February 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Cryptocurrency: Operation Choke Point - USA Slaughters "Securities" And Banking Paths
by grarpamp 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

This happened because crypto pussies spent years on their knees as apologists for the law, asking for permission and regulation to work within the law, instead of demanding the silly law become null. So they got what they asked for... fucked by the law, more accurately, by the same bunch of GovBankPols who've been fucking over you and the Freedom of Humanity for at least the last 110 years. So long as you remain Sheeple, you will never attain Freedom. Stop being fucking Sheeple. Operation Choke Point 2.0 Is Underway, And Crypto Is In Its Crosshairs Detailing the Biden Admin's coordinated, ongoing effort across virtually every US financial regulator to deny crypto firms access to banking services https://www.piratewires.com/p/crypto-choke-point https://twitter.com/nic__carter https://www.cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Iain-Murray-Operation-Choke-… https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/415478-operation-choke-poi… https://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1622973966360133634/retweets/with_co… https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/12/06/crypto-bank-silvergate-slides-… https://finance.yahoo.com/news/signature-bank-sbny-reduce-crypto-130301487.… https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23002a.pdf https://investors.mcbankny.com/news-events/news/news-details/2023/Metropoli… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-22/binance-says-signature-s… https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/orders20230127a.htm https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-events/publications/2023/02/fede… https://www.whitehouse.gov/nec/briefing-room/2023/01/27/the-administrations… https://archive.is/fF2i3 https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/06/crypto-exchange-binance-to-sus… https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/07/2023-02192/policy-stat… https://archive.is/jnxFx https://www.banktrack.org/article/three_banks_step_away_from_dakota_access_… https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/business/bank-of-america-guns.html https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1085380063112105984 https://www.cato.org/blog/racial-equity-beyond-feds-scope https://www.sec.gov/sec-response-climate-and-esg-risks-and-opportunities https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20230117a.htm https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/04/fac… https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericfan/2022/06/21/revolving-door-riches-how-o… https://www.piratewires.com/p/readable-twitter-files https://www.coindesk.com/twitter-trump-private-company-fallacy https://luetkemeyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398946 https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2021/nr-occ-2021-14.html https://www.piratewires.com/p/twitter-vs-the-cathedral https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-05/silvergate-tumbles-after… https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/14/sec-gensler-crypto-ftx/ https://twitter.com/jchervinsky/status/1622979885143662592 https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/demystifying-the-banking-regulators-recent… https://archive.is/GeLLG Nic Carter The Biden Administration is quietly trying to ban crypto. Nic Carter explains in an explosive guest post for Pirate Wires. -Solana What began as a trickle is now a flood: the US government is using the banking sector to organize a sophisticated, widespread crackdown against the crypto industry. And the administration’s efforts are no secret: they’re expressed plainly in memos, regulatory guidance, and blog posts. However, the breadth of this plan — spanning virtually every financial regulator — as well as its highly coordinated nature, has even the most steely-eyed crypto veterans nervous that crypto businesses might end up completely unbanked, stablecoins may be stranded and unable to manage flows in and out of crypto, and exchanges might be shut off from the banking system entirely. Let’s dig in. For crypto firms, obtaining access to the onshore banking system has always been a challenge. Even today, crypto startups struggle mightily to get banks, and only a handful of boutiques serve them. This is why stablecoins like Tether found popularity early on: to facilitate fiat settlement where the rails of traditional banking were unavailable. However, in recent weeks, the intensity of efforts to ringfence the entire crypto space and isolate it from the traditional banking system have ratcheted up significantly. Specifically, the Biden administration is now executing what appears to be a coordinated plan that spans multiple agencies to discourage banks from dealing with crypto firms. It applies to both traditional banks who would serve crypto clients, and crypto-first firms aiming to get bank charters. It includes the administration itself, influential members of Congress, the Fed, the FDIC, the OCC, and the DoJ. Here’s a recap of notable events concerning banks