EU Parliament commitee approves cash cap and ban on anonymous crypto payments(patrick-breyer.de)
patrick-breyer.de
EU Parliament commitee approves cash cap and ban on anonymous crypto payments
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-cash-cap-and-ban-on-anonymous-crypto-payments-results-in-financial-paternalism/
82 comments
You know they're full of shit when CTRL+F "terror" on the full text of that regulation gets 195 hits.
> More than 90% of responding citizens spoke out against such a step.
It was a web survey with fairly low numbers: 30,317 in total, which is very little for all of the EU.[1]
And of course the results of this will be biased towards people who object to this. If there had been a meaningful number of respondents then it might be a signal of sorts, but as it stands with 28,784 people protesting this is completely meaningless. You can find those numbers on almost any proposal.
Never mind the responses are almost exclusively from France, Germany, and Austria. All of Ireland is represented by just 14 people. Netherlands 26. Etc.
> According to an ECB survey up to 10% of citizens use cash even for amounts greater than 10.000 € (e.g. buying cars)
I can't find this survey. I can find some ECB surveys about cash, but nothing that confirms this. The phrasing "up to" makes me suspicious, especially since the previous claim is already a misrepresentation.
Also note that buying a car is rarely anonymous as it is, because registration and/or insurance is usually mandatory. I don't think there are EU members where this is not the case?
[1]: https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2017-07/st...
It was a web survey with fairly low numbers: 30,317 in total, which is very little for all of the EU.[1]
And of course the results of this will be biased towards people who object to this. If there had been a meaningful number of respondents then it might be a signal of sorts, but as it stands with 28,784 people protesting this is completely meaningless. You can find those numbers on almost any proposal.
Never mind the responses are almost exclusively from France, Germany, and Austria. All of Ireland is represented by just 14 people. Netherlands 26. Etc.
> According to an ECB survey up to 10% of citizens use cash even for amounts greater than 10.000 € (e.g. buying cars)
I can't find this survey. I can find some ECB surveys about cash, but nothing that confirms this. The phrasing "up to" makes me suspicious, especially since the previous claim is already a misrepresentation.
Also note that buying a car is rarely anonymous as it is, because registration and/or insurance is usually mandatory. I don't think there are EU members where this is not the case?
[1]: https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2017-07/st...
I'm Irish, usually pretty clued in on things. But had no idea this was actually being put through. (I suspected it would be eventually) I would definitely be objecting.
Sure. And maybe a majority of EU citizens would object. But that survey doesn't prove anything of the sort, and therefore is not worth quoting, and it's a bad look that it is, because the way the article phrased it now is misleading. Let's be real: 28,784 people objecting to a law in an online survey is a failed protest. A spectacular failure. Such a failure that I would not have cited it at all. Calling this "a great public outcry" is such a misrepresentation that I find it hard to not just call it a brazen lie.
And it also means I can't really trust this person, because if he's misrepresenting this, then what else is he misrepresenting? ---
For what it's worth, personally I don't really object to reasonably limits but feel this should be up to the member states and not the EU, so I would object to this EU law. Ireland already has the requirement for a check for cash payments over €10k for example. That seems fine to me.
When it comes to laws details matter, as the recent Irish referenda showed. Not many people really objected to the general idea of the thing, but they did against the specifics. The specifics for what makes sense can differ per member state, and opinions differ quite a lot by member state as well. What makes sense in Germany may not make sense in Bulgaria.
And it also means I can't really trust this person, because if he's misrepresenting this, then what else is he misrepresenting? ---
For what it's worth, personally I don't really object to reasonably limits but feel this should be up to the member states and not the EU, so I would object to this EU law. Ireland already has the requirement for a check for cash payments over €10k for example. That seems fine to me.
When it comes to laws details matter, as the recent Irish referenda showed. Not many people really objected to the general idea of the thing, but they did against the specifics. The specifics for what makes sense can differ per member state, and opinions differ quite a lot by member state as well. What makes sense in Germany may not make sense in Bulgaria.
National threshold can be lower. France has banned cash payments over 1000 EUR.
