Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

We didn't have AML/KYC until recent history. The world got along just fine without it. That's what you've been sold. I don't expect to be in the majority view camp on this one - but it's highly unlikely I'll be seeing this any other way.

We didn’t have widely used and anonymous distributed ledgers until recent history either. New circumstances naturally call for new measures.

Also while I guess it depends how you define it, I don’t agree KYC is a new thing in the financial sector. Financial institutions have always done some level of ID and address check before opening bank accounts: what most crypto exchanges call KYC policies today is actually more lax than the customer check policies most old fashion retail banks have been enforcing in the past decades.

Pintman Paddy Losty

makeorbrake wrote: »

We didn't have AML/KYC until recent history. The world got along just fine without it. That's what you've been sold. I don't expect to be in the majority view camp on this one - but it's highly unlikely I'll be seeing this any other way.

Other than that, it goes far beyond annoyance. I could write a book on it but I'm not going to make disclosures here or take the discussion down that rabbit hole any further.

No my friend. You're very wrong on this one.

AML/KYC has been an excellent tool in combating money laundering. If you're paying attention you'd see that a great deal of prosecutions against criminals is through funds of unknown source prosecutions. Going after the money is how you catch these bad hombres.

While it probably annoys you that an exchange needs to verify your idetity before trading it also means bad dudes have to go through the same process. So stop posting ill informed garbage on it.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

We didn't have AML/KYC until recent history. The world got along just fine without it. That's what you've been sold. I don't expect to be in the majority view camp on this one - but it's highly unlikely I'll be seeing this any other way.

I do get your point about the personal annoyance

It's been around for a long time in traditional banking and finance. Crypto is newer, but countless numbers of people have already been stung by dodgy unregulated non-compliant exchanges (I have, and was lucky not to lose more)

We can all sit here and say "don't put in more than you can afford to lose", "never leave your coins on exchange", etc, but if that's the case then widespread public acceptance will never come. Can't have both worlds. Thankfully common sense seems to be prevailing and crypto infrastructure is overwhelmingly moving toward KYC and AML compliance - as it should

Your personal annoyance with it is just that, personal. I hate security queues for planes, and I certainly don't like having to supply my passport and photo ID when joining a crypto exchange - but I understand the need for both.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I do get your point about the personal annoyance

It's been around for a long time in traditional banking and finance. Crypto is newer, but countless numbers of people have already been stung by dodgy unregulated non-compliant exchanges (I have, and was lucky not to lose more)

We can all sit here and say "don't put in more than you can afford to lose", "never leave your coins on exchange", etc, but if that's the case then widespread public acceptance will never come. Can't have both worlds. Thankfully common sense seems to be prevailing and crypto infrastructure is overwhelmingly moving toward KYC and AML compliance - as it should

Your personal annoyance with it is just that, personal. I hate security queues for planes, and I certainly don't like having to supply my passport and photo ID when joining a crypto exchange - but I understand the need for both.

I think we're meshing up two separate issues here. Presence or absence of KYC/AML doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the safety of your crypto or FIAT holdings with an exchange. Regulation and safeguards can be put in to deal with that - and they should.

Otherwise, KYC/AML - yes, at one level they're an annoyance. At another level, they can cause all manner of problems as I'm experiencing right now. I understand that most people don't see this but the moment you do, you'll know all about it.
Other than that, I don't think you seem to understand the implications in terms of privacy.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I hate security queues for planes, and I certainly don't like having to supply my passport and photo ID when joining a crypto exchange - but I understand the need for both.

That is a completely incorrect analogy. A physical security check boarding a plane doesn't compare with someone throwing up all manner of obstacles to the conduct of every day personal and business financial transactions.

My thoughts mirror that of Andreas Antonopoulos on this (see youtube video in previous post(s) ). We won't agree and that's perfectly fine but lets park it up at that.

Selik

Makeorbrake explain the issue you are having... is it to do with having to prove the source of original funds when withdrawing profits?

Pintman Paddy Losty

Most people have very few issues with KYC or AML checks. Must be a few red flags.

makeorbrake

Selik wrote: »

Makeorbrake explain the issue you are having... is it to do with having to prove the source of original funds when withdrawing profits?

I won't - as it's veering off topic. And particularly so as it doesn't involve crypto in any form ironically (and I say ironically because countless people in the crypto world have had issues with crypto to FIAT conversions - not because of the source of the funds, simply because the funds were in crypto).

JohnnyFlash

makeorbrake wrote: »

I won't - as it's veering off topic. And particularly so as it doesn't involve crypto in any form ironically (and I say ironically because countless people in the crypto world have had issues with crypto to FIAT conversions - not because of the source of the funds, simply because the funds were in crypto).

I thought getting out of Fiat was the goal of all this? Anonymous money sent between participants in a network where trust doesn’t matter?

el diablo

And we're crashing hard. XRP $0.33. LTC $98. ETH $265. :cool:

Bob24

el diablo wrote: »

And we're crashing hard. XRP $0.33. LTC $98. ETH $265. :cool:

And still the same pattern: when bitcoin goes parabolic alt coins either follow fairly slowly or remain flat, and when bitcoin crashes they crash even harder.

vargoo

el diablo wrote: »

And we're crashing hard. XRP $0.33. LTC $98. ETH $265. :cool:

Ah no, tether bump is done so back down to where it settled after the whale sell off which must be 3 weeks ago now.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

when bitcoin goes parabolic alt coins either follow fairly slowly or remain flat, and when bitcoin crashes they crash even harder.

