A cryptocurrency loophole only Congress can close
axios.com
axios.com
Great. Let people pick the risk they are willing to take. If companies holding the wallets steal money, prosecute them for theft.
"well as concerns about money laundering and terrorist financing"
You forgot the children, think of the children. See, I'm just not scared enough at this point to give in to more laws than any human can possibly read. Maybe if you threw in there some drug dealer buying guns or child molesters it would have worked
The (perceived) issue is that most people don't understand the actual risk, either due to marketing, or due to lack of due diligence (potentially made impossible by lack of transparency).
A great example is the "interest bearing crypto accounts" that get 8% back. They're advertised as a savings account type product, but because they're not a insured back account, they're actually a security. Securities typically have big warnings like "THIS IS A SECURITY. MAY LOSE WHOLE INVESTMENT. NOT GOVERNMENT INSURED".
We don't know how safe the funds are, because we don't always know how the company/smartcontract/whatever are generating those yields, and how at risk that is. Sometimes we could know the risk, and the info is just buried in hard to read smart contracts, but sometimes we can't know the risk because the company doesn't disclose.
There is no "agreement". They arbitrarily and unilaterally decide that you're a citizen, and impose their rules. If you're not a citizen they still impose their rules, but with even less regard for your natural rights.
Forcing Tether to become a bank would be interesting...
Apparently Circle would love to become a "narrow bank" (a bank without fractional reserve banking).
Who knows: maybe that could even turn out to be a bank not giving us headlines like "German chancellor on the brink of second banks bailout"?
Why would they turn down free money once they're government approved?
The way I've seen stable coin interest bearing accounts advertised tells me you're wrong, or the companies want you to be wrong.
I don’t trust the elderly 80 year old congress members to come up with good rules for crypto since it’s something old people barely understand or care about.
*Jokes on the cryptocurrency wallets.
Most laws are written by private industry not law makers, odds are you couldn’t find a dozen lawmakers that have read legislation much less written it. They have staff, usually young law grads that read it and give them talking points.
Are crypto taxes recursive?
For example: Person A gets paid $1,000 BUSD for services rendered to company B. The transaction/movement of crypto from Company B to Person A is treated as a transfer of property and is taxed at 10% for short-term capital gains tax of $100.
Assume Person A wishes to pay these taxes using crpyto, and then sells/swaps $100 BUSD for USD (with no transaction fees). Would this then constitute another transfer of property that would then be taxed another 10%?
I've been having some trouble wrapping my head around how it would like for a person to live a crypto-only life.
If person A gets paid $1,000 BUSD for services rendered to company B, that's not transfer of property, that's definitely income and taxed as income at the appropriate income tax rate no matter if the compensation for services rendered was paid out in USD, BUSD, gold, goats or other services (e.g. barter of services according to https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420) - in all non-USD cases, you just use the USD value of the non-USD-thing, which should be simple for stablecoins. On the other hand, if BUSD is stable and does not grow in value, then short-term capital tax does not apply, since there are no capital gains.
If person A was paid 1000 randomcoin that was worth $1000 at the time of payment, and by the time they needed to sell some of them to pay taxes they had doubled in value, then yes, they would have to pay 10% of the value increase as well. That sale/capital gains trigger would likely be in the next tax period, so the "recursive" tax would be due a year later than the "initial" tax.
Usage of words and language shifts and changes, get with it or go back learning growls and hissing to communicate.
Which is much more appropriate for cryptography than it is for cryptocurrency.
A lot of cryptozoologists are very alarmed when they hear about a "massive crypto bug", thinking it's the return of Mothra.
I’ll leave it at this Wikipedia excerpt: “Cryptosporidium, sometimes informally called crypto” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptosporidium
However, a lot of innovations in cryptography these days come from cryptocurrency world. Aggregated signatures, ZK applications, etc.
After that you will hear the same people cry "What the hell was the government doing?"
It’s an incredibly stable medium of exchange accepted universally in this nation and in many places around the world.
My deposits are backed by the FDIC so if I get hacked or there’s a bank run I’ll be made whole up to certain limits most people won’t reach.
It’s simple, well understood, easy to use.
It’s hard and/or expensive to do certain things with such as send money to certain places.
Maybe you can give some good reasons as to why we really need alternatives, as historically, our fragmented monetary system after independence was a total mess.
I relate to the privileged lifestyle in western society with stable banking that gets bailed out when there are missteps.
Stablecoins have much more utility for those without access to well-developed banking. There are places with limited or dysfunctional currency services.
It might make sense if we didn't already have regulated banks -- but we do.
Honestly, I have no idea what's going to happen to Tether, but I fail to see any advantage to gov't stepping in.
Either Tether's a big scam and a lot of people lose their shirts -- fine, that's a healthy failure to learn from. Or it's not, it stays stable despite being backed by nothing and congrats, they invented a new form of fiat.
So from the perspective of a tether owner, or better yet tether stock owner who thinks its not a scam, well not intentionally at least, then yeah that would be great. Less loss, and less prison time, and for government, well who wants effective banking right...
Its a terrible idea of course, but the regulation might be difficult to avoid for long, but historically speaking it takes around a 50 years before it kicks in.