and the policy establishment in recent weeks: On Dec. 6, Senators Elizabeth Warren, John Kennedy, and Roger Marshall send a letter to crypto-friendly bank Silvergate, scolding them for providing services to FTX and Alameda research, and lambasting them for failing to report suspicious activities associated with those clients On Dec. 7, Signature (among the most active banks serving crypto clients) announces its intent to halve deposits ascribed to crypto clients — in other words, they’ll give customers their money back, then shut down their accounts — drawing its crypto deposits down from $23b at peak to $10b, and to exit its stablecoin business On Jan. 3, the Fed, the FDIC, and the OCC release a joint statement on the risks to banks engaging with crypto, not explicitly banning banks’ ability to hold crypto or deal with crypto clients, but strongly discouraging them from doing so on a “safety and soundness” basis On Jan. 9, Metropolitan Commercial Bank (one of the few banks that serve crypto clients) announces a total shutdown of its cryptoasset-related vertical On Jan. 9, Silvergate stock falls to a low of $11.55 on bank run and insolvency fears, having traded as high as $160 in March 2022 On Jan. 21, Binance announces that due to policy at Signature bank, they will only process user fiat transactions worth more than $100,000 On Jan. 27, the Federal Reserve denies crypto bank Custodia’s two-year application to become a member of the Federal Reserve system, citing “safety and soundness” risks On Jan. 27, the Kansas City Fed branch denies Custodia’s application for a master account, which would have given it the ability to use wholesale payment services, and to hold reserves with the Fed directly On Jan. 27, the Fed also issues a policy statement which discourages banks from holding cryptoassets or issuing stablecoins, and broadens their authority to cover non-FDIC insured state-chartered banks (a reaction to Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institutions (SPDIs) like Custodia, which can hold crypto alongside fiat for its banking customers) On Jan. 27, the National Economic Council releases a policy statement not explicitly banning banks from serving crypto clients, but strongly discouraging banks from transacting with cryptoassets directly or maintaining exposure to crypto depositors On Feb. 2, the DoJ’s fraud unit announces an investigation into Silvergate over their dealings with FTX and Alameda On Feb. 6, Binance suspends USD bank transfers for retail clients (Binance US was not affected) On Feb. 7, the Jan. 27 Fed statement is entered into the federal register, turning the policy statement into a final rule, with no Congressional review, or public notice-and-comment period As of Feb. 8, Protego and Paxos’ applications to follow Anchorage and obtain full approval to become National Trust Banks are still outstanding (past the 18 month deadline), and appear likely to be imminently denied by the OCC In sum, banks taking deposits from crypto clients, issuing stablecoins, engaging in crypto custody, or seeking to hold crypto as principal have faced nothing short of an onslaught from regulators in recent weeks. Time and again, using the expression “safety and soundness,” they’ve made it clear that for a bank, touching public blockchains in any way is considered unacceptably risky. While neither the Fed/ FDIC/ OCC statement — nor the NEC statement a few weeks later — explicitly ban banks from servicing crypto clients, the writing is on the wall, and the investigations into Silvergate are a strong deterrent to any bank considering aligning itself with crypto. What is clear now is that issuing stablecoins or transacting on public blockchains (where they could circulate freely, like cash) is highly discouraged, or effectively prohibited. It is equally evident that a bank-issued fiat token would only be acceptable to regulators if it were domiciled on a surveilled, private blockchain. No ‘unhosted’ wallets allowed. 1 And perhaps most damagingly, the Fed’s devastating denial of Wyoming SPDI bank Custodia, as well as their policy statement, effectively ends any hopes that a state-chartered crypto bank might get access to the Federal Reserve system without submitting to FDIC oversight. Why might crypto entrepreneurs be wary of the FDIC? It traces back to Operation Choke Point. Some in the crypto space believe that the recent attempts to ringfence the crypto industry and cut off its connectivity to the banking system are reminiscent of this little-known Obama-era program. Beginning in 2013, Choke Point was a scheme which sought to marginalize specific industries operating legally — not through lawmaking, but by applying pressure via the banking sector. The Obama DoJ had already cut its teeth with its successful effort to sideline the online poker space in 2011 and 2012 with threats issued to banks supporting poker companies. With Choke Point, the Department decided to scale up its efforts and target other industries, starting with uncontroversial targets like payday lenders. Then, the DoJ coordinated with the FDIC and OCC to pressure member banks to “redline” — determine as too risky to do business with — certain legal but politically disfavored sectors, chief among them firearms