Binance served crypto traders in Iran despite U.S. sanctions(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Binance served crypto traders in Iran despite U.S. sanctions
https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-binance-served-crypto-traders-iran-years-despite-us-sanctions-clients-2022-07-11/
158 comments
The article mentions 7 people they directly interviewed, another 11 that claim to have done it publicly but didn't respond to their questions, and says:
> The exchange's popularity in Iran was known inside the company. Senior employees knew of, and joked about, the exchange's growing ranks of Iranian users, according to 10 messages they sent to one another in 2019 and 2020 that are reported here for the first time. "IRAN BOYS," one of them wrote in response to data showing the popularity of Binance on Instagram in Iran.
The implication of the article is not that 7 people did it. It's that the platform is widely popular in Iran.
> The exchange's popularity in Iran was known inside the company. Senior employees knew of, and joked about, the exchange's growing ranks of Iranian users, according to 10 messages they sent to one another in 2019 and 2020 that are reported here for the first time. "IRAN BOYS," one of them wrote in response to data showing the popularity of Binance on Instagram in Iran.
The implication of the article is not that 7 people did it. It's that the platform is widely popular in Iran.
That's a fair but, but is a drastically different story than what the headline implies.
"Internal messages indicate that Binance might have turned a blind eye to Iranians using VPNs (and later banned them)" is a much weaker claim than "Binance continued serving Iranians despite sanctions"
As I mentioned in a different comment, the headline might be technically true, and there's definitely a story, but the headline paints a drastically different picture than the article. Almost every line of "we found someone in Iran who had gotten in" is followed by "they got banned later"
"Internal messages indicate that Binance might have turned a blind eye to Iranians using VPNs (and later banned them)" is a much weaker claim than "Binance continued serving Iranians despite sanctions"
As I mentioned in a different comment, the headline might be technically true, and there's definitely a story, but the headline paints a drastically different picture than the article. Almost every line of "we found someone in Iran who had gotten in" is followed by "they got banned later"
Agree to disagree I guess. Reuters clearly believes the story is that there was widespread use in Iran for at least two years after the sanctions went into effect and that Binance was aware.
Given that, this headline doesn't seem beyond the pale:
> Binance served crypto traders in Iran despite U.S. sanctions
Given that, this headline doesn't seem beyond the pale:
> Binance served crypto traders in Iran despite U.S. sanctions
I don’t think those are all that different headlines.
Folks who expect the headline to be extra detailed will always be dissatisfied IMO.
It’s on the individual to read the story. Folks who don’t will misunderstand regardless.
But to be clear I’ve got no problem with your clarification here either.
Folks who expect the headline to be extra detailed will always be dissatisfied IMO.
It’s on the individual to read the story. Folks who don’t will misunderstand regardless.
But to be clear I’ve got no problem with your clarification here either.
Despite being technically correct, "Binance continued serving Iranians despite sanctions" doesn't imply "Binance stopped serving Iranians and later caught more that fell through the cracks". I would definitely have gotten marked down in school if I submitted an article where the headline was such inaccurate summary of the story.
It's not even like there's nothing to be seen! "Binance may have turned a blind eye to and encouraged VPN usage" would have been a much better summary!
It's not even like there's nothing to be seen! "Binance may have turned a blind eye to and encouraged VPN usage" would have been a much better summary!
You need a special parser for Reuters headlines.
They are to be taken exactly as written, since they are designed to be displayed as one liners in a financial terminal, like in this image:
https://i.insider.com/4bc623be7f8b9a2b3a870500
They actually put a lot of work into their titles.
They are to be taken exactly as written, since they are designed to be displayed as one liners in a financial terminal, like in this image:
https://i.insider.com/4bc623be7f8b9a2b3a870500
They actually put a lot of work into their titles.
I feel headlines in papers were a bit more "legitimate" but now in the era of click-bait they're as sensational as they can be whilst not being technically incorrect.
I try to guess what the headline means before reading the article; if I guessed wrong I downgrade that source.
I try to guess what the headline means before reading the article; if I guessed wrong I downgrade that source.
They are incredibly different headlines.
The former reinforces preconceived notions that all crypto organizations are criminal and blatantly violate the law.
The latter presents a nuanced situation of the difficulties of complying with international sanctions as an internet company.
It's naive to think that headlines aren't explicitly designed to not only be clickbait, but also to incept and reinforce false ideas in the minds of the vast majority who won't read the story in detail. Even if it is our individual responsibility to read the story before forming opinions, that's not the reality.
The former reinforces preconceived notions that all crypto organizations are criminal and blatantly violate the law.
The latter presents a nuanced situation of the difficulties of complying with international sanctions as an internet company.
It's naive to think that headlines aren't explicitly designed to not only be clickbait, but also to incept and reinforce false ideas in the minds of the vast majority who won't read the story in detail. Even if it is our individual responsibility to read the story before forming opinions, that's not the reality.
[deleted]
It is true that I am an Iranian and I use Binance services in Iran
As well as thousands of businesses worldwide? I don't believe that the Cayman Islands, where Binance is registered, has sanctions against Iran.
They're free to ignore US sanction laws as long as they don't want to receive money from US customers and US dollars from anyone.
Or have any company officer travel to or through the US any time in the future.
I once interviewed for a company that ran gambling websites (legal in the UK) and it was explained to me that if I worked there I would never be able to travel to the US. I declined the job. Some time later one of their executives was on a plane which was diverted to a US airport and he was arrested and charged.
I once interviewed for a company that ran gambling websites (legal in the UK) and it was explained to me that if I worked there I would never be able to travel to the US. I declined the job. Some time later one of their executives was on a plane which was diverted to a US airport and he was arrested and charged.
Wow. I don't understand this - this plane was diverted to a US airport, just to arrest the executive? Was he a U.S citizen living in some other country? If not, was he arrested because the company had customers/users on U.S soil?
Also, what about the other passengers in the plane? Annoying a bunch of passengers just to arrest one guy for working for a gambling website seems excessive, no? Or was it a private plane?
Also, what about the other passengers in the plane? Annoying a bunch of passengers just to arrest one guy for working for a gambling website seems excessive, no? Or was it a private plane?
It sounds like the plane being diverted was incidental.
Assuming that the GP's talking about David Carruthers, it was a layover rather than a diversion: https://www.ft.com/content/69eebb30-18df-11db-b02f-0000779e2...
In theory he probably would be in transit area, so outside of USA.
We all know how good is USA respecting international treaties and human rights when it doesn't suit their economic interests.
