the walled garden effect the walled garden is more than a lot of other platforms are willing to do.
It seems the real philosophical meat (or tofu, for vegetarians) behind this post is in the linked article:
"Section 230: Mend It, Don’t End It" https://medium.com/craft-ventures/section-230-mend-it-dont-e...
Which calls for corrections to the "liability shield" for platforms that host user-generated content, such that they remain shielded if they limit user-generated speech in line with First Amendment principles. The pitch is that 1A principles are more uniform and well-understood, as compared with each companies' own views on what constitutes "objectionable content".
"Section 230: Mend It, Don’t End It" https://medium.com/craft-ventures/section-230-mend-it-dont-e...
Which calls for corrections to the "liability shield" for platforms that host user-generated content, such that they remain shielded if they limit user-generated speech in line with First Amendment principles. The pitch is that 1A principles are more uniform and well-understood, as compared with each companies' own views on what constitutes "objectionable content".
I'm not sure how Brian Armstrong chose those particular five articles to link to at the end of this post, but I don't think that Coinbase meant to say that those articles reflect its own preferred position on speech or intermediary liability, as all five take somewhat different positions, which may even conflict with each other. So I don't think this is a subtle way of revealing Coinbase's new position on §230 reform or something.
I suspect it's a bit more like "hey, in case you haven't noticed, intermediaries' role is a pretty hot debate lately, as indicated by this range of views about it".
(Thanks for the tofu!)
I suspect it's a bit more like "hey, in case you haven't noticed, intermediaries' role is a pretty hot debate lately, as indicated by this range of views about it".
(Thanks for the tofu!)
This would preclude HN, which is moderated on much stricter than first amendment grounds.
Virtually everywhere is moderated more strictly because in most contexts to do otherwise is silly or even insane.
E.g. pretty much any communication medium will (try to) ban spammers, even if 'spamming' is legal.
E.g. pretty much any communication medium will (try to) ban spammers, even if 'spamming' is legal.
The American constitution is a vaguely worded 18th century document whose interpretation depends entirely on the whims of nine political appointees.
A liability shield isn’t much of a shield if every content moderation decision is potential liability under the extremely murky standard of American constitutionality.
A liability shield isn’t much of a shield if every content moderation decision is potential liability under the extremely murky standard of American constitutionality.
>The American constitution is a vaguely worded 18th century document whose interpretation depends entirely on the whims of nine political appointees.
Feature, not a bug. The concept of living law is one of the most important contributions of english common law to humanity.
Feature, not a bug. The concept of living law is one of the most important contributions of english common law to humanity.
If living law is what you're concerned about then I think Brtain's tradition of parliamentary sovereignty is as close as you can get to it.
The constitution and the court system with its legalistic approach if anything contradict living law, which is precisely law not by means of constitutions, statutes or courts.
The constitution and the court system with its legalistic approach if anything contradict living law, which is precisely law not by means of constitutions, statutes or courts.
Keep in mind that this is entirely antithetical to the modern conservative approach to constitutional scholarship ("originalism").
Spot on, the history of horrible decisions (Dred Scott, Kelo v New London, Citizens United, Wickard v Filburn) the weight of some of which still burdens us should be evidence enough of a dangerously broken system. One need not even wander into the impossibly cloudy question of what "shall not be infringed" means.
Discover all the joys of centralized banking, but with none of the pesky regulatory oversight or possibility of legal recourse!
The future is now.
or overdraft fees
I'll take overdraft fees in exchange for secure money storage.
Just with more daily hacks
They could have a philosophy of serving their customers.
If you are an international customer you have ZERO support despite being able to sign up, make transfers and trading.
I don't recommend Coinbase to anyone outside the US.
If you are an international customer you have ZERO support despite being able to sign up, make transfers and trading.
I don't recommend Coinbase to anyone outside the US.
This seems disingenuous to me, but my personal experience with Coinbase colors my opinion.