It's not 2017 anymore. Alts have to do the hard yards and produce some utility. If that is happening/happens, then that will ultimately be rewarded (if the valuation isn't beyond itself already).

Having said that, there were a couple of industry commentators suggesting yesterday that the 'bottom' was in as far as alts are concerned and that we'd begin to see more of a lift with them by comparison with BTC.

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's not 2017 anymore. Alts have to do the hard yards and produce some utility. If that is happening/happens, then that will ultimately be rewarded (if the valuation isn't beyond itself already).

Having said that, there were a couple of industry commentators suggesting yesterday that the 'bottom' was in as far as alts are concerned and that we'd begin to see more of a lift with them by comparison with BTC.

On those comments saying the bottom is in, I can see how a handful of coins which are actually demonstrating some use case can emerge, but I would be surprised to see widespread value increases (but all this is very hard to predict and I could be wrong). One which I am watching is BNB, I think Binance are doing something interesting with it and their blockchain/DEX.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

On those comments saying the bottom is in, I can see how a handful of coins which are actually demonstrating some use case can emerge, but I would be surprised to see widespread value increases (but all this is very hard to predict and I could be wrong).

Agree completely.

I don't bother with alts much - have one large cap alt and one micro (sub coinmarketcap) alt and that's it. With both of them, I'm not caring about price - so long as the fundamentals are being worked on actively, that's all I'm bothered about right now. Very much a long term hodl.

JJJJNR

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's not 2017 anymore. Alts have to do the hard yards and produce some utility. If that is happening/happens, then that will ultimately be rewarded (if the valuation isn't beyond itself already).

Having said that, there were a couple of industry commentators suggesting yesterday that the 'bottom' was in as far as alts are concerned and that we'd begin to see more of a lift with them by comparison with BTC.

Well XLM for one has hit ATL so I've just sold all my BTC into XLM. I've increase my bag by 30% by just holding BTC on the stellar dex. Will probably regret it but yolo.

Bob24

JJJJNR wrote: »

Well XLM for one has hit ATL so I've just sold all my BTC into XLM. I've increase my bag by 30% by just holding BTC on the stellar dex. Will probably regret it but yolo.

So that we are clear, I presume you mean ATL since December 2017? (which is a big caveat as it was the beginning of the alt coin madness and before that XLM was lower that its current value)

Hope it works well for you, but selling one's complete BTC portfolio for XLM is a very bold and risky move IMO.

cnocbui

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Most people have very few issues with KYC or AML checks. Must be a few red flags.

Many people have a massive problem with KYC. It's a stupid system that prevents lots of people from even opening a bank account.

JohnnyFlash

They’d want to start up the old Tether printer soon. People are starting to get edgy. I wonder what will happen if they get shutdown soon for fraud and money laundering?

My prediction is a sudden and violent spike in the price of Bitcoin, followed by a monumental crash as people desperately try and get out of coins and back into that lovely FIAT money.

The court case is on July 29th. Could be epic.

q85dw7osi4lebg

What's the ideal amount of BTC to HODL I wonder.

Trying to plan my exit for 2-5 years time. Obviously won't exit it there's mass adoption.

JJJJNR

Bob24 wrote: »

So that we are clear, I

presume you mean ATL since December 2017? (which is a big caveat as it was the beginning of the alt coin madness and before that XLM was lower that its current value)

Hope it works well for you, but selling one's complete BTC portfolio for XLM is a very bold and risky move IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EcjWd-O4jI

vargoo

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

What's the ideal amount of BTC to HODL I wonder.

Trying to plan my exit for 2-5 years time. Obviously won't exit it there's mass adoption.

How much money have you lying around that you don't mind losing?

Start selling everything now that you bought under current price, use any profit you have buy more on a real dip, not the fake dips you're currently buying on.

makeorbrake

cnocbui wrote: »

Many people have a massive problem with KYC. It's a stupid system that prevents lots of people from even opening a bank account.

Agreed. And as regards Podge n' Rodge, I've finally done what I should have done months ago and enabled the boards.ie ignore list function. I missed that insightful morsel of speculation. I'd wager that's what he hopes but alas, he's as far out as a lighthouse (as usual).

stockshares

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have approved Blockstack’s Reg A+ application to issue an allocation of its so-called Stacks Token (STX) in a public securities offering, the first-ever time the financial watchdog has greenlighted the issuance of a crypto token.

https://blog.blockstack.org/blockstack-token-sale-sec-qualified/

q85dw7osi4lebg

vargoo wrote: »

How much money have you lying around that you don't mind losing?

Start selling everything now that you bought under current price, use any profit you have buy more on a real dip, not the fake dips you're currently buying on.

Can't sell any, promised myself I'd HODL. Have been DCA ing for a long time now but trying to know

1: When to stop

2: When and how to get out

Initial thought is to maybe sell 5% of a coin every time BTC increases 10k, starting at 20k.

Want to still be holding decent coin after 100k though.


The world needs dreamers.

vargoo

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Can't sell any, promised myself I'd HODL. Have been DCA ing for a long time now but trying to know

1: When to stop

2: When and how to get out

Initial thought is to maybe sell 5% of a coin every time BTC increases 10k, starting at 20k.