The idea that airports (or the transit areas of airports) are somehow extraterritorial and not part of the sovereign territory of the nation where they are located is a popularly-held belief which is entirely untrue. You'll notice that police of the host nation operate in these areas for example. For example, see https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2013/06/27/inenglish/13723... but there are hundreds of sources for this if you search online.
US airports don't have a transit area. Anybody transiting through the US has to go through immigration/customs.
Wait... so you need a USA visa just to fly a route that goes via the USA, even if you never leave the airport?
That seems... suboptimal.
All it takes is a corridor from arrivals to departures to allow people to leave again on a different plane out of the country.
That seems... suboptimal.
All it takes is a corridor from arrivals to departures to allow people to leave again on a different plane out of the country.
Yup, plus you pick up your bags, go through customs and recheck your bags after landing at the first US airport. Same for Canada AFAIK.
Sometimes you don’t have to re-check your bags.
Some US airports and airlines are like that for some flights (e.g. international delta flight to Detroit and then onward to Canada). Finally US customs figured that there’s less to worry about if you just hold onto my bags instead of forcing me to pick them up.
Some US airports and airlines are like that for some flights (e.g. international delta flight to Detroit and then onward to Canada). Finally US customs figured that there’s less to worry about if you just hold onto my bags instead of forcing me to pick them up.
Good to see some progress there!
> Wait... so you need a USA visa just to fly a route that goes via the USA, even if you never leave the airport?
Yes. There are some details at the following article: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Avoiding_travel_through_the_U...
Yes. There are some details at the following article: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Avoiding_travel_through_the_U...
There’s no separate international departure area and domestic departure area in US airports. Therefore, it takes a lot more than a corridor.
Thanks , I did not know that. I thought that every international airport had one.
Transit areas are still subject to local laws. If I ran an online shop selling, say, firearms to Britons or Nazi flags to Germans I would not expect to pass through their airports unmolested.
If you're not going to USA/any other country and you don't have a VISA for that country But the airplane is forced to land that makes an involuntary illegal alien.
The flight was forced to land, he knew he could not visit the USA
Any names...? I'm always somewhat scared of the gambling sector (too many different laws across countries, too many entities based in dubious jurisdictions...), but I always expected a UK-based organization would be on the safe end of the spectrum. Unless for UK you mean Jersey / Guernsey / Isle of Man, which are at the sketchy end...
Pretty sure it was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers
(I mixed up the details in my hazy memory - I think my interview was in 2001, so over 20 years ago).
The Wikipedia page links to a different UK betting company / exec who was also arrested in the same manner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dicks
Edit: And same company, different executive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kaplan Company looks super-shady in hindsight, I'm glad I didn't take that job :)
(I mixed up the details in my hazy memory - I think my interview was in 2001, so over 20 years ago).
The Wikipedia page links to a different UK betting company / exec who was also arrested in the same manner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dicks
Edit: And same company, different executive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kaplan Company looks super-shady in hindsight, I'm glad I didn't take that job :)
it was explained to me that if I worked there I would never be able to travel to the US
Sounds like they were just trying to make themselves sound like super-cool rebels, because there are plenty of very legal online gambling options in the United States.
It's not available nation-wide. You have to be physically located in a state that permits online gambling, and use a service that is aligned with a legal casino. But it's a billion-dollar legal industry in the United States.
Sounds like they were just trying to make themselves sound like super-cool rebels, because there are plenty of very legal online gambling options in the United States.
It's not available nation-wide. You have to be physically located in a state that permits online gambling, and use a service that is aligned with a legal casino. But it's a billion-dollar legal industry in the United States.
It wasn't always legal and they were likely knowingly breaking US law and just warning him.
Was the gambling website accepting US customers? Otherwise on what basis is a crime committed?
Yes they were flouting US gaming laws.
Are these old laws that are no longer applicable? Because online gambling seems to be perfectly legal in the US based on the millions of sports betting (including fantasy) advertising slots I see when trying to watch a sports game.
The ban is on financial institutions sending money to and from online gambling sites
With an newer exception for intrastate gambling
And an even newer exception for “games of skill” (sports fantasy stuff simply winning challenges to prohibitions)
Many other kinds of gambling sites use a seperate company for payments or just find a friendly bank to break the law
Regardless, the US consumer has many many options and does not have to care
With an newer exception for intrastate gambling
And an even newer exception for “games of skill” (sports fantasy stuff simply winning challenges to prohibitions)
Many other kinds of gambling sites use a seperate company for payments or just find a friendly bank to break the law
Regardless, the US consumer has many many options and does not have to care
Aren't fantasy football sites classified as "game of skill" (quotation marks very much needed) websites?
That would be an interesting loophole.
Yes they were flouting US gaming laws.
Which law, exactly? Because there are plenty of legal ways to gamble online.
You just have to use an app that works with a legal casino, like MGM, Caesars, or one of the many many competitors, and be physically in a state where it's allowed.
Which law, exactly? Because there are plenty of legal ways to gamble online.
You just have to use an app that works with a legal casino, like MGM, Caesars, or one of the many many competitors, and be physically in a state where it's allowed.
There are plenty of legal ways to gamble online now.
GP suggests it's been 20 years since their interview. Looking through [0] sports betting was illegal almost everywhere until 2018. Prior to that, it was legal in much of Europe, and there were indeed a number of companies who were looking the other way on (and indeed indirectly marketing to) Americans, in violation of US laws.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States#...
GP suggests it's been 20 years since their interview. Looking through [0] sports betting was illegal almost everywhere until 2018. Prior to that, it was legal in much of Europe, and there were indeed a number of companies who were looking the other way on (and indeed indirectly marketing to) Americans, in violation of US laws.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States#...
This incident happened ~20 years ago. The state of “online gambling”, as well as loopholes/implementations, has likely changed in that time.
As well, just because there is one way where online gambling is legal, does not mean that all ways are legal. Ie, just because it’s doable, doesn’t mean that you can’t still be flouting the law.
As well, just because there is one way where online gambling is legal, does not mean that all ways are legal. Ie, just because it’s doable, doesn’t mean that you can’t still be flouting the law.
Would you link us the news report on this, please?
Idk about the person OP is talking about, but it's definitely happened:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/technology/18gamble.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/technology/18gamble.html
Yes that was the company. I wasn't interviewed by him, in fact I don't know if he would have been working there at that time. Looks like his plane wasn't diverted, but he made the mistake of stopping over on a flight from the UK to Costa Rica.
That's exactly what they are doing. They created Binance US as a separate entity due to this issue (among others).