I had my Coinbase accounts canceled more than 5 years ago. Despite my merchant account with them processing over 1MM USD a year in BTC, they refused to tell me why they terminated my merchant and personal account.
At the time, I was buying physical giftcards in bulk from official wholesale distributors for 90c on the dollar, scanning and OCR'ing the redemption codes, and was selling those for the BTC equivalent of $1.05 on the dollar.
At the time, some of those merchants had their own plans for digital giftcard distribution and said they didn't want to be associated with cryptocurrencies. I ignored their pressure because I was staying true to the law in regards to various resale doctrines.
I suspect some of the larger merchants pressured their financial partners to represent them and put pressure on Coinbase.
I didn't mind writing my own bespoke payment processing system to replace them, but the loss of an easy USD <-> BTC gateway did make life quite a bit harder. Since my move to NY, it's been even more difficult because there are few companies that are allowed to operate here.
I had my Coinbase accounts canceled more than 5 years ago. Despite my merchant account with them processing over 1MM USD a year in BTC, they refused to tell me why they terminated my merchant and personal account.
At the time, I was buying physical giftcards in bulk from official wholesale distributors for 90c on the dollar, scanning and OCR'ing the redemption codes, and was selling those for the BTC equivalent of $1.05 on the dollar.
At the time, some of those merchants had their own plans for digital giftcard distribution and said they didn't want to be associated with cryptocurrencies. I ignored their pressure because I was staying true to the law in regards to various resale doctrines.
I suspect some of the larger merchants pressured their financial partners to represent them and put pressure on Coinbase.
I didn't mind writing my own bespoke payment processing system to replace them, but the loss of an easy USD <-> BTC gateway did make life quite a bit harder. Since my move to NY, it's been even more difficult because there are few companies that are allowed to operate here.
> At the time, I was buying physical giftcards in bulk from official wholesale distributors for 90c on the dollar, scanning and OCR'ing the redemption codes, and was selling those for the BTC equivalent of $1.05 on the dollar.
Isn’t this kind of thing usually associated with criminal behaviour? Why would somebody buy $1 of gift cards for $1.05 worth of Bitcoin instead of using an exchange? Seems like the main appeal is avoiding KYC laws that the exchanges follow isn’t it?
Isn’t this kind of thing usually associated with criminal behaviour? Why would somebody buy $1 of gift cards for $1.05 worth of Bitcoin instead of using an exchange? Seems like the main appeal is avoiding KYC laws that the exchanges follow isn’t it?
I really can't tell if the comment you are responding to is satire. "I don't know why Coinbase would ban me all I did was use their platform to launder money"
What's an example of an official wholesale distributor of gift cards?
Because the description 100% sounds like you were buying stolen gift cards in bulk.
Because the description 100% sounds like you were buying stolen gift cards in bulk.
The sources are rarely stolen. I used to work in this area for a large e-commerce company and generally what happened is a retail partner would have a sale on gift cards (15% off or something like this), and organized people who did this for a living would buy up multiple thousands in discounted gift cards, often chaining other discounts to get up to 20-25% off.
In our case, the arbitrage operators would try to extract the money themselves by using gift cards to buy goods that retain value well (Apple products, gaming consoles etc) to resell. The company is taking a hit, but it's often not outright theft. Technically, they're just savvy customers.
As for this case, it sounds like he's buying from genuine wholesale distributors who get gift cards from below face value anyway.
Retail outlets would never agree to sell gift cards without clipping the ticket, therefore they aren't paying $100 for the $100 gift card they sell you.
In our case, the arbitrage operators would try to extract the money themselves by using gift cards to buy goods that retain value well (Apple products, gaming consoles etc) to resell. The company is taking a hit, but it's often not outright theft. Technically, they're just savvy customers.
As for this case, it sounds like he's buying from genuine wholesale distributors who get gift cards from below face value anyway.
Retail outlets would never agree to sell gift cards without clipping the ticket, therefore they aren't paying $100 for the $100 gift card they sell you.