Want to still be holding decent coin after 100k though.


The world needs dreamers.

Throw a thought in there that it might never see 20k again.

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

Many people have a massive problem with KYC. It's a stupid system that prevents lots of people from even opening a bank account.

It's mildly inconvenient and in fairness haven't heard of some crisis where "lots of" people are unable to open bank accounts due to KYC. It's been a strict requirement for a long time for common sense reasons.

Go join Revolut, it's simple. Also crypto exchanges are easy to join even with KYC (I've joined about 25 exchanges give or take) - there's a lot of moaning over nothing going on here I feel

q85dw7osi4lebg

vargoo wrote: »

Throw a thought in there that it might never see 20k again.

i don't even think that's a possibility.

Bob24

Dohnjoe wrote: »

cnocbui wrote: »

Many people have a massive problem with KYC. It's a stupid system that prevents lots of people from even opening a bank account.

It's mildly inconvenient and in fairness haven't heard of some crisis where "lots of" people are unable to open bank accounts due to KYC. It's been a strict requirement for a long time for common sense reasons.

Go join Revolut, it's simple. Also crypto exchanges are easy to join even with KYC (I've joined about 25 exchanges give or take) - there's a lot of moaning over nothing going on here I feel

I also feel people are talking about something completely different from what exchanges call KYC. Basically in practice we are talking about sharing a scanned copy of an ID document and a proof of address, which is not exactly very hard to do (and if people don’t trust an exchange with handling these documents properly - which is how I would feel about many exchanges - they just shouldn’t register with an exchange they don’t trust).

I am sure sometimes people get stuck because something looks unusual with their documents and customer service is not very helpful, but I doubt there are widespread issues with this and it is more an issue with poor customer service than with KYC issues.

If would be good if people who have severe issues with KYC gave more specific exemples whereby they have concerns. Then we could have a discussion about these concerns and see if there is a difference of opinion about validity.

Just vaguely stating that there are many issues with KYC policies without giving specific exemples makes it hard to actually engage and maybe understand their concerns (or just disagree that they are valid concerns).

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's mildly inconvenient and in fairness haven't heard of some crisis where "lots of" people are unable to open bank accounts due to KYC. It's been a strict requirement for a long time for common sense reasons.
there's a lot of moaning over nothing going on here I feel

Bob24 wrote: »

I also feel people are talking about something completely different from what exchanges call KYC. Basically in practice we are talking about sharing a scanned copy of an ID document and a proof of address, which is not exactly very hard to do

These are your experiences. Your mileage will vary. This is handled very differently in different jurisdictions.

Secondly, you say its nothing but there is NO shadow of a doubt that KYC/AML is major friction in on-boarding people into the crypto-sphere. Ask anyone in the ecomm world how major a factor abandoned carts are. Usually abandoned due to some small inconvenience. Now consider someone that might have at one stage considered trying to obtain Bitcoin for payment (or maybe for investment purposes). These may be minor inconveniences to you - but clearly they're not to these people because there is no doubt in my mind, hundreds of thousands have left it behind because they don't want to deal with that nonsense.

I personally know of cases where people were offering a service with payment solely via crypto - and the friction that caused. Of course, part of it is because crypto needs to be made far more user friendly - but the moment people have to go scrambling for documentation, then unless their involvement is vital, they'll bail.

Over and above all that, I agree with Antonopolous that it's financial surveillance and it doesn't need to happen. It prevents little in the way of money laundering. Those guys know exactly how the system works and contrive the paperwork to match.

The world will not implode without it. There will be no less 'terrorist' attacks and what not because of it. We all know that privacy is an issue - but none of us are motivated to go the long way round to deal with it (and take the convenience option instead). However, with an ever increasing digital world - this is going to become a much hotter potato and I'd expect some people at least to wake up to it.

vargoo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's mildly inconvenient and in fairness haven't heard of some crisis where "lots of" people are unable to open bank accounts due to KYC. It's been a strict requirement for a long time for common sense reasons.

Go join Revolut, it's simple. Also crypto exchanges are easy to join even with KYC (I've joined about 25 exchanges give or take) - there's a lot of moaning over nothing going on here I feel

25...wtf for???

Im in 2, i wouldn't open a 3rd.

quokula

I just checked my email to confirm - I joined Coinbase in April 2013 - at the time I was vaguely interested in Bitcoin and it was getting close to $100 if I recall correctly. There was some friction with getting set up though and I gave up. Eventually bought some coins for the first time 5 years later at about one hundred times the cost.

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

These are your experiences. Your mileage will vary. This is handled very differently in different jurisdictions.

Secondly, you say its nothing but there is NO shadow of a doubt that KYC/AML is major friction in on-boarding people into the crypto-sphere. Ask anyone in the ecomm world how major a factor abandoned carts are. Usually abandoned due to some small inconvenience. Now consider someone that might have at one stage considered trying to obtain Bitcoin for payment (or maybe for investment purposes). These may be minor inconveniences to you - but clearly they're not to these people because there is no doubt in my mind, hundreds of thousands have left it behind because they don't want to deal with that nonsense.

I personally know of cases where people were offering a service with payment solely via crypto - and the friction that caused. Of course, part of it is because crypto needs to be made far more user friendly - but the moment people have to go scrambling for documentation, then unless their involvement is vital, they'll bail.