> exactly what they are doing
Pretty sure the non-US Binance entity would like to be able to maintain dollar bank accounts, or let their executives and employees travel to America and allied territory. (Which is why they banned these users.)
Pretty sure the non-US Binance entity would like to be able to maintain dollar bank accounts, or let their executives and employees travel to America and allied territory. (Which is why they banned these users.)
I don't believe that's how it works. There are plenty of businesses that do business with both Iran and USA, without apparent issue. Xiaomi (https://www.xiaomiiran.ir/), Samsung (https://www.samsung.com/iran/) or LG (https://www.lg.com/ir) for example.
> don't believe that's how it works
It is.
> Xiaomi for example
Xiaomi was blacklisted [1]. Their CFO was arrested in Canada for fucking this up [EDIT: Nope!]. Xiaomi turned off their devices in Iran last year [2] in a bid to lift the restrictions.
> Samsung
There was a brief respite in sanctions during the nuclear deal. The pages you’re citing are from that era. Samsung withdrew from Iran [3]. Iran, for good measure, responded by banning them [4].
[1] https://www.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2021/01/xiaomi-and-cnoonc...
[2] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234058.shtml
[3] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Iran-tensions/Iran-sanctio...
[4] https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/iran-bans-goods-from-south-kor...
It is.
> Xiaomi for example
Xiaomi was blacklisted [1]. Their CFO was arrested in Canada for fucking this up [EDIT: Nope!]. Xiaomi turned off their devices in Iran last year [2] in a bid to lift the restrictions.
> Samsung
There was a brief respite in sanctions during the nuclear deal. The pages you’re citing are from that era. Samsung withdrew from Iran [3]. Iran, for good measure, responded by banning them [4].
[1] https://www.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2021/01/xiaomi-and-cnoonc...
[2] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234058.shtml
[3] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Iran-tensions/Iran-sanctio...
[4] https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/iran-bans-goods-from-south-kor...
> Their CFO was arrested in Canada for fucking this up
If I recall correctly, CFO of Huawei was arrested in Canada, not Xiaomi.
If I recall correctly, CFO of Huawei was arrested in Canada, not Xiaomi.
Yeah, and the thing that got Huawei in trouble was using a secret subsidiary to smuggle US-produced tech from US companies into Iran in violation of sanctions, not simply doing business with Iran themselves.
The way this works in general is you build silos around these kinds of things (similar things happen when companies need to work on military tech, they end up isolating things to avoid some liability transfers).
This is also beyond the general thing which is that you often have national-level subsidiaries that are only "sales partners" or the like.
I do think there's also some differences depending on the kind of goods sold. Binance existing and theoretically helping with circumvention of sanctions probably make it a beautiful target.
This is also beyond the general thing which is that you often have national-level subsidiaries that are only "sales partners" or the like.
I do think there's also some differences depending on the kind of goods sold. Binance existing and theoretically helping with circumvention of sanctions probably make it a beautiful target.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtJJC0nWs9s is a pretty good explanation of how this works.
[deleted]
You’d also want to avoid any country that the US has an extradition treaty with.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_case_of_Meng_Wan...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_case_of_Meng_Wan...
I'm not holding my breath that the kind of businesses registered on the cayman islands will close down in ethical protest. More likely they ll lobby americans to look away
“But officer, what about all the times I didn’t speed?” is not a winning strategy.
A better analogy would be: "Canadian man smoked marijuana despite US marijuana prohibitions."
Perhaps an analogy is not sufficient to capture the nuances of US sanction laws.
> That November, Binance informed traders in Iran it would no longer serve them, telling them to liquidate their accounts.
Sure seems like they thought they were subject to them.
Sure seems like they thought they were subject to them.
Not necessarily. The owner of Binance is a Canadian citizen, so it seems more likely to me that he was complying with Canadian sanctions on Iran.
[deleted]
The answer to your question is contained within the linked article.
> Lawyers say this structure means Binance is protected from direct U.S. sanctions that ban U.S. firms from doing business in Iran. This is because the traders in Iran used Binance's main exchange, which is not a U.S. company. But Binance does run a risk of so-called secondary sanctions, which aim to prevent foreign firms from doing business with sanctioned entities or helping Iranians evade the U.S. trade embargo. As well as causing reputational damage, secondary sanctions can also choke off a company's access to the U.S. financial system.
I know it's the internet and everyone just reads the headline but you could at least Ctrl- or Cmd-F before commenting.
> Lawyers say this structure means Binance is protected from direct U.S. sanctions that ban U.S. firms from doing business in Iran. This is because the traders in Iran used Binance's main exchange, which is not a U.S. company. But Binance does run a risk of so-called secondary sanctions, which aim to prevent foreign firms from doing business with sanctioned entities or helping Iranians evade the U.S. trade embargo. As well as causing reputational damage, secondary sanctions can also choke off a company's access to the U.S. financial system.
I know it's the internet and everyone just reads the headline but you could at least Ctrl- or Cmd-F before commenting.
The Cayman Islands does indeed have sanctions against Iran. https://www.cima.ky/upimages/commonfiles/SanctionsOrderslast... is the current official list.
It seems you either ignore or lack understanding of how penal law works.
Please elaborate?
Well, "Ostensibly bilateral US foreign policy actions, such as sanctions, can influence third-party compliance with US policy preferences. US sanctions simultaneously signal US preferences and demonstrate leverage, which can motivate third parties to avoid or change proscribed behavior proactively. " [1]
In other words, (US) sanctions have a lot of ways to affect even corporations from third-party countries.
[1] https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/sanctions-and-...
[edit] Perhaps a more readable text is https://www.williamsmullen.com/news/us-sanctions-laws-danger...
In other words, (US) sanctions have a lot of ways to affect even corporations from third-party countries.
[1] https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/sanctions-and-...
[edit] Perhaps a more readable text is https://www.williamsmullen.com/news/us-sanctions-laws-danger...
Why does it seem like every single crypto company inevitably engages in shady business practices and ends up collapsing in a scandal? How hard can it be to just make a shitload of money taking your skim from trades or lending at appropriate rates for an appropriate return?
> Why does it seem like every single crypto company inevitably engages in shady business practices
It doesn’t sound like Binance is engaging in widespread sanctions evasion. They dropped their Iranian users. Seven users found a workaround. They were later caught and banned. Replace Binance with HSBC and it would be unsurprising, actually Binance did better, and the comments would be conspiracy theories about regulators being lax on violators.
