valkenburgh
0 フォロー
2 フォロワー
0 いいね
0 共有
投稿
Excited for many things at @btcpolicyorg summit in DC tomorrow. I'll be speaking with @m_mosier_ at 4pm on Samourai wallet, DOJ, Treasury, and other topics. But I'm super excited for this 🧑🍳💋 section of the agenda with @TheBlueMatt and @RepRitchie
Excited for many things at @btcpolicyorg summit in DC tomorrow. I'll be speaking with @m_mosier_ at 4pm on Samourai wallet, DOJ, Treasury, and other topics. But I'm super excited for this 🧑🍳💋 section of the agenda with @TheBlueMatt and @RepRitchie
When DeFi folks talk about how wrong it would be to apply BSA surveillance obligations to their activities there's too much talk about impossibility or the rights of the developer and not enough about the rights of users. 1/
「それを証券と呼ばなければ、証券ではない」というサイクルがいくつあるのでしょうか？1960年代にSECがビーバーブリーダーを追い詰めた理由が分かり始めています。 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/387/466/262007/
この見出しを暗号政策の専門家として読むことは感情的な旅でした https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-visa-mastercard-dollars-sanctions-militias-0ecea0b9
For those keeping score at home on the unintended consequences of KYC... today the hacked Instagram account of a multi-platinum rapper posted the passport and face of a major crypto founder because he refused to pay the hackers 40 Bitcoin.
Things are only going to get weirder and worse.
Things are only going to get weirder and worse.
So the SDNY is still going forward with 1 of the original 2 charges of unlicensed money transmission in Roman's case. Let me help you understand how bizarre that is legally. A rant.
The Federal criminal law defines unlicensed money transmission at 18 USC 1960(b)(1). That sub-part has three alternative prongs, (A)(B)(C).
(A) says you are unlicensed because you fit a state law definition of money transmission and then transmitted in a state where you didn't have a license. SDNY never charged Roman with that.
(B) says you are unlicensed because you fit the definition of MSB at section 5330 in the BSA and therefore needed to register with FinCEN but didn't. SDNY charged that but that charge has now been abandoned (rightfully because FinCEN clearly said non-custodial entities are not MSBs per 5330 and don't need to register).
(C), the remaining charge [1960(b)(1)(C)] says you are unlicensed because you knowingly transported criminal funds.
So the question is, if you are only "unlicensed" under (C) and not under (A) state law, or (B) federal BSA law, then who were you supposed to register or license with?
FinCEN? no, that's who you register with to avoid (b)(1)(B). State money transmission regulators? no, the government never charged (b)(1)(A) which is failure to license in a state where a license is required.
So if I can be "unlicensed" because of conduct described in (b)(1)(C) but no state or federal agency licenses that conduct then how in god's green earth am I unlicensed? Who does the SDNY think Roman was supposed to license with? They've admitted that it wouldn't be FinCEN by dropping the (b)(1)(B) charge. They never argued it was the states with a (b)(1)(A) charge? So who is it?
If someone ends up going to jail because they failed to register when doing something that nobody required registration to do, then I'm going to lose my mind.
The Federal criminal law defines unlicensed money transmission at 18 USC 1960(b)(1). That sub-part has three alternative prongs, (A)(B)(C).
(A) says you are unlicensed because you fit a state law definition of money transmission and then transmitted in a state where you didn't have a license. SDNY never charged Roman with that.
(B) says you are unlicensed because you fit the definition of MSB at section 5330 in the BSA and therefore needed to register with FinCEN but didn't. SDNY charged that but that charge has now been abandoned (rightfully because FinCEN clearly said non-custodial entities are not MSBs per 5330 and don't need to register).
(C), the remaining charge [1960(b)(1)(C)] says you are unlicensed because you knowingly transported criminal funds.
So the question is, if you are only "unlicensed" under (C) and not under (A) state law, or (B) federal BSA law, then who were you supposed to register or license with?
FinCEN? no, that's who you register with to avoid (b)(1)(B). State money transmission regulators? no, the government never charged (b)(1)(A) which is failure to license in a state where a license is required.
So if I can be "unlicensed" because of conduct described in (b)(1)(C) but no state or federal agency licenses that conduct then how in god's green earth am I unlicensed? Who does the SDNY think Roman was supposed to license with? They've admitted that it wouldn't be FinCEN by dropping the (b)(1)(B) charge. They never argued it was the states with a (b)(1)(A) charge? So who is it?
If someone ends up going to jail because they failed to register when doing something that nobody required registration to do, then I'm going to lose my mind.
暗号通貨には楽観的であるべきです。20世紀に発展した数学は17世紀の自然哲学のようなものです。その数学を用いて作られた発明はプロトタイプです。サトシはジェームズ・ワットであり、ビットコインは蒸気機関です。私たちの目の前で全く新しい産業革命が起ころうとしています。
If you want a bit more trust in trustless crypto--like zero knowledge proofs--but are not a math wizard, then this is the video for you. Love the not-so-veiled hatred of what's become of cryptocurrencies at the end. h/t @jasonsomensatto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otvcbw6k4eo
Coin Center's take on the 5% remittance tax in the big "beautiful bill." The good the bad and the ugly?
Good: as drafted doesn't apply to peer to peer transactions or create liability for software developers.
Bad: outside of self-custodied crypto, it will force Americans to identify themselves and use only "qualified" remittance providers according to unwritten standards set by treasury, if they want to avoid the tax.
Ugly: it could trigger a renewed attempt to implement the midnight rulemaking from 2020 to force providers to identify people who are not their customers.
In the end is a big beautiful bill with even bigger privacy questions.
Good: as drafted doesn't apply to peer to peer transactions or create liability for software developers.
Bad: outside of self-custodied crypto, it will force Americans to identify themselves and use only "qualified" remittance providers according to unwritten standards set by treasury, if they want to avoid the tax.
Ugly: it could trigger a renewed attempt to implement the midnight rulemaking from 2020 to force providers to identify people who are not their customers.
In the end is a big beautiful bill with even bigger privacy questions.
I hope SDNY prosecutors drop Tornado Cash & Samourai. I hope inappropriate UMT investigations are closed, but let me be clear:
This will not stop and America will remain hostile to devs until we get a binding fix from Congress (BRCA) or the Courts.
https://www.coincenter.org/when-prosecutors-ignore-the-regulators/
This will not stop and America will remain hostile to devs until we get a binding fix from Congress (BRCA) or the Courts.
https://www.coincenter.org/when-prosecutors-ignore-the-regulators/
さらにコンテンツを探すには、ログインしてください