manufacturers and adult entertainment 2 . Banks and payment processors internalized this guidance, and even after the program was formally shuttered under Trump in 2017, its shadow lingered. Today, banks simply ascribe a higher risk to activities that they suspect might draw the government’s ire, even if no specific guidance exists. Since Choke Point nominally ended, using financial rails as an extra-judicial political cudgel has only become more popular. Under pressure, a number of banks walked away from the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2017. In 2018, Bank of America and Citigroup deplatformed firearms companies, and BoA began to report client firearm purchases to the federal government. In 2019, AOC announced her intent to marginalize private prisons through her seat on the House Financial Services Committee. Financial regulators are being asked to advance progressive causes, too. In 2021, the Democratic House passed the “Federal Reserve Racial and Economic Equity Act,” which would have required the Fed to aim to “eliminate disparities across racial and ethnic groups with respect to employment, income, wealth, and access to affordable credit.” Gensler’s SEC now maintains a controversial climate agenda, as does the Fed (at smaller scale). Kamala Harris has deputized banks to advance a racial equity agenda, effectively imposing uneven demographic standards for credit provision. Today it’s even commonplace for explicitly conservative organizations like Gab or Parler, and various malcontents and dissidents who fall afoul of regime politics, to find themselves deplatformed from banks, fintech, and payment processors that they rely on to do business. For those who support this, I would invite you to imagine what financial inclusion (or exclusion) under a similarly zealous DeSantis administration might look like. “Just build your own bank,” right? Well, not if the Fed has anything to say about it. As evident with the stillborn Wyoming SPDI, the crypto industry tried that path and was utterly stymied. Banks are highly regulated public-private partnerships in an environment where new charters are excruciatingly hard to obtain, and as such remain de facto arms of the state. It has been and remains trivial to deputize them to carry out political objectives. If there was any doubt, it’s now evident that the Obama administration and its successor in Biden’s regime are comfortable circumventing the First Amendment by engaging nominally private companies to do their dirty work. Anyone paying remote attention would have noticed the oddly close revolving door between monopolistic big tech firms and Obama/ Biden security state officials. And ever since Elon Musk leaked the Twitter Files, it’s nakedly clear that the US government and its security apparatus used proxies at Twitter for overt censorship and narrative control. Twitter is “just a private company,” though, right? In 2017, Trump and Republican lawmakers like Rep. Luetkemeyer were able to put a stop to Choke Point for a time, but it didn’t last. One of the first moves from Biden’s OCC was to undo Brian Brook’s Fair Access rule that prohibited political discrimination in banking. Biden’s deputies picked up where Obama’s regulators had left off. And now, after the time it took to digest Biden’s Executive Orders, regulators are tightening the screw. Today, the outlook for banks remotely interested in crypto is precarious. Bankers tell me that crypto is toxic and the risks of engaging with the asset class aren’t worth it. In the wake of the Custodia decision, obtaining a new charter for a crypto bank looks extremely unlikely. Banking innovations at the state level, like Wyoming’s SPDI for crypto banks, appear dead in the water. Federal Charters for crypto firms with the OCC also look dead in the water. Traders, liquid funds, and businesses with crypto working capital are nervously examining their stablecoin portfolios and fiat access points, wondering if bank connectivity might be severed with little notice. Privately, entrepreneurs and CEOs in crypto tell me that they sense a regulatory noose tightening. As crypto-facing banks ‘derisk,’ younger and smaller firms will struggle to get banking, taking us back to the 2014 to 2016 period when fiat access for crypto businesses was at an extreme premium. Exchanges and other businesses that rely on fiat onramps are concerned that their few remaining bank partners will shut them off or institute draconian standards for scrutiny. As a venture capitalist operating at the early stage, I am directly witnessing the chilling effects of this policy in action. Founders are reckoning with new uncertainties around whether they’ll be able to operate their businesses at all. So why the push by bank regulators now? The FTX collapse and its ensuing effects, particularly on Silvergate, provides much of the answer. Financial regulators weren’t interested in FTX while the fraud was underway (with the exception of the SEC and its chairman Gensler, who had oddly close ties to the organization), but ever since the exchange failed in spectacular fashion, they are now contemplating ways to avoid the next such collapse. FTX as an offshore exchange was not directly supervised by financial regulators (aside from FTX US, which was a marginal stub), so it was outside of their direct aegis. However, regulators believe that they might have a silver bullet in the fiat on- and off-ramps on which the industry relies. If they can choke off fiat access, they can marginalize the industry — on and off shore — without regulating it directly. In some key respects, Crypto Choke Point 2.0 differs from the original. It appears that the administration has learned from the efforts of its predecessors. In Choke Point 1.0, guidance was mainly informal and involved backdoor, off-the-record conversations. Its main tool was the threat of investigation from the DoJ and FDIC if financial institutions didn’t internalize the administration’s risk standards. Because this was patently unconstitutional, it gave Republicans the collateral to ultimately repeal the program. In 2.0, everything is happening in plain sight, in the form of rulemaking, written guidance, and blogs. The current crypto crackdown is being sold as a “safety and soundness” issue for banks, and not merely a reputational risk issue. Jake Chervinsky of the Blockchain Association calls it “regulation by blog post.” No need to ask Congress for new laws if federal regulators can simply make policy (and in the case of the Fed, grow their scope and mandate) by publishing guidance which dissuades banks from doing business with crypto. Custodia’s Caitlin Long calls the Fed denial of her application “shooting the stallion to scatter the herd.” As a consequence, the only banks willing to touch crypto at this point are smaller, less risk-averse ones, with more to gain from banking the industry. However, this means that crypto deposits and flows end up being substantial relative to their core business, which introduces concentration risks. Banks prefer not to have excessive exposure to single counterparties, or a depository base that is highly correlated in its flows. Silvergate felt this acutely with the bank run it suffered — and survived — post FTX. While it’s impressive that they were able to honor a 70% drawdown in their depository base, that episode will dissuade any banks looking to serve crypto clients that might face the same. And practically speaking, labeling crypto-facing banks “high risk” has four direct effects: it gives them a higher premium with the FDIC, they face a lower cap rate with the Fed (which inhibits their ability to overdraw), they face restrictions on other business activities, and management risks a poor examination score with their regulatory supervisors, which inhibits their ability to do M&A. So while some analysts like Wilson Sonsini’s Jess Cheng have pointed out, somewhat optimistically, that banks are not explicitly barred from providing crypto custody or onboarding crypto clients, they still stand to get labeled high risk — and face serious business hurdles as a result. Some might be sympathetic to regulators’ attempts to insulate the banking system from the vicissitudes of the crypto space. But thus far, crypto’s various disasters haven’t produced any meaningful contagion. The industry had a full-blown credit crisis in 2022, with virtually every major lender going bankrupt, but the damage was contained. The worst fallout in the banking space was suffered by Silvergate, which suffered an $8b drawdown, but survived. No onshore, fiat-backed stablecoin suffered any meaningful adverse effects, despite the massive crypto selloff in 2021 and 2022. They functioned as intended. And no contagion spilled into traditional finance via mass selling of Treasuries, something officials have historically felt might be a key transmission channel. As Biden enters the second half of his term, his crackdown on crypto banking has deflated hopes for a regulatory rapprochement in the US. Many crypto entrepreneurs now tell me that they’re waiting for 2025 and a putative DeSantis regime for things to turn. Some can’t wait that long, and are shuttering their plans for businesses which involve any type of regulatory approval, especially with regards to bank charters. Regulators are effectively picking winners — with larger, more established crypto firms able to hang on to their bank relationships, while newer ones are shut out. Meanwhile, other jurisdictions are making a bid for their business. Hong Kong has adopted a friendlier tone once again, as has the UK. The UAE and the Saudis are looking to attract crypto firms. And US regulators can scarcely afford to forget what happened with FTX, in which they curtailed the business activities of onshore exchanges, effectively pushing US individuals into the waiting claws of SBF. If bank regulators continue their pressure campaign, they risk not only losing control of the crypto industry, but ironically increasing risk, by pushing activity to less sophisticated jurisdictions, less able to manage genuine risks that may emerge. -Nic Carter Author’s note: Thanks to Austin Campbell for his feedback on this story. Image: Public domain 1 If you’re wondering how using a stablecoin on-chain is substantively different from a bank letting clients withdraw cash from an ATM and using it to buy something from someone else, you’re not alone. 2 The FDIC at one point listed 30 different industries for banks to avoid.