It doesn’t sound like Binance is engaging in widespread sanctions evasion. They dropped their Iranian users. Seven users found a workaround. They were later caught and banned. Replace Binance with HSBC and it would be unsurprising, actually Binance did better, and the comments would be conspiracy theories about regulators being lax on violators.
This is stating the obvious, the HN community generally leans against blockchain. That coupled with negative news traveling further than positive news means that HN mostly sees negative stories, and comments on both positive and negative stories tend to skew negative.
It's not simply a matter of "leaning against blockchains", that's like saying you're "leaning against bogosort". Anyone with even a basic knowledge of distributed systems can see that blockchains are a useless technology that can't actually fulfill any of the promises being made around them. They just don't work, they're a fraud. Binance is a centralized service that operates off a normal database.
> This is stating the obvious, the HN community generally leans against blockchain.
I wouldn't describe it as a lean against crypto: the unfortunate thing is that some people have a viewpoint about crypto more akin to a fiery hate. There's an intensity to this emotion for some reason. I'm not sure if it's resentment by some for missing an opportunity to make money, but some people here can't talk objectively about crypto for some reason.
For what its worth, I think it's just fine to like or dislike crypto and weigh its merits reasonably, but there's too much emotion here to have good conversations about the possibilities.
I wouldn't describe it as a lean against crypto: the unfortunate thing is that some people have a viewpoint about crypto more akin to a fiery hate. There's an intensity to this emotion for some reason. I'm not sure if it's resentment by some for missing an opportunity to make money, but some people here can't talk objectively about crypto for some reason.
For what its worth, I think it's just fine to like or dislike crypto and weigh its merits reasonably, but there's too much emotion here to have good conversations about the possibilities.
>but some people here can't talk objectively about crypto for some reason.
To the contrary: It's the crypto people who can't talk objectively about blockchains, because every single "invention" they come up with has some kind of money-making scheme attached to it. There's very little talk of blockchains without the crypto tokens attached, because a blockchain without that is just an ordinary boring old distributed database, and that isn't fun to them. Every time I try to talk about that among a group of crypto enthusiasts, I either get ignored or the conversation fizzles. Even you're doing the thing where you assume that someone must not want to talk about it because they missed out on the opportunity to make money. That whole mentality is toxic and illustrates the ponzi-like nature of the scheme; those who got in first can make a lot of money from cashing out early, everyone else will get stuck holding the bag.
To the contrary: It's the crypto people who can't talk objectively about blockchains, because every single "invention" they come up with has some kind of money-making scheme attached to it. There's very little talk of blockchains without the crypto tokens attached, because a blockchain without that is just an ordinary boring old distributed database, and that isn't fun to them. Every time I try to talk about that among a group of crypto enthusiasts, I either get ignored or the conversation fizzles. Even you're doing the thing where you assume that someone must not want to talk about it because they missed out on the opportunity to make money. That whole mentality is toxic and illustrates the ponzi-like nature of the scheme; those who got in first can make a lot of money from cashing out early, everyone else will get stuck holding the bag.
> There's very little talk of blockchains without the crypto tokens attached, because a blockchain without that is just an ordinary boring old distributed database, and that isn't fun to them.
I'm not sure how it's possible to talk about the benefits of a blockchain without talking about the tokens in some way. Incentives matter when it comes to real-world policy and human behavior. You might be asking for something impossible to create a situation where you feel that you always win the argument.
When it comes to the benefits of the tokens, I'm not referring to mere price speculation among the 101,001 random Internet coins and tokens, which I can understand being jaded by, but about how utility tokens can provide something very valuable in the process.
To give one example: in the case of Oracles and specifically Chainlink (ticker: LINK), the tokens not only power the network, but can provide a concept called crypto-economic security. This means that the cost of compromising the network should exceed the potential value gained from doing so. This whole concept is remarkably fascinating from a Computer Science/Security/Philosophy/Economics perspective and should be a game-changer when it comes to getting any kind of distributed application accurate input. There's a bunch of very interesting problems like this all throughout the crypto landscape.
I understand that it feels like price speculation drowns out much of the discussion, but if you're not finding interesting computer science problems and solutions within crypto, you might not be looking hard enough or thinking hard enough about where the world is heading.
I'm not sure how it's possible to talk about the benefits of a blockchain without talking about the tokens in some way. Incentives matter when it comes to real-world policy and human behavior. You might be asking for something impossible to create a situation where you feel that you always win the argument.
When it comes to the benefits of the tokens, I'm not referring to mere price speculation among the 101,001 random Internet coins and tokens, which I can understand being jaded by, but about how utility tokens can provide something very valuable in the process.
To give one example: in the case of Oracles and specifically Chainlink (ticker: LINK), the tokens not only power the network, but can provide a concept called crypto-economic security. This means that the cost of compromising the network should exceed the potential value gained from doing so. This whole concept is remarkably fascinating from a Computer Science/Security/Philosophy/Economics perspective and should be a game-changer when it comes to getting any kind of distributed application accurate input. There's a bunch of very interesting problems like this all throughout the crypto landscape.
I understand that it feels like price speculation drowns out much of the discussion, but if you're not finding interesting computer science problems and solutions within crypto, you might not be looking hard enough or thinking hard enough about where the world is heading.
> There's very little talk of blockchains without the crypto tokens attached
There's very little talk of financial systems without the dollars attached.
Parties needs incentive to keep operating the chains. These vary. Many are financial.
There's very little talk of financial systems without the dollars attached.
Parties needs incentive to keep operating the chains. These vary. Many are financial.
Because the exchange business is winner-take-all, roughly, due to the beneficial nature of greater liquidity. This means if any competitor is shady, a race to the bottom begins. And crypto has many competitors who are willing to be shady. If you demand a passport scan from every new registered user, another exchange will grow faster and enjoy deeper liquidity. And this is essentially how Binance won the great exchange war, by turning a blind eye and having balls of steel. US-domiciled exchanges never had a chance (the fiat gateway market is a different niche).
Because normal people will click on crypto scams. They're scared of what they don't understand - are you aware of how many billions of dollars of fines every single major bank pays routinely?
Probably not, because that's boring and doesn't make headlines you see as often.
8 of the top 10 most penalized companies in the world are banks that have nothing to do with crypto.
Probably not, because that's boring and doesn't make headlines you see as often.
8 of the top 10 most penalized companies in the world are banks that have nothing to do with crypto.
Can't fine what you don't regulate. Is anyone watching the cryptocurrency ponzi casinos?
crypto isn't unregulated by any stretch of the imagination. If you steal someones crypto that's illegal just as if you stole someones hot new kids toy that is in a relatively unregulated market.