> The company is taking a hit,
This is a perfect example of the old adage, we lose on every gift card sold but we make it up in the long run.
Imagine,
Customer buys $100 gift card
Customer gifts gift card.
Recipient buys $89.99 worth of stuff
Recipient never returns to reclaim $10.01
Gift card expires
Company writes value of unused gift card off their books as profit.
There is a reason gift cards are popular, it’s a money making machine. There’s probably a stat out there but from memory 30% of the value of gift cards goes unclaimed.
This is a perfect example of the old adage, we lose on every gift card sold but we make it up in the long run.
Imagine,
Customer buys $100 gift card
Customer gifts gift card.
Recipient buys $89.99 worth of stuff
Recipient never returns to reclaim $10.01
Gift card expires
Company writes value of unused gift card off their books as profit.
There is a reason gift cards are popular, it’s a money making machine. There’s probably a stat out there but from memory 30% of the value of gift cards goes unclaimed.
I remember buying gift cards from you! So upsetting when Coinbase shut down your account.
Why were you buying gift cards for more than they are worth?
I don't recall paying more than they're worth, I was using a service called Steam Loader and it allowed me to spend my "magical internet money" on Steam which does not accept bitcoin.
Even if it was a few percent more, it's cool to be an early adopter of technology. I got all my bitcoins back then for free from mining anyway, so who cares? free games!
Even if it was a few percent more, it's cool to be an early adopter of technology. I got all my bitcoins back then for free from mining anyway, so who cares? free games!
After trying to recover a Kraken account opened when the service debuted, I can tell you they're no better. I'm skeptical there will ever be a killer financial app for Blockchain but if there is, despite how much people despise banks, I would still trust them over the current crop of vendors.
> I'm skeptical there will ever be a killer financial app for Blockchain
Not an expert, but I think, stable coins (including government-issued digital currency) and global payment rails built on top of it are going to be that killer financial app. And their proliferation the catalyst behind mainstream adoption of trading real-world commodities and assets on "defi" platforms.
Not an expert, but I think, stable coins (including government-issued digital currency) and global payment rails built on top of it are going to be that killer financial app. And their proliferation the catalyst behind mainstream adoption of trading real-world commodities and assets on "defi" platforms.
I’d give this a 95% well done.
I think it is odd for Coinbase to actually have any carvout for a guiding principle levied globally. This seems at odds with their prior stance, but with the user generated content in their NFT marketplace it looks like they expect to have an issue. They literally probably are preparing a campaign with a bunch of divisive characters that exude opposing messages.
I think it is odd for Coinbase to actually have any carvout for a guiding principle levied globally. This seems at odds with their prior stance, but with the user generated content in their NFT marketplace it looks like they expect to have an issue. They literally probably are preparing a campaign with a bunch of divisive characters that exude opposing messages.
[deleted]
i don't understand. coinbase does not host content. it is a trading/exchange platform.
> coinbase does not host content. it is a trading/exchange platform.
So is AirBnb, but they have a content policy. It applies to any content you post anywhere.
So is AirBnb, but they have a content policy. It applies to any content you post anywhere.
they will when they’re NFT marketplace launches.
[deleted]
I am falling off my chair. There is something fishy going on here, or wacko. Or I just don't get it.
My house, my rules. Not censorship, not a violation of free speech.
Americans are such a fragile, precious people. Second they feel slighted it becomes this stupid parade.
Meanwhile, your civil liberties and rights are being stripped by the people telling you bullshit like Facebook is the one treading on you.
You just can't write narratives like this
Americans are such a fragile, precious people. Second they feel slighted it becomes this stupid parade.
Meanwhile, your civil liberties and rights are being stripped by the people telling you bullshit like Facebook is the one treading on you.
You just can't write narratives like this
lol, grandstanding from the company that will terminate your account because they track where your coins go and what you do with it after you've withdrawn them from your coinbase account.