1 6

Cryptocurrency: Bitfinex Tether USDT Exposed
by grarpamp 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

https://bitfinexed.medium.com/the-audio-recordings-bitfinex-doesnt-want-you… https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/1494852525215920130 It’s because of youtube-dl that we have the audio recordings of Bitfinex executive admitting to bank fraud https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E35oMQcCLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62cvxPIDBGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA8iO_Umt6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C59NXSaHBtU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcIed4A8NIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud4V__nADA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4smUyYEsAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYJUbNPJFcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR0NCwy7yeo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xiXP8HsRUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuM6QaYmot4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skuo1TmTtjU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrzeRCiPYcI Bitfinex’ed Bitfinex’ed Feb 7, 2018 · 3 min read The Audio Recordings Bitfinex doesn’t want you to hear. Bitfinex is mad because I actually took the effort to listen to all of their available recordings of their public chat channels. They know these channels can be recorded. They are public. Anyone can go onto them and listen to them. They even stream it on YouTube. In some cases, the principals behind Tether and Bitfinex make some startling admissions, including admitting to what I consider to be bank fraud, money laundering, and even admitting that they even considered doing fraud… but then say they totally didn’t. Here are those recordings. You should save these immediately and repost them to as many places as possible. None of these recordings were obtained illegally. Whalepool has taken great effort to delete their copies of these recordings, and unfortunately for them, I already got them and re-shared them. Starting from the very beginning: Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive admits to playing shell games with banks Whalepool deleted the source of this recording almost immediately. We have it available for us to hear because I have been on top of them. Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive admits to trading on his own exchange. They could be frontrunning their own customers. Tries to explain how he doesn’t trade he just buy’s and sells… uh… huh? Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive is asked who is in charge of Bitfinex. For some reason this question sends him into a panic. Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive admits that their plan was to pay off Bitfinex tokens with Tethers. Admits that Bitfinex owns Tether. Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive admits that he knew that the lawsuit against Wells Fargo was nonsense and that Wells Fargo had a right to deny the transactions. The goal was to get a temporary injunction to buy time. After Bitfinex/Tether lost banking, anytime someone asked about Tether ties to Bitfinex, Phil Potter denied a relationship. Paradise Papers proved there was. This is Phil Potter contradicting himself. Giancarlo Devasini, the Chief Financial Officer of Bitfinex/Tether admitting he seriously thought of pushing wash trades through the system, then says he totally didn’t. This was recorded before they lost banking and were desperate. The CEO of Bitfinex, is not really in charge. The Chief Financial Officer of Bitfinex admits that he is the primary decision maker, and that Phil Potter is his partner. I believe the CEO is simply a nominee CEO, like a nominee director for their shell/shelf corporations that they use for banking. Giancarlo Devasini, Chief Financial Officer of Bitfinex/Tether admits to some sketchy math they used to ‘repay’ the BFX tokens. Essentially, they told people they could get their money back quicker by converting to equity, then selling shares to another shareholder. This is called a ponzi scheme. Giancarlo Devasini, Chief Financial Officer of Bitfinex/Tether admits they trade on multiple exchanges, meaning they could be manipulating multiple books and not just Bitfinex. A whalepool ‘institutional’ customer claiming he buys Tethers for money, yet afraid to describe how the process works. Also forgets just because he bought Tethers with real money, doesn’t mean all Tethers are being bought with real money. Phil Potter, Bitfinex/Tether executive admits that wash trading is happening on Bitfinex. Makes no effort to establish if wash trading isn’t allowed, quite the contrary, claims there are reasons to ‘wash trade’. And lastly, Phil Potter admitting they will list coins even they consider to be scams. Because nothing says a legitimate exchange like the Chief Strategy Officer listing tokens which he considers to be scams in order to profit from the scams themselves. Save these recordings, because chances are they want them out of the limelight. It is irrefutable proof of fraudulent activity on their exchange. The source for all of these audio clips is from Whalepool’s Teamspeak channel. Whalepool is staffed by Bitfinex shareholders. They have repeatedly deleted videos from their channel that contain these type of audio clips and continue to chant that “YOU HAVE NO PROOF”. I have proof. I have their own voices admitting to fraudulent behavior. I’m not going to be silenced. Trade carefully. -Bitfinex’ed Bitcoin Bitfinex Fraud Financial -- More from Bitfinex’ed Blog for @Bitfinexed on Twitter. Exposing possible fraud by largest Bitcoin exchange, Bitfinex/Tether AboutHelpTermsPrivacy Get unlimited access Bitfinex’ed Bitfinex’ed 10.2K Followers Blog for @Bitfinexed on Twitter. Exposing possible fraud by largest Bitcoin exchange, Bitfinex/Tether Help Status Writers Blog Careers Privacy Terms About Text to speech