If we're using ponzi scheme definition loosely enough to label most of the "scams" of crypto as a ponzi scheme, then literally the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme - how else would you pay investors more if you weren't making money off of new investors paying more for the exact same stock?
Are there a metric ton of scams in crypto? Sure, same for stocks - just look at penny stock pump n dumps. They're everywhere. Regulation didn't stop them or maybe even reduce them. The solution to this is to only buy into companies or crypto that have serious missions with serious investors and to stop pretending the gamblers losing money on penny stocks or small-cap crypto are victims. They aren't victims any more than the government sponsored casino/lottery users are victims. Which, maybe those people are victims, but society has accepted that as legitimate, so why would we put unbalanced expectations on crypto when society has deemed these other, quite equivalent forms of gambling as legit?
If we're using ponzi scheme definition loosely enough to label most of the "scams" of crypto as a ponzi scheme, then literally the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme - how else would you pay investors more if you weren't making money off of new investors paying more for the exact same stock?
Are there a metric ton of scams in crypto? Sure, same for stocks - just look at penny stock pump n dumps. They're everywhere. Regulation didn't stop them or maybe even reduce them. The solution to this is to only buy into companies or crypto that have serious missions with serious investors and to stop pretending the gamblers losing money on penny stocks or small-cap crypto are victims. They aren't victims any more than the government sponsored casino/lottery users are victims. Which, maybe those people are victims, but society has accepted that as legitimate, so why would we put unbalanced expectations on crypto when society has deemed these other, quite equivalent forms of gambling as legit?
>then literally the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme - how else would you pay investors more if you weren't making money off of new investors paying more for the exact same stock?
No, this is very wrong and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of stocks that seems to be going around in crypto circles. The stockholders make money from the actual, real profits of the company, either through dividends or buybacks. The entirety of crypto is like if everything were an unregulated penny stock in a company that openly announces they have no profits and they have no plan to ever make profits.
No, this is very wrong and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of stocks that seems to be going around in crypto circles. The stockholders make money from the actual, real profits of the company, either through dividends or buybacks. The entirety of crypto is like if everything were an unregulated penny stock in a company that openly announces they have no profits and they have no plan to ever make profits.
> real profits of the company, either through dividends or buybacks.
The majority of my profits in the stock market have been through asset appreciation. Just take S&P500, a very widely invested in fund - the average dividend yield is 4% while the average return is 12% - which means for that very common stock the majority of the profit came from appreciation.
This doesn't address buybacks, which is a pointless variable as buybacks are nothing more than "new investments" coming in to buy the exact same stock at a different price.
The majority of my profits in the stock market have been through asset appreciation. Just take S&P500, a very widely invested in fund - the average dividend yield is 4% while the average return is 12% - which means for that very common stock the majority of the profit came from appreciation.
This doesn't address buybacks, which is a pointless variable as buybacks are nothing more than "new investments" coming in to buy the exact same stock at a different price.
>which means for that very common stock the majority of the profit came from appreciation.
And you can see from the last few months how that's still an inherently risky attitude towards investing. I agree, buybacks are also a questionable scheme that can easily get used to scam, but at least those are (in theory) based on real profits. You're betting that the company is going to grow and create more valuable products and services in the future. In crypto, there's no profits and no value whatsoever. The average dividend yield of a crypto investor is always going to be 0%. You're not betting on anything besides the ability to dump the thing off on someone else.
And you can see from the last few months how that's still an inherently risky attitude towards investing. I agree, buybacks are also a questionable scheme that can easily get used to scam, but at least those are (in theory) based on real profits. You're betting that the company is going to grow and create more valuable products and services in the future. In crypto, there's no profits and no value whatsoever. The average dividend yield of a crypto investor is always going to be 0%. You're not betting on anything besides the ability to dump the thing off on someone else.
Many stocks don't have dividends - what about those ones? Are they Ponzi schemes? There are a ton of companies with stock values much higher than you'd expect based on their business performance - are those stocks Ponzi schemes?
No they're not. Neither is Crypto, and that's the only point that's being made here. If that seems controversial or incorrect to you, then I think you have some emotional hangup about crypto
No they're not. Neither is Crypto, and that's the only point that's being made here. If that seems controversial or incorrect to you, then I think you have some emotional hangup about crypto
So you're saying 2 of the ten most penalized companies in the world are crypto companies? That's actually remarkable considering their relatively inconsequential market
I will place this here for context
"So rampant was the practice, prosecutors said, that on some days drug traffickers deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars at HSBC Mexico accounts. To speed things along, the criminals even designed “specially shaped boxes” that fit the size of teller windows at HSBC branches, according to the documents."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M2...
This is not to defend crypto, but making claims that crypto is somehow root of evil is silly. Anything that can be convenient for value transfer will be used by crimelord eventually - and people who will take cut of their money. Be it gold or diamonds, useless green papers or bit and bytes.
"So rampant was the practice, prosecutors said, that on some days drug traffickers deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars at HSBC Mexico accounts. To speed things along, the criminals even designed “specially shaped boxes” that fit the size of teller windows at HSBC branches, according to the documents."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M2...
This is not to defend crypto, but making claims that crypto is somehow root of evil is silly. Anything that can be convenient for value transfer will be used by crimelord eventually - and people who will take cut of their money. Be it gold or diamonds, useless green papers or bit and bytes.
The risk of ignoring sanctions probably comes with a big premium. Indeed it's all fine until they get caught! The perfect fit for short term inflation of evaluation.
no harder, but slower! stake in a business is obviously slower yet. The ultimate scam is to just manufacture equity and do a pump and dump. any resemblance to an actual business is unintentional.
In other news: Xaomi stills sells to Russia despite EU sanctions.
(and so on and so forth)
(and so on and so forth)
There are no sanctions on selling goods to general consumers, most companies have just chosen not to do so.
> are no sanctions on selling goods to general consumers
While technically true, the sanctions on its banks and central bank in practice mean it’s virtually impossible to be paid by an Iranian for your goods. (No, crypto doesn’t work, unless that consumer doesn’t interact with its banking system and you can convince the U.S. you’ve verified this.)
While technically true, the sanctions on its banks and central bank in practice mean it’s virtually impossible to be paid by an Iranian for your goods. (No, crypto doesn’t work, unless that consumer doesn’t interact with its banking system and you can convince the U.S. you’ve verified this.)
But once your 'general consumer' is e.g. Gazprom, aren't you liable? And it's virtually impossible to guarantee otherwise.
Ironically, it's the Iranian people, not the Iranian government, who need crypto the most.
