Nonsense absolutism.
Is that why Stripe, Moneygram, Circle, etc invested in Stellar, and they are still using ISO 20020 compliant cryptocurrencies like those ones after waiting for regulatory clarity in March 2022?
As for why Moneygram invested in Stellar who knows? CDPQ invested in Celsius. Better to ask forgiveness than permission, but as the parent said, lack of enforcement does not mean lack of regulation - and it has no bearing on future enforcement.
Financial services companies take AML compliance seriously because if they don't their liability is practically unbounded and I have to say Moneygram looks nothing like Tornado.
Moneygram knows? Maybe try asking them and others on why they did?
I'm very sure that Moneygram had a wide range choices of other projects to build their product but somehow landed with one serious crypto project that happens to be compatible with the ISO 20022 messaging standard which the current system is using and the Stellar Network has stood the test of time since their launch.
Didn't stop them from actually launching the product with the Stellar Network and for Stripe investing in the project and waiting for regulatory clarity in March 2022 to announce their cryptocurrency services did it?
Why would I ask them? They would never admit to it being a 'shoot first ask question later' play. They would never admit to it being FOMO. They would never admit to it being something they were afraid they'd get left behind on and once they realized it wasn't relevant to their business, sunk cost fallacy took over. They'd never admit to anything that made them look bad. You wouldn't ask Moneygram for the same reason you don't take a criminal's word on not doing crime - there's only downside to telling the truth. I'm not saying it's one of these reasons - but rather if it was they'd never say.
Again, ISO 20022 is completely irrelevant to this conversation. I've genuinely no idea how this became a talking point.
Again, this has nothing to do with AML compliance which I'm confident each of those companies do - and we know full well that Tornado did not.
Again, there's no reason to think that there won't be any future regulatory action simply because there has not yet been any, and I personally doubt any amount of appealing to authority will help.
Is this what you say when someone brings up a refutation towards an absolutist statement about "AML chains" and standards compliance with the current system? Why not confirm your suspicions by asking them directly [0] rather than making more excuses, unless as I always expect from many absolutist critics of crypto especially on this site, that they are all talk and no action; which that is so easy, anyone can do that.
> Again, ISO 20022 is completely irrelevant to this conversation. I've genuinely no idea how this became a talking point.
The reality is and with the many years of these cryptocurrency technologies and projects existing is that only a few of them will survive and as I have mentioned already a few will stand the test of time to be serious enough for companies like Stripe and Moneygram to choose and use projects like Stellar, and those that are compliant with the current system; be it the ISO 20020 messaging standard and have AML compliance, etc will be around for a very long time. So in fact, it is totally relevant to this discussion.
> Again, this has nothing to do with AML compliance which I'm confident each of those companies do - and we know full well that Tornado did not.
Non-compliant projects that enable complete or total obfuscation like Tornado Cash, Monero, etc or any other projects that angers the regulators won't survive and will be targeted and made difficult to use. That also explains why MoneyGram ruled out the privacy coins and chose Stellar for their product. No need to ask them about that.
> Again, there's no reason to think that there won't be any future regulatory action simply because there has not yet been any and I personally doubt any amount of appealing to authority will help.
Now who exactly said that there won't be any 'future regulatory action'?
Given that the SEC is continuously cracking down and enforcing their regulations on many crypto projects this year and with other places like the UK, EU countries following up with their own rules, its clear that the privacy coins, tools, etc are the first to be clamped down since they are already incompatible with KYC, AML checks; hence the importance of waiting for regulatory clarity by the authorities which is exactly what I said in the first place had you read my comment.
Sounds like you are ranting in denial. It's not too late to stop them and get them to admit your suspicions of them in 'FOMO', or 'being something they were afraid they'd get left behind on' or 'being attached to sunk cost fallacy' yourself then: [0] plenty of time.
[0] https://www.crowdcast.io/e/techstars-payments-3/register
Like I said, just talk and no actions. Very common with extreme anti-crypto folks here.