Good. This is welcome and excellent news, I hope more regulators follow suit of this to more unregulated exchanges in the future.
Cryptocurrencies are only used for scammers and fraudsters. I would go as so far as to banning them all.
Cryptocurrencies are only used for scammers and fraudsters. I would go as so far as to banning them all.
Some self respecting VPN providers allow you to pay with cash, you don't need crypto.
If you care about your privacy that much, just drop the envelope in your local postbox and it sends it to them.
Source?
Obviously this will be difficult to actually know, for reasons that it's "hard to trace" but also most studies are likely biased in one direction (for the concept of cryptocurrency) or the other (against the concept of cryptocurrency).
My intuition tells me that most transactions (at least in absolute fiat dollars) that result in an exchange of tangible assets are largely illicit transactions that would otherwise be frowned upon the individual's place of residence (e.g., ransomware, drugs, money laundering), but I don't know how that compares to other forms like standard retail services, local inflation hedging, or overseas transfers. The former group (in particular ransomware) is certainly enabled significantly more due to the existence of cryptocurrency however.
The fact that this is making ransomware run rampant and now the victim is also part of the unfortunate process of paying the ransom in Bitcoin, (and now apparently they can also pay in Monero at the hackers, 'convenience')[1] it's getting to a point where regulators need to step in before this happens to more companies and the general public.
[0] https://www.ft.com/content/13fb66ed-b4e2-4f5f-926a-7d34dc40d...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/13/what-is-monero-new-cryptocur...
Also, did you just forget we were (and we are) in a pandemic that started a year ago, forcing almost every person in lockdown?
What do you think was the mode of choice for drug dealers to launder their money through? I'll give you a hint, it is certainly not cash.
I guess you never buy drugs IRL, if you really want a source for "drug dealers only take cash". What's next, wanting a source for "water is wet"?
> Also, did you just forget we were (and we are) in a pandemic that started a year ago, forcing almost every person in lockdown?
Guess who stayed open the entire time? The drug dealers. They were excluded from lockdowns due to ostensibly being essential businesses who sold "medicine". And guess what, the entire time they have only accepted cash.
Two weeks after we get Federal legalization, someone's going to offer a rewards Visa with 4.20x points for cannabis purchases. You heard it here first.
So the source is you then? If so, that is an anecdote and that isn't a reputable source, try again.
> The illegal drug dealers only took cash, and now that buying drugs is legal, the legal dealers only take cash too. They have an ATM in their shop, but that's because they only take cash.
So you are saying that cryptocurrencies was never an option for these people at all? If it was legal bank transfer or credit cards would be just fine.
Would be nice if you provide sources for your claims to these.
> Guess who stayed open the entire time? The drug dealers. They were excluded from lockdowns due to ostensibly being essential businesses who sold "medicine". And guess what, the entire time they have only accepted cash.
Again, do you have any reputable sources for these claims?
Burden is on you to provide proof.
Maybe a few zoomer ones accept Venmo, but that is functionally equivalent.
What is your definition of a reputable source then?
You have four different people saying the same thing and still you ask for a 'source'.
Don't be surprised when no-one wants to take you up on inane requests.
You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met.
If this was an even remotely controversial or decisive topic, it's worth providing sources, because they convince not only the person demanding it, but also anyone reading. But in this case, it's such a well-known and obvious fact that there's no such benefit.
You can ask for sources for "the sky is blue" all you want, but I'm happy to just stick my head out the window and go "yep, I'm pretty sure". I'm not too fussed if you still don't believe me.
All I'm just asking for clear evidence to a claim, like someone asked me for evidence of a claim I made, I provided a source and evidence. Not hard, seems you and others have an issue with it.
> You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met.
Do you expect me or anyone else to believe a random person like you making a bold claim at first glance?
So unless you have a source to a bold claim, I can dismiss it.
> But in this case, it's such a well-known and obvious fact that there's no such benefit.
Then the refutation should be quick and easy right? Again, I see none so far.
> But is not any excuse for banning, good person can sometimes not want to make a public purchase.
It is when ransomware is on the rise [1] and the cryptocurrency exchanges like binance are letting them get away with it.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/04/survey-finds-one-third-of-cr...
Right now, if I want to buy American stocks, I have to go through the handful of brokers licensed to sell foreign stocks in my country. I have to meet their funding requirements and I have to pay their hefty fees, not to mention meet their kyc requirements. This effectively makes it inaccessible to small players who might not meet the minimum requirements and/or pay the fees.
With crypto, I can buy wrapped synthetic versions of the stocks without going through any third party. The only fees I pay are transaction fees.
In the US, we have 'ADR" (American Depository Receipt) products for foreign companies. A company holds foreign shares, then issues ADRs which can (nominally) be exchanged 1:1 for them. That allows investors to get involved without the legal complexities of actually getting the shares in their name.
They're a normal thing you buy through ordinary domestic brokerages.
I get it that its not the same thing, but if your intention is to profit from stockmarket speculation (like many investors), its a workaround, especially if your local market doesn’t have any brokerages that allow access to US equities to retail investors. Even in India, retail couldn’t easily buy US equities until two years ago.
Imagine the situation for someone in a poor African country. There are no local brokerages that allow them to access US markets. They are effectively forced to invest in poorly regulated, low value local companies through heavily manipulated local stock markets. For such people, being able to buy some ETH and buy a liquid, synthetic version of AAPL is a gamechanger
The Korean project Luna has I believe a similar system although it's even more of a decentralization theater.
Buying or selling services governments or payment processors don't approve of. This includes drugs, pornography (cryptocurrency is the only payment method available on PornHub at the moment), and distasteful speech (Gab has been banned from various payment services).
Financial literacy already is of concern in fiat currency, so no surprising that here we have many people who are not very knowing of what they do. "Some people do bad things with this thing" cannot make excuses for "ban this thing". Having any ability for moving money out of sights of government, out of control of government, it can be in bad employment or it can be in good employment. Having any ability for moving money out of control for governments is the point of cryptocurency.