Isn't being able to evade sanctions one of the few tangible benefits of crypto?
You cannot evade sanctions because you still need to disclose your delivery address.
Well, if the only thing that could take down the Iranian government is its own people, then perhaps them having an alternative currency to trade with the world and ease their economical situation is actually the best possible thing for the survival of their government.
No, it's the opposite. Their government's survival depends on the complete control of their fiat currency. Their national currency is a tool to maintain control.
I don't see the problem here. For regulatory reasons, Binance is a separate entity from Binance US and American users are not able to use it. Binance would not be violating sanctions as it does not operate in the US
So did GitHub, and Signal for their users? But we are not screaming at them are we?
Are "we" screaming at Binance?
Github got a license to operate in Iran: https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-g.... I don't know about Signal though, but they have been banned by Iran anyway because it allowed open communications to the outside.
Github got a license to operate in Iran: https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-g.... I don't know about Signal though, but they have been banned by Iran anyway because it allowed open communications to the outside.
Let's be real, how much damage can sanction-related misuse of (free) version control and (free) instant messaging do? Being able to transfer money is a much more powerful enabler for sanctioned activity.
[deleted]
So if three cars are speeding, right, and an officer pulls over the first but lets the other two go - you know what's not a good defense? "But officer, they were speeding too!! Therefore speeding must be ok, right? I'll be going now."
[edit] to rephrase: US cops close like 50% of murder cases. Is your gut reaction anger that since they can't catch 100% of them, they may as well not bother catching any at all? It's not really fair to the ones who get caught if some of their peers are getting away with it yeah?
[edit] to rephrase: US cops close like 50% of murder cases. Is your gut reaction anger that since they can't catch 100% of them, they may as well not bother catching any at all? It's not really fair to the ones who get caught if some of their peers are getting away with it yeah?
The third vehicle that was pulled over was not even a car - it was a tank. Source code hubs or instant messaging are nowhere near as worthy of restricting as avenues of money transfer are.
Screaming what? "How dare Iranian people use the same tech we use!" or something like that?
It just puzzles me how bold and reckless CZ is. Who and what is behind him that he would violate US sanctions to openly? Same with Do Kwon. What is responsible for this blatant disregard for the law?
It seems to be a broader trend, even in the US. High level politicians and political operatives seem to be openly committing crimes and defying the law with no fear of repercussions.
It is true that I am an Iranian and I use Binance services in Iran
honouring the decentralised ethos of crypto, free from political control!
exactly, it's absurd that literal fruits and nuts sellers (one of Irans top 5 exports) are being penalized for political reasons the same as anything related to war efforts (like oil exports).
Sanctions are often more palatable than war to people who can more easily overlook the death and suffering caused by poverty relative to the death and suffering caused by weapons.
If you're in the US, just look at how often you see headlines about murders by gun are explicitly reported on (as if any subcategory of murder was easier to solve with policy than the many many many things in poverty that kill people daily).
Sanctions are often more palatable than war to people who can more easily overlook the death and suffering caused by poverty relative to the death and suffering caused by weapons.
If you're in the US, just look at how often you see headlines about murders by gun are explicitly reported on (as if any subcategory of murder was easier to solve with policy than the many many many things in poverty that kill people daily).
Another reason to promote Binance over Coinbase
Binance trully is independent
Coinbase will freeze your assets the day the US doesn't like your face anymore
It already happened, and Coinbase is plagued with insider trading
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31012462
Binance trully is independent
Coinbase will freeze your assets the day the US doesn't like your face anymore
It already happened, and Coinbase is plagued with insider trading
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31012462
No, binance has a separate platform (that is quite different than their original platform in terms of services/products offered) for US users that is very much not independent from US influence. e.g. binance trades XMR (monero) while binance-US does not allow that coin.
The long term prospects for companies which bust US sanctions are unlikely to be good.
> Crypto exchange Binance blocks Russian users targeted by sanctions
> "We're blocking accounts of those on the sanctions list (if they have Binance accounts) and ensuring that all sanctions are met in full,"
https://www.reuters.com/technology/crypto-exchange-binance-s...
> "We're blocking accounts of those on the sanctions list (if they have Binance accounts) and ensuring that all sanctions are met in full,"
https://www.reuters.com/technology/crypto-exchange-binance-s...
You're right; Binance has the handy "text the CEO's mother" approach if your account gets frozen. Way better.
> Out of desperation he sought information online and wound up texting the mother of Binance.US CEO Catherine Coley so he could get his funds unstuck. Now, Binance is closing his account.
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2021/05/12/so-many-locked-out-...
> Out of desperation he sought information online and wound up texting the mother of Binance.US CEO Catherine Coley so he could get his funds unstuck. Now, Binance is closing his account.
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2021/05/12/so-many-locked-out-...
They're not a US based company so why should I care? The sanctions are bullshit anyway.
Good. Sanctions against Iran are counterproductive and should have been dropped years ago.
And Cuba, and Russia and Venezuela. Sanctions punish the wrong set of people. But for some reason the US loves them.
There was a good book that got released earlier this year on the development of sanctions as an act of war. Highly recommend: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259360/the-economic-w...
boo fucking hoo. why is that a big deal? why isn't china on the banned list if there is oh so trade war with them?
is binance an american company? if not then why should it care about american sanctions?
wasn't a few days ago that coinpayments.net exited USA from payments because of ongoing political events or some other reason? so they literally put USA in the same list of sanctioned countries that USA made in the first place. lol
is binance an american company? if not then why should it care about american sanctions?
wasn't a few days ago that coinpayments.net exited USA from payments because of ongoing political events or some other reason? so they literally put USA in the same list of sanctioned countries that USA made in the first place. lol
The difference between coinpayments.net not serving the USA and Binance ignoring sanctions is that one is a political statement, which everyone should be free to make, and the other is a crime.
As a result, all of Binance's business in the USA and many of its allies might be blocked, its employees might find themselves see criminal charges or be barred from entering the USA (or many of its allies) and the company might find itself fined with its international assets pawned off by the government if it can't it won't pay the fine. If those assets include the cryptocurrency they bought on behalf of their users, that may mean that they can't actually their customers pulling back.
Furthermore, the USA might decide to include Binance in its sanction list, making their customers liable for much of the same problems.
Depending on how the government approaches this situation, this can crush Binance and a large part of the crypto industry with it.
Nobody cares about the sanction list of coinpayments.net.