Over and above all that, I agree with Antonopolous that it's financial surveillance and it doesn't need to happen. It prevents little in the way of money laundering. Those guys know exactly how the system works and contrive the paperwork to match.

The world will not implode without it. There will be no less 'terrorist' attacks and what not because of it. We all know that privacy is an issue - but none of us are motivated to go the long way round to deal with it (and take the convenience option instead). However, with an ever increasing digital world - this is going to become a much hotter potato and I'd expect some people at least to wake up to it.

But again, you are not giving any exemple of specific exchange KYC practices which you see as causing issues; just vague statements on how KYC is causing friction.

I am not trying to catch you or anything, but you see how it makes it difficult to empathise with you point? (if there were exemples, we could discuss whether people agree this is unacceptable friction, but without exemple there is no discussion possible)

makeorbrake

quokula wrote: »

I was vaguely interested in Bitcoin and it was getting close to $100 if I recall correctly. There was some friction with getting set up though and I gave up. Eventually bought some coins for the first time 5 years later at about one hundred times the cost.

Thank you!

Bob24 wrote:

But again, you are not giving any exemple of specific exchange KYC practices which you see as causing issues; just vague statements on how KYC is causing friction.

I am not trying to catch you or anything, but you see how it makes it difficult to empathise with you point?

Bob, not looking for empathy - and I never expected to hold the majority view on this. As regards my situation, I don't even need to give you specifics (nor do I want to for privacy) - it doesn't concern crypto in any event - in that instance. However, I have given you the requisite information. It's as follows;
1. Jurisdictions vary in terms of how they deal with KYC/AML. Some of them are out of this world and won't compare with your experience in Ireland.
2. I've given you the example of what KYC/AML has meant in terms of on-boarding new people into crypto (see my second last post). The poster above me has confirmed exactly what I claimed.
3. People in the crypto world - as in lots of them or any of them that try with a sizeable amount of money - have been unable to move funds from crypto exchanges to banks - have had bank accounts closed and NO reason given - all under the cover of AML/KYC (and anti-competitive practice to boot). That's well documented.
4. Privacy - see my previous post.

And its uncanny but a fresh example for you right this minute. A buddy of mine has moved down here. He just tried to use World Remit (like transferwise - but more popular in n. america) to move a lousy $1500 here. World remit - want current bank statements and current utility bill (when he doesn't have a utility bill anymore up there). That's for a remittance service. Don't tell me that's not friction.

cnocbui

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's mildly inconvenient and in fairness haven't heard of some crisis where "lots of" people are unable to open bank accounts due to KYC. It's been a strict requirement for a long time for common sense reasons.

Go join Revolut, it's simple. Also crypto exchanges are easy to join even with KYC (I've joined about 25 exchanges give or take) - there's a lot of moaning over nothing going on here I feel

I have someone living in my house who can't open a bank account - they have tried a couple times but been refused - because they can't 'prove' the address as the few utility bills there are aren't in their name.

I have been reading on some expat. forums about people who have moved to another country and can't open bank accounts because they can't meet the proof of address component of KYC.

It's an absolute load of manure. All ID documents are ultimately based on birth certificates. So having to provide a passport, and drivers license is ludicrous when the DL was probably obtained on the basis of the passport or birth cert as well.

Have you ever heard of a class of worker called 'digital nomads?' Without a fixed abode and address they must have a nightmare of a time with financial institutions.

The 'reasons' you speak of are not common, they are all about government taxation paranoia.

Dohnjoe

vargoo wrote: »

25...wtf for???

Im in 2, i wouldn't open a 3rd.

Alt addiction, some stuff is available on only one exchange (I try to get them early)

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

I have someone living in my house who can't open a bank account - they have tried a couple times but been refused - because they can't 'prove' the address as the few utility bills there are aren't in their name.

They are going to have a hard time with life in general then, sorry

I have been reading on some expat. forums about people who have moved to another country and can't open bank accounts because they can't meet the proof of address component of KYC.

Have opened bank accounts in several different European countries, same with friends/colleagues, never had issues apart from administrational wait times and the usual paperwork

It's an absolute load of manure. All ID documents are ultimately based on birth certificates. So having to provide a passport, and drivers license is ludicrous when the DL was probably obtained on the basis of the passport or birth cert as well.

Most times a passport will do for ID and a bill/contract as proof of address

Have you ever heard of a class of worker called 'digital nomads?' Without a fixed abode and address they must have a nightmare of a time with financial institutions.

Done it myself

The 'reasons' you speak of are not common, they are all about government taxation paranoia.

It's for the bank, they need to know a) who you are and b) have documents proving that and address - otherwise they aren't allowed to open an account for you, by law. A law that protects you from lack of due diligence by the bank.

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

Bob, not looking for empathy - and I never expected to hold the majority view on this. As regards my situation, I don't even need to give you specifics (nor do I want to for privacy) - it doesn't concern crypto in any event - in that instance.

By empathise with the point, I guess all I meant is understanding what specific type of issues your opinion is based on, of course nothing personal and never expected personal details :-) (I wouldn't provide any myself)

makeorbrake wrote: »

However, I have given you the requisite information. It's as follows;
1. Jurisdictions vary in terms of how they deal with KYC/AML. Some of them are out of this world and won't compare with your experience in Ireland.
2. I've given you the example of what KYC/AML has meant in terms of on-boarding new people into crypto (see my second last post). The poster above me has confirmed exactly what I claimed.
3. People in the crypto world - as in lots of them or any of them that try with a sizeable amount of money - have been unable to move funds from crypto exchanges to banks - have had bank accounts closed and NO reason given - all under the cover of AML/KYC (and anti-competitive practice to boot). That's well documented.
4. Privacy - see my previous post.