Like frogs boiling in water.
The cash limit now is like 5k euros. It sucks but the new cap is outrageous.
I'm a big fan of anonymous payments as a component of a resilient democracy, but to me, there's an amount cap where the tradeoff starts getting skewed from that to facilitating money laundering, tax evasion and other bad things.
I can imagine dozens of good use cases for <€5000 anonymous payments, but not many above that.
If there's real demand for it, I think we should come up with a technical solution that e.g. provides one-sided privacy like GNU Taler (taxation usually happens at the payee level, so the payer can usually remain anonymous; the same applies to things like terror financing etc).
I can imagine dozens of good use cases for <€5000 anonymous payments, but not many above that.
If there's real demand for it, I think we should come up with a technical solution that e.g. provides one-sided privacy like GNU Taler (taxation usually happens at the payee level, so the payer can usually remain anonymous; the same applies to things like terror financing etc).
It’s important to remember that money-laundering is a secondary crime. There is always an underlying crime, and money laundering is just its effect. Thus, anti-money laundering do not solve or prevent any crime (crime has already happened). With over reaching AML regime there is a danger that it is used against political opposition, like it is already happening.
AML is a very convinient tool for anyone who wants to abuse power.
India: India throws another opposition leader in jail as elections loom https://www.economist.com/asia/2024/03/22/india-throws-anoth... from The Economist
Hungary: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53093117
Plus Russia
Plus various African countries
Etc.
AML is a very convinient tool for anyone who wants to abuse power.
India: India throws another opposition leader in jail as elections loom https://www.economist.com/asia/2024/03/22/india-throws-anoth... from The Economist
Hungary: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53093117
Plus Russia
Plus various African countries
Etc.
> Thus, anti-money laundering do not solve or prevent any crime (crime has already happened).
It prevents crimes as long as the people who would be committing them know it’s hard to cash out. As a simple example, phone theft was much worse in the United States a decade or so back because a teenager could grab a phone, wipe it, and get hundreds of USD. It plummeted once the stolen IMEI database went into effect because nobody buys a phone which can’t get service. It didn’t have to go to zero to be worth doing – just getting the easy money guys out often makes a big difference.
It prevents crimes as long as the people who would be committing them know it’s hard to cash out. As a simple example, phone theft was much worse in the United States a decade or so back because a teenager could grab a phone, wipe it, and get hundreds of USD. It plummeted once the stolen IMEI database went into effect because nobody buys a phone which can’t get service. It didn’t have to go to zero to be worth doing – just getting the easy money guys out often makes a big difference.
The question is: if the new regulations will make it harder to cash out, or is it very hard to cash out already. If it is the latter, the new regulations do not contribute to the solving new crimes. In this case, the new regulations are not needed and the lobbying behind them is not about preventing crime, but about the interest of industry stakeholders. Such stakeholders include software companies that sell anti-money laundering solutions.
> Thus, anti-money laundering do not solve or prevent any crime (crime has already happened).
Sure, but "follow the money" can be an incredibly powerful tool for criminal investigations.
> With over reaching AML regime there is a danger that it is used against political opposition, like it is already happening.
That's a concern I definitely share. I think there needs to be a push for a privacy-preserving middle ground between the complete two-sided anonymity of cash and some cryptocurrencies on one side, and the data privacy nightmare that's traditional electronic payment methods.
Sure, but "follow the money" can be an incredibly powerful tool for criminal investigations.
> With over reaching AML regime there is a danger that it is used against political opposition, like it is already happening.
That's a concern I definitely share. I think there needs to be a push for a privacy-preserving middle ground between the complete two-sided anonymity of cash and some cryptocurrencies on one side, and the data privacy nightmare that's traditional electronic payment methods.
The thing is, limits like this are never, ever raised.
40 years ago Canada got rid of the $1000 and $500 note. In all that time, the idea of bringing the $500 back has never been floated.
Yet soon, $100 will be worth $20 back then. I already find myself using $100s all the time, I used to fill my car for $25 in the 80s, now it's $80. Groceries are the same, I used to buy $30 per week, now it's over $100.
