Hacker News Reader

Comment by notch656a | Hacker News Reader

Those accounts require KYC.

>If you want a "legitimate stablecoin", get a savings account and/or money-market account and/or money market fund.

In my state, I can walk into a bank and legally carry a concealed firearm without any ID whatsoever -- and yet not be allowed to open an account and put $20, even with a valid US passport (it doesn't show proof of address).

Want to put a damper on stablecoins? End KYC/AML/FATCA. If you can be trusted to carry a gun in the bank you ought to be trusted to put $20 into a new account.

View on HN

I fail to see the connection between carrying a concealed weapon and opening a bank account. How does one correlate to the other?

If I am a licensed pyrotechnician and have legal access to high explosives, does that also mean I should be able to open a daycare with no additional checks or licenses?

What am I missing?

Since you conveniently removed the correlation so you could complain the correlation is missing, lets re-insert it.

If I am a licensed pyrotechnician and am allowed to bring high explosives in the bank, does that also mean I should be able to deposit $20 into a new account at the bank? I would hope the answer is yes; if you can be trusted with high explosives in the bank you ought to be trusted to open the account and put $20 in.

> I would hope the answer is yes

Why? What does holding a pyrotechnician's license have to do with opening a bank account? Can you get a driver's license automatically as well when you are a pyrotechnician? The reason that bank accounts need proper identification is not something that I can comment on with authority, but whatever the reasoning is, it has nothing to do with whether you can carry and operate a firearm responsibly. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Allowing a patron to enter a bank with high explosives is trusting the patron with your life. I can't think of a single person I would be happy to welcome in my home/business with high explosives or a firearm, but would refuse to take $20 from in my ordinary course of business offered to the general public. Perhaps the correlation is not 1:1, but it is pretty high up there. If you can't see the connection between trusting someone with your life and trusting them with much smaller fractional pieces of life, like an hour's worth of life it may take to earn $20, then I'm afraid I don't expect you'll ever see the correlation and you are not part of the audience which I expect to benefit from my comment.

>The two have nothing to do with each other.

And yet they do have something to do with each other. If they had absolutely nothing to do with each other, you wouldn't become a prohibited possessor (can't have/carry guns) for committing bank related fraud and other account related felonies. The state has decided they're connected so intensely that you can go to jail for 10+ years if you committed felonies against the bank and then carry a gun. The trust, by fiat, is interconnected.

> I can't think of a single person I would be happy to welcome in my home/business with high explosives or a firearm, but would refuse to take $20 from in my ordinary course of business offered to the general public.

A person feeling safe around another person does not satisfy the government ID requirements for anything. Does it work when you show up at the DMV asking for a license? Are you upset that it doesn't?

Opening a bank account is not a trivial matter. A bank account has the potential to do a lot more damage to society than a single firearm.

> you are not part of the audience which I expect to benefit from my comment.

What is the benefit of your comment? In my opinion false equivalencies and over-the-top rhetoric are rarely beneficial.

Yes I am upset the ID requirement for a bank account is higher than the ID requirement to bring firearms into the bank. IMO even those without proof of address and other KYC deficiencies, which commonly disproportionately limit access to poor and vulnerable populations, should be permitted banking access.

>A bank account has the potential to do a lot more damage to society than a single firearm.

I think there is a strong argument there is a lot more day to day damage from not having a bank account than not having a gun. When we use your damage-based approach I think we may find KYC creates more damages than it prevents.

> I think there is a strong argument there is a lot more day to day damage from not having a bank account than not having a gun. When we use your damage-based approach I think we may find KYC creates more damages than it prevents.

Are you advocating for removing KYC completely, or for making it on par with getting a concealed weapon, or that having a concealed weapons permit should qualify as KYC? This is the problem with using the kind of rhetoric that appeals to emotion -- it doesn't actually get your point across, it just gets people upset about something.

> Yes I am upset the ID requirement for a bank account is higher than the ID requirement to bring firearms into the bank.

It's fairly clear to me that the problem is with the latter's weakness and not with the former's strength.

I appreciate at least you can have an opinion on this matter without pretending like somehow my point cannot be understood, even if you disagree with it. Your rebuttal shows you understand what was written and even are able to make counterpoints building on that understanding. Thank you for that basic respect, which sadly is not shown by the other counterparty.

I don't understand. Does your state issue concealed carry permits with no ID requirement? Mine required a background check and classes.

In my state you can carry concealed inside a bank (and indeed, the vast majority of places) without having a permit or an ID. There is no need to interact with the state in any way before doing so.

So, then the main purpose of stablecoins is crime.

Perhaps to you. You can confess your crimes here if you like. Where I live, in the United States, there is no requirement to conduct KYC to create a wallet that holds stablecoins and thus creating such a self-custody 'account' is not evidence of crime.

Anyone opposing the financial arm of total global surveillance must be a criminal, right? What do they have to hide, and all that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com