None of the above is a specific example of how KYC policies are causing unreasonable friction though:
1. OK you might have issues with some local regulations, but then you are more talking about national problems in some countries than describing an issue with KYC in general. Do you have a specific exemple of KYC requirement in a European country which you see as causing unacceptable friction? (if we are talking about the need to provide a proof of ID, we can just agree to disagree, for me it is not unacceptable friction in any way to do ID checks)
2. Nothing specific again, just a vague statement that it causes some people not to register on crypto-services (which is not a problem in itself if there are good reasons, hence why it is important to be specific). What kind of specific KYC requirement/issue are you referring to which in your mind would cause unreasonable friction when lets say an Irish resident tries to register on a crypto exchange? (of for another European country of there is no Irish exemple)
3. I am not disagreeing that some financial institution tend to play the AML card to explain decisions/requirements which have nothing to do with AML (not just related to crypto). I have actually experienced that myself once, and calling their bluff with having a solicitor tell them they were in the wrong sorted the issue in a day. But the fact that some institutions use KYC/AML as an excuse to set requirements which have nothing to do with these concepts doesn't mean that KYC/AML is wrong; it just means that those institutions need to have their bluff called by customers and regulators. Saying KYC should be abolished because it is sometimes wrongly used to justify decision is like me saying alarm clocks should be abolished because my colleague always falsely blames their alarm clock for being late.
4. Privacy is a separate thing. The problem here is not friction, but the fact that you would prefer to remain anonymous. It is an opinion I can hear but a completely different topic from friction: if it is the main reason you think KYC/AML should be abolished then lets leave friction aside and have a discussion about balancing individual privacy and the common good (which is actually not a topic specific to crypto).

makeorbrake wrote: »

And its uncanny but a fresh example for you right this minute. A buddy of mine has moved down here. He just tried to use World Remit (like transferwise - but more popular in n. america) to move a lousy $1500 here. World remit - want current bank statements and current utility bill (when he doesn't have a utility bill anymore up there). That's for a remittance service. Don't tell me that's not friction.

Well now this is a specific exemple. But if I understand it right, he lives in Ireland and is registered with them as living in the US? (you mention he lives here but is asked for a North American proof of address)
We might disagree but if it is the case I don't see the problem with them blocking the transfer, it is fair enough for them to want to know and validate his current address before handling his money and he can simply give them an address whereby he can provide a proof of address (if he doesn't have one, it is more his problem than theirs). So yes there is friction, but I don't find it unreasonable - seeking a verifiable address before handling someone's money is a very valid reason for causing friction IMO.

q85dw7osi4lebg

I'm impressed with this civilized discussion.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

By empathise with the point, I guess all I meant is understanding what specific type of issues your opinion is based on, of course nothing personal and never expected personal details :-) (I wouldn't provide any myself)

No worries :-)

Bob24 wrote: »

None of the above is a specific example of how KYC policies are causing unreasonable friction though:

I struggle to see how that's possible but I guess everything is experiential and in the eyes of the beholder. If you don't move around and have been based in the same place and no complexity - then it can be easier, yes. But please note that your mileage may vary as your circumstances vary.

Bob24 wrote: »

1. OK you might have issues with some local regulations, but then you are more talking about national problems in some countries than describing an issue with KYC in general. Do you have a specific exemple of KYC requirement in a European country which you see as causing unacceptable friction? (if we are talking about the need to provide a proof of ID, we can just agree to disagree, for me it is not unacceptable friction in any way to do ID checks)

I guess this doesn't resonate with you as you have not seen the variance which is understandable. However, its KYC/AML. You can blame the country or the country's bankers or what not but its an international standard that they're implementing.
There's nothing unspecific here - it's just that you have been fortunate enough not to experience it (yet millions are exposed to it).

Try running an ecommerce business and not being able to take payment because you cant get a bank account opened locally - as that process has you tied up in knots with its completely unreasonable demands.

Bob24 wrote: »

2. Nothing specific again, just a vague statement that it causes some people not to register on crypto-services (which is not a problem in itself if there are good reasons, hence why it is important to be specific). What kind of specific KYC requirement/issue are you referring to which in your mind would cause unreasonable friction when lets say an Irish resident tries to register on a crypto exchange? (of for another European country of there is no Irish exemple)

Where's the need to be more specific - unless you are saying that you don't believe me. 100's of thousands would be on-boarded into crypto right now (additional) if it wasn't for that nonsense so of course it's a MAJOR problem. Your crypto bags would be full right now and the crypto economy would be belting in everyday life if it wasn't for that.
I mean ANY of it. Think about it. You've heard about this crypto mullarkey - you might give it a go (or you come across something thats for sale online but just via crypto) - you approach it and immediately it's got a requirement for documentation and so you drop it - and say you can't be arsed with that. Most likely you and I are not representative of that but there are 100's of 1000's who are. Without participants, the crypto economy doesn't get to effect the change that it can. The implications are huge.