As time progresses, you'll have to carry a briefcase to buy gas or groceries.
So 5000 may seem like a good limit, but in 20 years you may not be able to buy groceries, or get gas, or buy a computer with cash or record keeping.
I always pay cash for my hardware. I don't need the store to link my serial number to my credit card number. I'm already using MAC addresses off of old ISA NIC cards.
40 years ago Canada got rid of the $1000 and $500 note. In all that time, the idea of bringing the $500 back has never been floated.
Yet soon, $100 will be worth $20 back then. I already find myself using $100s all the time, I used to fill my car for $25 in the 80s, now it's $80. Groceries are the same, I used to buy $30 per week, now it's over $100.
As time progresses, you'll have to carry a briefcase to buy gas or groceries.
So 5000 may seem like a good limit, but in 20 years you may not be able to buy groceries, or get gas, or buy a computer with cash or record keeping.
I always pay cash for my hardware. I don't need the store to link my serial number to my credit card number. I'm already using MAC addresses off of old ISA NIC cards.
I carried wads of cash when I lived in Indonesia, because card acceptance is so unreliable it's easier to just pay by cash. Bills of 100,000 (~€6.50) are the largest, and while prices are lower than in Europe or Canada, they're not necessarily that much lower for a lot of things. It's a bit awkward, but doable I guess shrug.
I paid 6 million in cash for my scooter, and you can imagine what that looked like. Upshot is I felt very rich and like one of those fellas in those rap videos throwing around money.
I paid 6 million in cash for my scooter, and you can imagine what that looked like. Upshot is I felt very rich and like one of those fellas in those rap videos throwing around money.
Hah! I know this feeling, but only because I'm a bit of an asshat.
I friend lent me $2000 back in the day, so I went to the bank, and got 400 $5 bills. It actually felt empowering, and my friend even had a great time of it.
Yet it wasn't $6M, which just feels like a big number... no matter what the currency.
I friend lent me $2000 back in the day, so I went to the bank, and got 400 $5 bills. It actually felt empowering, and my friend even had a great time of it.
Yet it wasn't $6M, which just feels like a big number... no matter what the currency.
The US began withdrawing their $500/1000/5000/10000 notes in the 1960s as well; the last issues were nominally before WWII.
There was some discussion around the turn of the century that the introduction of the 200/500 Euro notes might impact the USD's status as the dominant "notes in a coffee can buried in the yard" store of wealth for the developing world, but it never went anywhere.
It is interesting that this seems to be a remarkable amount of faith in inflation being a managed slow-walk-- if you had Weimar-style inflation, any fixed limit would be blown through in weeks. Although, perhaps that's a secondary objective there-- if an economy with high paper-trail requirements starts to overheat, pinching the monitoring system might provide additional leverage.
There was some discussion around the turn of the century that the introduction of the 200/500 Euro notes might impact the USD's status as the dominant "notes in a coffee can buried in the yard" store of wealth for the developing world, but it never went anywhere.
It is interesting that this seems to be a remarkable amount of faith in inflation being a managed slow-walk-- if you had Weimar-style inflation, any fixed limit would be blown through in weeks. Although, perhaps that's a secondary objective there-- if an economy with high paper-trail requirements starts to overheat, pinching the monitoring system might provide additional leverage.
I am generally in favor of limits for anonymous payments, but you raise an excellent point.
What logically follows is that the it should be codified that the limit should be raised periodically (yearly?) based on the inflation rate.
What logically follows is that the it should be codified that the limit should be raised periodically (yearly?) based on the inflation rate.
That's one problem, but the other is that big parts of our lives are moving online/digital, even in the physical world.
Getting gas at night in rural parts of the US without a credit or debit card is already practically impossible – there's nobody there to take your cash. Card-only restaurants, vending machines, shops etc. are already a reality in some countries as well.
I think we urgently need a semi-anonymous, cash-like alternative for low-value online and offline payments, because I feel like once we've lost the anonymity of cash completely, there's no way it'll be reintroduced in a digital equivalent.