As a result, all of Binance's business in the USA and many of its allies might be blocked, its employees might find themselves see criminal charges or be barred from entering the USA (or many of its allies) and the company might find itself fined with its international assets pawned off by the government if it can't it won't pay the fine. If those assets include the cryptocurrency they bought on behalf of their users, that may mean that they can't actually their customers pulling back.
Furthermore, the USA might decide to include Binance in its sanction list, making their customers liable for much of the same problems.
Depending on how the government approaches this situation, this can crush Binance and a large part of the crypto industry with it.
Nobody cares about the sanction list of coinpayments.net.
It is disturbing that many people do not see anything wrong that an elite from one country dictates to the whole world how to live (it has bigger guns/power but it is not right).
“We” don’t dictate to the whole world how to live, that would be ludicrous as you just stated. We dictate the terms for behaving if you want to do business with us and our friends…just like the rest of the world. Most people don’t care about north koreas rules because they don’t want to do business in North Korea. Most of the world wants to do business with the west because it’s huge and rich and relatively unified in how you need to behave in broad strokes (obviously tons of differences in the details of implementations across regions).
Foolish Americans keep ending up in Singapore jails because they don’t think their rules apply to them when they go there and find out the hard way that they do. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too because you disagree with the rules. If you want to do business with the west, you follow its rules or you stick to doing business with your own sphere of influence only.
Foolish Americans keep ending up in Singapore jails because they don’t think their rules apply to them when they go there and find out the hard way that they do. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too because you disagree with the rules. If you want to do business with the west, you follow its rules or you stick to doing business with your own sphere of influence only.
You're making a distinction without a difference.
US sanctions are designed to completely cut off the target country or company from the global economy - even from doing business with foreign companies that have no obvious connection to the US. The US does this through secondary sanctions. If a European company does business in Iran, it will suddenly find itself unable to do business with anyone in Europe. Its bank will terminate its account, even if the bank doesn't do business in the US, because the bank is afraid of getting cut off from its business partners. US sanctions are designed to cascade in this way.
The end result is that Iran is almost completely cut off from the world economy, because the US decided that nobody anywhere in the world should trade with Iran.
I don't think any other country in the world applies secondary sanctions this aggressively.
When the US pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, it effectively forced the EU to pull out of the deal as well. The deal was oversight of Iranian uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. But US sanctions scared off EU companies from doing business with Iran, so Iran got no real sanctions relief from the EU. It's a sign of how politically weak the EU is that it didn't respond in kind to US threats to sanction EU companies that did business with Iran. The EU effectively allowed the US to dictate EU trade policy.
But I wouldn't assume that this situation will continue indefinitely. Other countries will eventually respond to the US' overreach here.
US sanctions are designed to completely cut off the target country or company from the global economy - even from doing business with foreign companies that have no obvious connection to the US. The US does this through secondary sanctions. If a European company does business in Iran, it will suddenly find itself unable to do business with anyone in Europe. Its bank will terminate its account, even if the bank doesn't do business in the US, because the bank is afraid of getting cut off from its business partners. US sanctions are designed to cascade in this way.
The end result is that Iran is almost completely cut off from the world economy, because the US decided that nobody anywhere in the world should trade with Iran.
I don't think any other country in the world applies secondary sanctions this aggressively.
When the US pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, it effectively forced the EU to pull out of the deal as well. The deal was oversight of Iranian uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. But US sanctions scared off EU companies from doing business with Iran, so Iran got no real sanctions relief from the EU. It's a sign of how politically weak the EU is that it didn't respond in kind to US threats to sanction EU companies that did business with Iran. The EU effectively allowed the US to dictate EU trade policy.
But I wouldn't assume that this situation will continue indefinitely. Other countries will eventually respond to the US' overreach here.
>If you want to do business with the west, you follow its rules or you stick to doing business with your own sphere of influence only.
unless those same rules are applied to american businesses doing work in other countries to follow their specific rules and then all hell breaks loose.
case in point, https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/exclusive-visa-comp...
https://www.paymentscardsandmobile.com/mastercard-files-comp...
So, mastercard/visa goes back to big daddy when they dont get their share of the pie according to their way, as opposed to the law of the land so they ask the big daddy to big dick them into submission.
same with many big american tech companies who apply american laws (dmca for example) on foreign users "because the data is held with american companies/DCs") and many other such examples
unless those same rules are applied to american businesses doing work in other countries to follow their specific rules and then all hell breaks loose.
case in point, https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/exclusive-visa-comp...
https://www.paymentscardsandmobile.com/mastercard-files-comp...
So, mastercard/visa goes back to big daddy when they dont get their share of the pie according to their way, as opposed to the law of the land so they ask the big daddy to big dick them into submission.
same with many big american tech companies who apply american laws (dmca for example) on foreign users "because the data is held with american companies/DCs") and many other such examples
The underlying proposition here is "don't do $X if you also want to operate in country $Y," which I do not find a disturbing proposition at all. It's just that there are a few values of $Y for which staying out of is deeply unsatisfying for international companies--namely the US, EU, and China.
In fact, I would find the alternative more disturbing--a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone who can set themselves up to be sufficiently international.
In fact, I would find the alternative more disturbing--a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone who can set themselves up to be sufficiently international.
US sanctions are designed to act like a virus: they spread, so that eventually nobody in the world is allowed to do business with the target country, unless they want to completely cut themselves off from all economic interactions outside the target country.
A European company can't do business with Iran, because it does business with a European bank, which does business with another European bank, which does business in the US. A Chinese chip foundry can't do business with Huawei, because the foundry buys equipment from a Japanese company, which uses a piece of software written by an American company somewhere in its pipeline.
The global economy is tightly interconnected, and the US takes advantage of this fact to cut companies or even entire countries off from the global economy. As far as I'm aware, no other country uses secondary sanctions anywhere near as aggressively as the US does.
A European company can't do business with Iran, because it does business with a European bank, which does business with another European bank, which does business in the US. A Chinese chip foundry can't do business with Huawei, because the foundry buys equipment from a Japanese company, which uses a piece of software written by an American company somewhere in its pipeline.
The global economy is tightly interconnected, and the US takes advantage of this fact to cut companies or even entire countries off from the global economy. As far as I'm aware, no other country uses secondary sanctions anywhere near as aggressively as the US does.
World police USA is a very popular point of view on HN, sadly.
Describing a state of affairs is different from stating whether it is good or not. I don't believe I've seen people cheering anything on, much more identifying that Binance might be in big trouble due to all the potential consequences of their actions.
I am confident that many people here, fundamentally, understand the cruel and arbitrary nature of Iranian sanctions and would like to see them be less so. But that doesn't change the idea that, as of right now, this legal issue could be very major.