Bob24 wrote: »

3. I am not disagreeing that some financial institution tend to play the AML card to explain decisions/requirements which have nothing to do with AML (not just related to crypto). I have actually experienced that myself once, and calling their bluff with having a solicitor tell them they were in the wrong sorted the issue in a day. But the fact that some institutions use KYC/AML as an excuse to set requirements which have nothing to do with these concepts doesn't mean that KYC/AML is wrong; it just means that those institutions need to have their bluff called by customers and regulators. Saying KYC should be abolished because it is sometimes wrongly used to justify decision is like me saying alarm clocks should be abolished because my colleague always falsely blames their alarm clock for being late.

The reason we have a difference of opinion is that you see KYC as essential and good. I most certainly do not.
Additionally, you are approaching this in an experiential way. I have been in that situation (the account closure) - happened last year - in another country. In that country, there is no solicitors letter or any code that forces them to respond to me. There was no conversation had - the account was closed - end of. Emails and phone calls were ignored regardless of the blue murder I screamed. And the only alleged sin (i know this from others who have had a similar experience) is simply that the funds were transferred in from a crypto exchange. Nothing more - no conversation about actual source of funds/accumulation of funds.

Other than that, most countries in the world have had litigation cases between exchanges/investors and banks over this and their anti-competitive practice (as its halfway between that and regulatory compliance).

Bob24 wrote: »

4. Privacy is a separate thing. The problem here is not friction, but the fact that you would prefer to remain anonymous. It is an opinion I can hear but a completely different topic from friction: if it is the main reason you think KYC/AML should be abolished then lets leave friction aside and have a discussion about balancing individual privacy and the common good (which is actually not a topic specific to crypto).

It's not friction but its central to the whole objection. It's the reality that this is financial surveillance. You think for one second that this nonsense stops the cartels moving money? Not on your nelly. It is NOT for the common good (I know you won't agree with that but I guess we agree to disagree). And you're correct in saying that it's not specific to crypto (as I may have mentioned earlier, I have a current example that doesn't revolve around crypto in any way, shape or form).

Bob24 wrote: »

Well now this is a specific exemple. But if I understand it right, he lives in Ireland and is registered with them as living in the US?
We might disagree but if it is the case I don't see the problem with them blocking the transfer, it is fair enough for them to want to know and validate his current address before handling his money and he can simply give them an address whereby he can provide a proof of address (if he doesn't have one, it is more his problem than theirs). So yes there is friction, but I don't find it unreasonable - seeking a verifiable address is a very valid reason for causing friction IMO.

Moved from Canada to a developing country. Account and associated address in Canada. And NO! we definitely won't agree!:D He wants to send 1500 dollars - from point A to point B. There's a need to maintain a Canadian address - but WHERE does he get a utility bill when there isn't a bill.
These are the needs of an ordinary punter. Not a crime syndicate.
So you find that perfectly reasonable. Let me put this to you. You need to get 1500 dollars or you cant eat or pay the rent. You have no means of providing a utility bill. Do you still remain calm and find it perfectly reasonable when you find yourself out on the street in said developing country?

Just to add - AML/KYC can get more involved than proof of address. You just have not experienced that (and no, that doesn't mean that you're a narco either. Those lads have someone running the books and producing 'authentic' paperwork like water off a ducks back).

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Moved from Canada to a developing country. Account and associated address in Canada. And NO! we definitely won't agree!:D He wants to send 1500 dollars - from point A to point B. There's a need to maintain a Canadian address - but WHERE does he get a utility bill when there isn't a bill.
These are the needs of an ordinary punter. Not a crime syndicate.

They don't "know" he is an ordinary punter, hence KYC and AML. He could be anyone, he could be wanted by interpol, a sanctioned individual, a high profile criminal, etc

You need to get 1500 dollars or you cant eat or pay the rent. You have no means of providing a utility bill. Do you still remain calm and find it perfectly reasonable when you find yourself out on the street in said developing country?

Just open a bank account in the country. Have done it several times (twice with no residence) They may require utility bills for residents, they understand that non-residents or expats may not have fixed address, and use other means of identification

Blueshoe

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

They’d want to start up the old Tether printer soon. People are starting to get edgy. I wonder what will happen if they get shutdown soon for fraud and money laundering?

My prediction is a sudden and violent spike in the price of Bitcoin, followed by a monumental crash as people desperately try and get out of coins and back into that lovely FIAT money.

The court case is on July 29th. Could be epic.

If it is decided that no further action is to be taken on July 29th then expect the opposite I would imagine

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

I guess this doesn't resonate with you as you have not seen the variance which is understandable. However, its KYC/AML. You can blame the country or the country's bankers or what not but its an international standard that they're implementing.
There's nothing unspecific here - it's just that you have been fortunate enough not to experience it (yet millions are exposed to it).

Try running an ecommerce business and not being able to take payment because you cant get a bank account opened locally - as that process has you tied up in knots with its completely unreasonable demands.

We even seem to disagree on what specific means :-D
What would be specific is an exemple saying something like: "KYC policies require that an Irish resident provides 10 years history worth of banks statements and an original birth certificate to open an account with a crypto exchange, and this is unreasonable friction - difficult documents to get and why do they need to know all that?".
i.e. giving one or more specific requirements which are enforced on customers and are obviously unreasonable (if the exemple I gave was at true one, I would 100% agree such requirement causes unnecessary friction). This hasn't been done to date - just a generic statement on KYC request being an issue in some jurisdictions, which is unspecific. The problem with this lack of details is that what is a reasonable requirement or not is totally subjective, so if you don't give any details about what you have in mind, a generic statement saying that in KYC practices are causing too much friction across the board is actually extremely vague.