The discussion around this seems largely poisoned though, with a lot of vocal crypto/libertarian takes on one side (often tangling the payment privacy aspect with monetary policy), and "nothing to hide, log everything, credit cards and ACH are perfection" on the other.
Getting gas at night in rural parts of the US without a credit or debit card is already practically impossible – there's nobody there to take your cash. Card-only restaurants, vending machines, shops etc. are already a reality in some countries as well.
I think we urgently need a semi-anonymous, cash-like alternative for low-value online and offline payments, because I feel like once we've lost the anonymity of cash completely, there's no way it'll be reintroduced in a digital equivalent.
The discussion around this seems largely poisoned though, with a lot of vocal crypto/libertarian takes on one side (often tangling the payment privacy aspect with monetary policy), and "nothing to hide, log everything, credit cards and ACH are perfection" on the other.
Note that this is a committee approval, not a final parliament approval
And yes the limit on 3k/10k seems low
And yes the limit on 3k/10k seems low
Any amount that doesn't change with annual inflation is too low. Without factoring that in it's an expiry date without saying it out loud.
No problem, we'll pay in Parmigiano Reggiano cheese wheels. Bastards.
Sorry for the long post, but I've got to vent about something...
Near my office, it's almost impossible to pay with a card for food within a 1km radius. It's either cash or nothing, even though there's no shortage of places to eat.
And when you do find a shop that accepts cards, they often want you to spend at least 5 to 10 euros. So, forget about using your card for just a waffle. Speaking of, I found out my favorite waffle spot operates on such tight margins (buy for .3, sell for .35 euros) that card fees would actually cause them to lose money.
Don't get me started on the times I've tried to pay by card and it just doesn't work, forcing me to always have cash on me if I don't want to skip lunch. Banks aren't much help either, with their daily withdrawal limits that make it a chore to access your own money in full. Here's what I think could help:
1. Make it mandatory for all transactions to accept card payments, no matter how small. If a card gets declined for no good reason, that meal or service should be free.
2. Banks should give 24/7 access to our money. Fail to provide that, and they should owe us big time, like 1 million euros big.
3. If authorities mistakenly place a distress or freeze on your assets without just cause, the compensation should be tenfold the standard rate—meaning 10 million euros. This ensures accountability and fairness in financial dealings.
3a. Any compensation due for mistakes, such as wrongful distress on assets, should be personally paid by the government employee responsible for the error, not sourced from government funds. This would promote diligence and personal accountability in official actions.
Maybe it sounds extreme, but something's got to give for a cashless society to work here.
Don't get me started on the times I've tried to pay by card and it just doesn't work, forcing me to always have cash on me if I don't want to skip lunch. Banks aren't much help either, with their daily withdrawal limits that make it a chore to access your own money in full. Here's what I think could help:
1. Make it mandatory for all transactions to accept card payments, no matter how small. If a card gets declined for no good reason, that meal or service should be free.
2. Banks should give 24/7 access to our money. Fail to provide that, and they should owe us big time, like 1 million euros big.
3. If authorities mistakenly place a distress or freeze on your assets without just cause, the compensation should be tenfold the standard rate—meaning 10 million euros. This ensures accountability and fairness in financial dealings.
3a. Any compensation due for mistakes, such as wrongful distress on assets, should be personally paid by the government employee responsible for the error, not sourced from government funds. This would promote diligence and personal accountability in official actions.
Maybe it sounds extreme, but something's got to give for a cashless society to work here.
> If authorities mistakenly place a distress or freeze
First I wanted to write that good luck suing you government, and even if you win, getting your money in several years… Maybe…
> personally paid by the government employee responsible
… but then I continued to read, and I’m sorry but if you think any government would be willing to do that, you might be mistaken or even delusional.
The sad truth is that as a layperson you can’t do much about it, if anything at all. And no government will be willing to let you hold it accountable in any way for even the smallest amount of money, let alone millions like you suggest.
First I wanted to write that good luck suing you government, and even if you win, getting your money in several years… Maybe…
> personally paid by the government employee responsible
… but then I continued to read, and I’m sorry but if you think any government would be willing to do that, you might be mistaken or even delusional.