I am confident that many people here, fundamentally, understand the cruel and arbitrary nature of Iranian sanctions and would like to see them be less so. But that doesn't change the idea that, as of right now, this legal issue could be very major.
Is it right the EU forced cookie pop ups on everyone? Maybe, maybe not but it’s politics in a nutshell.
Former Ethereum developer Virgil Griffith was sentenced to 5+ years in jail in US for evading sanctions on North Korea[1][2]. US is not joking.
[1] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/12/former-ethereum...
[2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-citizen-who-conspired-assi...
[1] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/12/former-ethereum...
[2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-citizen-who-conspired-assi...
Griffith is an American citizen and he spoke at a crypto conference in Pyongyang. That’s a little more nuanced than the “US imprisoned an Ethereum developer.” You’d probably be guilty of evading sanctions if you participated commercially in any kind of industry conference in NK.
He is a US citizen, big difference.
[deleted]
Binance.US has license in US for crypto trading and at the same time their parent company binance.com is evading US sanctions. License can be revoked by SEC and DOJ can order FBI to seize Binance.US
Technically binance.com is not the parent company of binance.us - they set this all up under the framework of the so-called 'Tai Chi' document. [1] CZ is on the board of the '.us' and '.us' licenses the brand and technology from '.com'
With that in mind, the law takes a dim view of such shenanigans. I suspect that '.com's tacit acceptance of VPNs in serving US customers is probably more than enough for a judge to pierce the corporate veil.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/10/29/l...
With that in mind, the law takes a dim view of such shenanigans. I suspect that '.com's tacit acceptance of VPNs in serving US customers is probably more than enough for a judge to pierce the corporate veil.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/10/29/l...
The SEC does not license crypto exchanges, and the DOJ cannot “order” anything on its own. The odds an active crypto exchange with legitimate U.S. customers would be immediately seized is about 0%.
Sanctions and ownership are very complicated, so there is no point in pretending this is a simple case.
Sanctions and ownership are very complicated, so there is no point in pretending this is a simple case.
>The SEC does not license crypto exchanges, and the DOJ cannot “order” anything on its own.
I'm not a lawyer so you explain me if you know it. But SEC is already investigating Binance over their token[0].
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-06/us-probes...
I'm not a lawyer so you explain me if you know it. But SEC is already investigating Binance over their token[0].
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-06/us-probes...
[deleted]
This comment is so US-myopic. The US is not the only country with sanctions against Iran.
The article itself focuses exclusively on the U.S. sanctions and legal issues.
> boo fucking hoo. why is that a big deal? why isn't china on the banned list if there is oh so trade war with them?
Completely irrelevant whataboutism.
> is binance an american company? if not then why should it care about american sanctions?
I suspect you haven't an understanding of the long arm of Uncle Sam.
That's also not accurate, after all many countries in which they do business have sanctions against Iran. The EU for instance. The UN. [1,2]
But beyond that, I think you'll find that US' view of its jurisdiction includes any businesses that do business with Americans. Even if they pretend not to do business with Americans with a '.us' entity set up under the 'Tai Chi' [3] framework to attempt to evade regulators. Especially if they have a long history of looking the other way over VPNs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran#UN_sanc...
[2] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/iran/
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/10/29/l...
Completely irrelevant whataboutism.
> is binance an american company? if not then why should it care about american sanctions?
I suspect you haven't an understanding of the long arm of Uncle Sam.
That's also not accurate, after all many countries in which they do business have sanctions against Iran. The EU for instance. The UN. [1,2]
But beyond that, I think you'll find that US' view of its jurisdiction includes any businesses that do business with Americans. Even if they pretend not to do business with Americans with a '.us' entity set up under the 'Tai Chi' [3] framework to attempt to evade regulators. Especially if they have a long history of looking the other way over VPNs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran#UN_sanc...
[2] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/iran/
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/10/29/l...
> That's also not accurate, after all many countries in which they do business have sanctions against Iran. The EU for instance. The UN. [2]
These sanctions tend to be narrow, targeted and in general do not prohibit trade relationships.
It's an entirely different ball game than the immoral US secondary sanction regime.
These sanctions tend to be narrow, targeted and in general do not prohibit trade relationships.
It's an entirely different ball game than the immoral US secondary sanction regime.
Opinions on the morality of the US system are not really relevant to the outcome here. I don't particularly agree with sanctioning Iran either, but I'm sure not about to be on the wrong side of Uncle Sam over it and expect to get away scot-free.
Ignoring the law because you don’t like it is not a sensible strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolut...
6 December: Resolution 43/54: Reaffirmation of resolution 38/180 condemning Israel and calling all nations to cut ties with it.
i guess being an american "ally" is much better than a UN resolution calling for a worldwide boycott of israel. How can they??? ALLIES?
guess USA likes to selectively apply international law, only when it suits their purposes
6 December: Resolution 43/54: Reaffirmation of resolution 38/180 condemning Israel and calling all nations to cut ties with it.
i guess being an american "ally" is much better than a UN resolution calling for a worldwide boycott of israel. How can they??? ALLIES?
guess USA likes to selectively apply international law, only when it suits their purposes
America has a tendency to either ignore, or state outright that they do not recognize international law or organizations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... where the US openly states that it is not part of the International Criminal Court and refuses to acknowledge its jurisdiction.
American sanctions are not international law, but rather American Laws, and companies outside the US are free to ignore US laws as long as they are willing to not interact with the US. Binance could easily serve Iran iff, they do not do any business in the US, or with US companies or persons, and none of their employees or officers or probably family members ever travel to the US or a country willing to extradite to the US. But companies cry foul about that because they want their cake of making money in the US and eat it too of making money from Iran. Does Iran not have retaliatory sanctions against the US?
Oh, and lot's of other countries have sanctioned Iran too, so, also don't touch those countries.
American sanctions are not international law, but rather American Laws, and companies outside the US are free to ignore US laws as long as they are willing to not interact with the US. Binance could easily serve Iran iff, they do not do any business in the US, or with US companies or persons, and none of their employees or officers or probably family members ever travel to the US or a country willing to extradite to the US. But companies cry foul about that because they want their cake of making money in the US and eat it too of making money from Iran. Does Iran not have retaliatory sanctions against the US?
Oh, and lot's of other countries have sanctioned Iran too, so, also don't touch those countries.
This is just called statecraft.
I thought that was American MO? Ignore the laws of any countries you don't like while imposing your own?
Content: "Binance banned Iranian users after sanctions, 7 got missed/found a workaround, they were banned later anyways"