For exemple, as far as I know the only things crypto exchanges are asking for in Europe is a proof of ID and a proof of address, which I find completely reasonable. Is that what you consider unnecessary friction or are there more severe checks you have in mind?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Where's the need to be more specific - unless you are saying that you don't believe me. 100's of thousands would be on-boarded into crypto right now (additional) if it wasn't for that nonsense so of course it's a MAJOR problem. Your crypto bags would be full right now and the crypto economy would be belting in everyday life if it wasn't for that.
I mean ANY of it. Think about it. You've heard about this crypto mullarkey - you might give it a go (or you come across something thats for sale online but just via crypto) - you approach it and immediately it's got a requirement for documentation and so you drop it - and say you can't be arsed with that. Most likely you and I are not representative of that but there are 100's of 1000's who are. Without participants, the crypto economy doesn't get to effect the change that it can. The implications are huge.

Same thing really, the need to be more specific comes from the fact that what you consider to be unreasonable is probably very subjective. For exemple I totally believe that requiring to provide a copy of your ID document causes some people not to register on certain crypto exchanges. But I don't see why it is a problem. If this is what you think is unnecessary friction slowing down adoption we just disagree on what is necessary or not. I think you would be in a minority thinking ID check is not required for this type of use but that's fine and at least it is clear where the disagreement is (what we would probably agree about though is that the quality of these ID checks leaves to be desired, but my conclusion is that they need to become more stringent, not removed).

makeorbrake wrote: »

The reason we have a difference of opinion is that you see KYC as essential and good. I most certainly do not.
Additionally, you are approaching this in an experiential way. I have been in that situation (the account closure) - happened last year - in another country. In that country, there is no solicitors letter or any code that forces them to respond to me. There was no conversation had - the account was closed - end of. Emails and phone calls were ignored regardless of the blue murder I screamed. And the only alleged sin (i know this from others who have had a similar experience) is simply that the funds were transferred in from a crypto exchange. Nothing more - no conversation about actual source of funds/accumulation of funds.

Other than that, most countries in the world have had litigation cases between exchanges/investors and banks over this and their anti-competitive practice (as its halfway between that and regulatory compliance).

Did the bank specifically tell you the account was closed due to AML checks and refused to explain why? Of course it would depend on how much time you want to spend on this but if they said that and you are sure they were in the wrong I'd say at least in most Western countries there would be a legal/regulatory route to follow in order to force them to provide more clarity and to be held accountable if then made baseless allegations.

As I said, stepping away from specific cases, the point is that when a financial institution is falsely invoking AML regulations to request/justify something, then the issue is not with AML as such but with that institution.

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's not friction but its central to the whole objection. It's the reality that this is financial surveillance. You think for one second that this nonsense stops the cartels moving money? Not on your nelly. It is NOT for the common good (I know you won't agree with that but I guess we agree to disagree). And you're correct in saying that it's not specific to crypto (as I may have mentioned earlier, I have a current example that doesn't revolve around crypto in any way, shape or form).

I value my privacy a lot in certain scenarios (hence I would never use an Android phone, a machine full of personal data running an OS which is developed by a company whose business model is to collect customer data to make money). I also definitly believe in limiting/controlling what information governments have access to. But to me it doesn't mean everything should always be private, there are cases whereby information sharing is reasonable or even necessary. And I certainly have no problem with my name being associated to bank accounts I hold.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Moved from Canada to a developing country. Account and associated address in Canada. And NO! we definitely won't agree!:D He wants to send 1500 dollars - from point A to point B. There's a need to maintain a Canadian address - but WHERE does he get a utility bill when there isn't a bill.
These are the needs of an ordinary punter. Not a crime syndicate.
So you find that perfectly reasonable. Let me put this to you. You need to get 1500 dollars or you cant eat or pay the rent. You have no means of providing a utility bill. Do you still remain calm and find it perfectly reasonable when you find yourself out on the street in said developing country?

If his bank account is associated to a Canadian address, does he not have bank statements with the address on them? Their website says they accept bank statements as proof of address. Maybe there is a problem with the way they are enforcing their process in which case it is an issue with the company and not with the concept of KYC in general, but on paper it doesn't look like the process would cause any issue in his case.

Dohnjoe

Alts still getting the sharp end of the stick. Wonder how far this gap can grow.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They don't "know" he is an ordinary punter, hence KYC and AML. He could be anyone, he could be wanted by interpol, a sanctioned individual, a high profile criminal, etc

You're missing the point. I couldn't give a fiddlers what the securitons think with that nonsense. I said they were ordinary punters - as in ordinary punters get caught up in this.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Just open a bank account in the country. Have done it several times (twice with no residence) They may require utility bills for residents, they understand that non-residents or expats may not have fixed address, and use other means of identification

I think you have misunderstood. 2 accounts opened - one in home country (Canada). One in country he moved to. World Remit was used as the means of transfer. The documentation was required from the Canadian account end....inclusive of a utility bill that can't be provided.