The sad truth is that as a layperson you can’t do much about it, if anything at all. And no government will be willing to let you hold it accountable in any way for even the smallest amount of money, let alone millions like you suggest.
I suggest this as a form of theoretical equilibrium, i know it won't happen.
The question is about fairness. You work for these money, did not steal them. If you steal, the court can decide to take them from you, but mistakes happen and you know that you have some X amount of money, go to the grocery store and boom-you have nothing. No court, no police, no judge. And then you must go to court and write tens of pages of proofs to get your own money, not my or their, YOUR OWN! I am starting to become a bit angry exactly because this happened to me. They saw the mistake, and unlocked the money in about 2 business days, but the block was put friday evening, so 2 business days was 5 real days for me.
I know the benefits of cards and things, i like how I don't have to count coins but there must be some balance.
Currently it's like the DMCA thing. I can right now just send youtube few DMCAs for few random videos I choose. If they even come to me and tell me that I am lying, i can tell - "sry, my bad, won't happen again for the next few weeks" and i'm fine. The difference is that this can have more real and immediate consequences. What if you're in another city and have no where to sleep except hotel, and suddenly you have no money for hotel. You have no money to get a ticket to go home. And no food? You may carry some cash of course - 20-30 euro? Most of the hotels are 50-60 euro (unless its a real hole). And then what?
This is not some joke torrent site where we play pirates vs Big Corps. This is real life. Last such example was in Canada where many protesters found out that their cards were frozen. I can't remember the exact time or what they protested against but i'm sure you also heard of that.
The question is about fairness. You work for these money, did not steal them. If you steal, the court can decide to take them from you, but mistakes happen and you know that you have some X amount of money, go to the grocery store and boom-you have nothing. No court, no police, no judge. And then you must go to court and write tens of pages of proofs to get your own money, not my or their, YOUR OWN! I am starting to become a bit angry exactly because this happened to me. They saw the mistake, and unlocked the money in about 2 business days, but the block was put friday evening, so 2 business days was 5 real days for me.
I know the benefits of cards and things, i like how I don't have to count coins but there must be some balance.
Currently it's like the DMCA thing. I can right now just send youtube few DMCAs for few random videos I choose. If they even come to me and tell me that I am lying, i can tell - "sry, my bad, won't happen again for the next few weeks" and i'm fine. The difference is that this can have more real and immediate consequences. What if you're in another city and have no where to sleep except hotel, and suddenly you have no money for hotel. You have no money to get a ticket to go home. And no food? You may carry some cash of course - 20-30 euro? Most of the hotels are 50-60 euro (unless its a real hole). And then what?
This is not some joke torrent site where we play pirates vs Big Corps. This is real life. Last such example was in Canada where many protesters found out that their cards were frozen. I can't remember the exact time or what they protested against but i'm sure you also heard of that.
I sympathize with your point of view and kinda share it, and enjoy cash myself very much, but I'm afraid "fairness" doesn't really exist, therefore it's a bit pointless to call for it. The rules of "the game" are such and such, either you play by rules, or try to get more money to switch to more comfortable rules.
What I don't understand though is why are "they" doing it, tightening things up for laypeople. It's not like most people in Europe are rampant criminals and money launderers, or even rich. Real criminals use different multiple schemes too. Why does government there want more control, exactly? What they don't see yet, but want to see that bad? I don't get what's the point, but maybe I'm just not very bright.
What I don't understand though is why are "they" doing it, tightening things up for laypeople. It's not like most people in Europe are rampant criminals and money launderers, or even rich. Real criminals use different multiple schemes too. Why does government there want more control, exactly? What they don't see yet, but want to see that bad? I don't get what's the point, but maybe I'm just not very bright.
Anyone who didn't see this coming has fundamental misconceptions about how the world works. Frankly I'm surprised it took so long.
Anything anti mass-surveillance/government-control is now coded as "right wing". Even opposition to COVID lockdowns was cast as right wing and thus not appropriate to express. Unbelievable violations of human rights are now being normalized with barely resistance.