I'm puzzled for 2 reasons:
1. The vast majority of account terminations for individual (not public-facing) services by financial platforms is linked to KYC, AML, and other risks; banks don't wait for the government to tell them to shut down an account, they do so preemptively if they detect "suspicious behavior". There's plenty of stories of people with "unusual transactions" (e.g. freelancers who receive a few thousand £/$ in deposit) and get suspended by Revolut, with support that refuses to talk to them, because Revolut wants to cover their ass and ban people proactively even without hard evidence of fraud. You probably know someone who's been banned from a bank for "suspicious behavior" who don't even know why they were banned. Anyone who hung out around Bitcoin subreddits a few years ago has heard stories of this happening with Coinbase. The risk for Coinbase users isn't politically-motivated bans, it's bans for "no reason in particular".
2. They link to Cloudflare's famous "Why We Terminated Daily Stormer" article as further readings; but Coinbase terminated Daily Stormer months earlier than Cloudflare, for (presumably) an infrastructure, non-public-facing product. Presumably Daily Stormer didn't violate US laws. Here, they claim to only terminate private-facing infrastructure for illegal activity, so this marketing post about their "philosophy" doesn't seem to match their behavior.
1. The vast majority of account terminations for individual (not public-facing) services by financial platforms is linked to KYC, AML, and other risks; banks don't wait for the government to tell them to shut down an account, they do so preemptively if they detect "suspicious behavior". There's plenty of stories of people with "unusual transactions" (e.g. freelancers who receive a few thousand £/$ in deposit) and get suspended by Revolut, with support that refuses to talk to them, because Revolut wants to cover their ass and ban people proactively even without hard evidence of fraud. You probably know someone who's been banned from a bank for "suspicious behavior" who don't even know why they were banned. Anyone who hung out around Bitcoin subreddits a few years ago has heard stories of this happening with Coinbase. The risk for Coinbase users isn't politically-motivated bans, it's bans for "no reason in particular".
2. They link to Cloudflare's famous "Why We Terminated Daily Stormer" article as further readings; but Coinbase terminated Daily Stormer months earlier than Cloudflare, for (presumably) an infrastructure, non-public-facing product. Presumably Daily Stormer didn't violate US laws. Here, they claim to only terminate private-facing infrastructure for illegal activity, so this marketing post about their "philosophy" doesn't seem to match their behavior.
I'm not puzzled. Coinbase is great as long as you stay in crypto it's the fiat to crypto that causes concern. I'm about/in the process of cancelling/closing all my accounts.
Why?
In the TOS they (Coinbase) state your crypto will always be your crypto. You are free to withdraw at any time. That's BS. Not only was I told to FO by coinbase support but they said any further contact would result in the exact same answer (FO).
That said, I had a large ( like 2k usd) deposit (in ETH so no fiat) so I wasn't giving up. Was about to post on Reddit, or elsewhere but they finally unfroze my account after a month.
Most people in crypto don't use Coinbase except maybe the whales because there are incentives for whales. Smaller players get screwed.
Why?
In the TOS they (Coinbase) state your crypto will always be your crypto. You are free to withdraw at any time. That's BS. Not only was I told to FO by coinbase support but they said any further contact would result in the exact same answer (FO).
That said, I had a large ( like 2k usd) deposit (in ETH so no fiat) so I wasn't giving up. Was about to post on Reddit, or elsewhere but they finally unfroze my account after a month.
Most people in crypto don't use Coinbase except maybe the whales because there are incentives for whales. Smaller players get screwed.
Cloudflare banned Daily Stormer because their IPO manager said they'd drop them if they didn't.
I got banned for mixer use. Is using a mixer illegal?
No, Coinbase is a company that makes its own decisions, has nothing to do with laws. No obligation that they have to accept anyone.
lol they blocked my account without any reason given. Sure. Do what you preach.
Yes, they actually said that.
[1] https://decrypt.co/85906/coinbase-social-media