Bob24 wrote: »

We even seem to disagree on what specific means :-D
What would be specific is an exemple saying something like: "KYC policies require that an Irish resident provides 10 years history worth of banks statements and an original birth certificate to open an account with a crypto exchange, and this is unreasonable friction - difficult documents to get and why do they need to know all that?".
i.e. giving one or more specific requirements which are enforced on customers and are obviously unreasonable (if the exemple I gave was at true one, I would 100% agree such requirement causes unnecessary friction). This hasn't been done to date - just a generic statement on KYC request being an issue in some jurisdictions, which is unspecific. The problem with this lack of details is that what is a reasonable requirement or not is totally subjective, so if you don't give any details about what you have in mind, a generic statement saying that in KYC practices are causing too much friction across the board is actually extremely vague.

You're trying to get in to what documentation request is reasonable and what is not? Did anyone stop up to think for a second that the whole thing is nonsense? Passport at best - and done. IF - having done proper investigation they want to assess someone on suspicion of dodgy money movement - then single them out afterwards. Don't get in the way of peoples lives.

However, if the crypto ecosystem can ever get large enough and stable enough, I will keep my beans within it. We're not there yet - but the day we are, those b*****ds can go screw themselves.

Bob24 wrote: »

For exemple, as far as I know the only things crypto exchanges are asking for in Europe is a proof of ID and a proof of address, which I find completely reasonable. Is that what you consider unnecessary friction or are there more severe checks you have in mind?

As above - Passport at best. However, remember what I brought to your attention in a previous post. What you (and even I) may not find as major friction, there are 100's of 1000's of others who do find it so. I mentioned that I had a friend that only accepted crypto in an ecomm venture - and had a world of pain trying to get people (ordinary non-tech savvy consumers) onboarded - it was major trauma for them. Don't look at this just through your own eyes. The crypto eco-system would be multiple times bigger right now if it wasn't for that nonsense.

Bob24 wrote: »

Same thing really, the need to be more specific comes from the fact that what you consider to be unreasonable is probably very subjective. For exemple I totally believe that requiring to provide a copy of your ID document causes some people not to register on certain crypto exchanges. But I don't see why it is a problem. If this is what you think is unnecessary friction slowing down adoption we just disagree on what is necessary or not. I think you would be in a minority thinking ID check is not required for this type of use but that's fine and at least it is clear where the disagreement is (what we would probably agree about though is that the quality of these ID checks leaves to be desired, but my conclusion is that they need to become more stringent, not removed).

We already know that it causes friction. You don't understand it - but that's because you're you. Not everyone is so lucky :-)

Bob24 wrote: »

Did the bank specifically tell you the account was closed due to AML checks and refused to explain why? Of course it would depend on how much time you want to spend on this but if they said that and you are sure they were in the wrong I'd say at least in most Western countries there would be a legal/regulatory route to follow in order to force them to provide more clarity and to be held accountable if then made baseless allegations.

I wasn't told jack. I opened the account on the basis that I would be funding it with crypto derived funds. That was made explicitly clear from the outset. Many months in, I carried out a not immodest transfer inwards. I was asked where it came from - I told them. And then a couple of days later, I received an emailed letter saying - your account will be closed in 30 days.
Thereafter, there was NO communication - despite repeated correspondence from my end. I more or less knew what their issue was (simply that it came from a crypto exchange) but I wanted them to acknowledge it. They simply wouldn't give me the time of day.
That wasn'tin Europe - so at least there I would have got a few **** you very much emails in response.

That's how KYC/AML looks like.

Bob24 wrote:

If his bank account is associated to a Canadian address, does he not have bank statements with the address on them? Their website says they accept bank statements as proof of address. Maybe there is a problem with the way they are enforcing their process in which case it is an issue with the company and not with the concept of KYC in general, but on paper it doesn't look like the process would cause any issue in his case.

They requested bank statement AND utility bill. Clearly there are differences in implementation but it matters not - its' all KYC/AML. If this nonsense didn't exist, nobody would be requesting it.

q85dw7osi4lebg

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1149472282584072192

cnocbui

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1149472282584072192

So stupid we need a new scale of stupid to measure him by.

99.999999999999999999999*9 of all criminal activity has been funded and facilitated via fiat currencies.

q85dw7osi4lebg

cnocbui wrote: »

So stupid we need a new scale of stupid to measure him by.

99.999999999999999999999*9 of all criminal activity has been funded and facilitated via fiat currencies.

Gas! However there's no such thing as bad publicity. The Don has more twitter followers than there are Btc addresses afaik.

Arrival

Nothing worse than a person who's ignorant on a topic feeling the need to weigh in on the topic as if they're informed, even worse when they do it with arrogance. It's like they feel they must always have an opinion to share or be seen to hold a stance. It's perfectly fine to not know about something and to admit that, you'll actually come across better doing so

paleoperson

A rare moment of clarity by Trump.

makeorbrake

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Gas! However there's no such thing as bad publicity. The Don has more twitter followers than there are Btc addresses afaik.

I was trying to weigh up whether this is good or bad and I think you're right. With 60 million followers, might as well get crypto front and centre!
""First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”. We're at stage 3 now (which joking aside will definitely get messy).

Crypto-twitter will be hanging out of him between now and re-election. Someones going to pull off some stunt at one of his rallies for sure. I'm waiting for the release of some killer memes. Bitcoin and Friends have some excellent material to work with for Episode 3.

TrumpCoin has come out the worst of it.