I regularly move $10k+ between different DeFi applications and my own personal wallets. Pretty crazy stuff here
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
camdenlock(6)
F*ck them! Here we go again, letting bureaucrats limit our freedom and track us everywhere. Anyone that doesn't see how one limit leads to another should open his eyes.
study bitcoin
I'm curious about all the outraged comments - when was the last time you used cash and when was the last time the amount was above the limit? Or the butt hurt outrage is just on principle and the sheeply is already not giving a duck? ;-)
A few months ago I bought a car with cash I pulled out of my bank. It was well above that limit. Nothing nefarious, just a car.
These laws aren't about limiting crime, or even about surveillance or tax compliance really. They're about ensuring that you cannot do business with peers and can only do it with corporations.
These laws aren't about limiting crime, or even about surveillance or tax compliance really. They're about ensuring that you cannot do business with peers and can only do it with corporations.
And exactly how is this limiting your ability to do business with peers more than pulling cash out of the bank did?
Log in to internet banking, ask the seller for their account, enter the number, press send.
It's even less effort than pulling cash, and only vaguely more easily traceable.
Log in to internet banking, ask the seller for their account, enter the number, press send.
It's even less effort than pulling cash, and only vaguely more easily traceable.
[deleted]
Because every single transaction, even ones with peers, involves a multinational intermediary payment processor. Besides cryptocurrencies, all digital payments, every single one of them, is doing business with a corporation.
It is doing business with a corporation, but it's not not doing business with peers at all.
Also, if you have any common sense you have to do business with the corp anyway to do your withdrawal.
I can see how it would be annoying when a lumberjack in British Columbia wants to sell his truck for a mattress full of dollars, but in the real world the money was already in a bank, so not doing business with that bank wasn't an option anyway.
Also, if you have any common sense you have to do business with the corp anyway to do your withdrawal.
I can see how it would be annoying when a lumberjack in British Columbia wants to sell his truck for a mattress full of dollars, but in the real world the money was already in a bank, so not doing business with that bank wasn't an option anyway.
so... you left a trace at bank, then signed a contract that was filed to authorities an the seller deposit the cash. Awesome way to fly under the radar, clappity clap to your wise conduct!
[deleted]
Democracy: our most sacred institution. Anyone suggesting otherwise is {one element from the set of subconsciously planted memes}.
Will humans ever learn? All evidence I've seen is that they are determined to not.
Will humans ever learn? All evidence I've seen is that they are determined to not.
> Anonymous cash payments over €3,000 will be banned in commercial transactions. Cash payments over €10,000 will even be completely banned in business transactions. And anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies to wallets operated by providers (hosted wallets) will be prohibited even for minimum amounts without a threshold.
For the regular person, there is no issue here. Cash is still fine, anonymous payments are possible.
Anonymous online / digital payments seems to exclusively facilitate crime, but doesn’t seem to be relevant to regular ‘normal’ people.
I think banning anonymous crypto payments is therefore a good thing.
The vast majority of people shopping online do so with their identity known and that’s totally OK (and required when buying physical stuff)
A ton of people will probably want to point out at this point that banks and merchants sell their customer data and their shopping behavior, which to me is absolute bonkers and immoral. However that’s a different issue, one that is only fixed with legislation, which makes it a political topic.
Anonymous crypto payments may also help specific dissidents in certain countries but that upside doesn’t justify the enormous downside.
For the regular person, there is no issue here. Cash is still fine, anonymous payments are possible.
Anonymous online / digital payments seems to exclusively facilitate crime, but doesn’t seem to be relevant to regular ‘normal’ people.
I think banning anonymous crypto payments is therefore a good thing.
The vast majority of people shopping online do so with their identity known and that’s totally OK (and required when buying physical stuff)
A ton of people will probably want to point out at this point that banks and merchants sell their customer data and their shopping behavior, which to me is absolute bonkers and immoral. However that’s a different issue, one that is only fixed with legislation, which makes it a political topic.
Anonymous crypto payments may also help specific dissidents in certain countries but that upside doesn’t justify the enormous downside.
> Anonymous online / digital payments seems to exclusively facilitate crime, but doesn’t seem to be relevant to regular ‘normal’ people.
How so and is there anything to back that up or is that just a gut feeling?
I pay for my VPN subscription online, anonymously using crypto. Am I facilitating crime?
How so and is there anything to back that up or is that just a gut feeling?
I pay for my VPN subscription online, anonymously using crypto. Am I facilitating crime?
> I pay for my VPN subscription online, anonymously using crypto. Am I facilitating crime?
No, and you'll continue to be able to do so under the new regulation unless I'm missing something.
No, and you'll continue to be able to do so under the new regulation unless I'm missing something.
Doesn't it say it right there in the first paragraph?
> And anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies to wallets operated by providers (hosted wallets) will be prohibited even for minimum amounts without a threshold.
Doesn't this mean that literally all anonymous crypto transactions would be banned?
> And anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies to wallets operated by providers (hosted wallets) will be prohibited even for minimum amounts without a threshold.
Doesn't this mean that literally all anonymous crypto transactions would be banned?
It does, and the real surprise is only that it took so long.
The strictness of AML/KYC is half the reason why it's easier to use crypto than banking. They're removing the glitch.
The strictness of AML/KYC is half the reason why it's easier to use crypto than banking. They're removing the glitch.
What if payment processors don't like what you want to sell, even when it is legal?
If a handful of payment processors can decide who can get money or not, it sounds like you need laws to force them to be neutral. Imagine if you couldn't put a truck on a road because the road is owned by someone that doesn't like your business!
Tough luck. Doesn’t justify a huge avenue of money laundering of whatever is possible
To be honest, I don't think that attitude is good enough. There are technical ways to prevent money laundering and tax evasion at the same time as keeping anonymous payments possible.
Sure, it's more complicated than just outright banning any type of anonymous payment, but I think not even trying would amount to a huge loss of resiliency for any democracy.
We also don't blanket ban secure private communications (although not for a lack of trying) for the same reason.
Sure, it's more complicated than just outright banning any type of anonymous payment, but I think not even trying would amount to a huge loss of resiliency for any democracy.
We also don't blanket ban secure private communications (although not for a lack of trying) for the same reason.
I doubt you would have said the same if it affected you.
Yeah, it actually does. Societies cannot be left to the whims of privately owned payment processors that depend on the 'public sentiment' and not the actual laws to make their policies to protect their stock value.
If every government guaranteed an online payment system that 100% worked for all legal purposes, you'd have point. There's no such thing. The entire digital payment system is left to private feudal lords to control as they please.
If every government guaranteed an online payment system that 100% worked for all legal purposes, you'd have point. There's no such thing. The entire digital payment system is left to private feudal lords to control as they please.
One issue I know that drives many NSFW artists to crypto payments is that things like paypal won't service them.
Yeah, that type of thing is a problem. I feel that anyone operating a legal business should be able to receive payments. I don't know what the best way to achieve that would be: make it illegal for payment processors to refuse customers registered with the chamber of commerce? Set up a community bank to handle this? Something else? Idk.
That said, one of my gripes with a lot of this cryptostuff is that people want it to both be recognized as real money, but also not be beholden to any regulation they don't like. Can't have both.
That said, one of my gripes with a lot of this cryptostuff is that people want it to both be recognized as real money, but also not be beholden to any regulation they don't like. Can't have both.
Won't really be a problem, crypto payment providers are dime a dozen, and they just need to keep records.
Or you could ID and pay directly.
Or you could ID and pay directly.
Sure that’s a problem for them, but rather niche and doesn’t seem to justify this huge avenue for “crime”
The number one thing criminals are known for is following the law, so they will absolutely be certain never to accidentally do a cash payment over the limit.
The consequences of KYC are way worse than that. You have to interact with someone in power when you make a payment, thats the bad part. Cause that someone now have a good occasion to hurt you (racism, discrimination, political opposition, wars, etc).
Im speaking from experience here. Moreover the rich and powerful makes payments the way they want lets not fool ourselves.
Now granted they catch some dirty shit with KYC but we'd like to see some report on the extent of that at least.