1 1

Enough Grarpamps conservative ( coughs fascist ) garbage dumps here
by professor rat 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

Its crypto-ANARCHISM you moron - NOT crypto-voluntarism. So why don't you take all your Juan/ Karl grade noise garbage and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ARSE! Fuck off GRARPAMPS moron you sound even more stupid this week than you did ten years ago. FUCK OFF and DIE!

1 0

Syrian blues
by professor rat 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

"No one responded. No one helped us. No one cared about those civilians. The whole world knows that north-west Syria is exhausted by the bombings over the past years. The hospitals destroyed, doctors were killed, many doctors were killed. No one said we are coming to you, we support you." This insight brought tears to Sarah's eyes, with Karl asking why she felt so emotional and the host responding, "They feel like they're being ignored." She added through tears, "You've got people there who are so desperate and it's as though – for years they feel as though they haven't been given the attention they deserve." https://au.yahoo.com/lifestyle/todays-sarah-abo-breaks-down-in-tears-live-o… And in related news several guests of Julian Assmange on his 2012 Russian-journalist, TV spectacle ignored the Houla Massacre

1 0

OLD AGE, Pandemic and the anarchist movement
by professor rat 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

However, the silence of the anarchist militancy, its groups and organizations, in the face of the murder of thousands of elderly men and women neglected in their residences, victims of the infamous sanitary protocols and the gerontocidal strategy adopted by the different administrations to resolve the situation of stressed health resources, speaks clearly of how ageism has permeated our belief system, showing the insufficiency of our social analysis and evidencing the narrowness, not only of our political autonomy, but of our ability to intervene in a situation of multifactorial crisis (something that, at the very least, should make us rethink the essentialist strategies that lead to the isolation of our movement and its members) https://anarchistnews.org/content/taking-notes-old-age-pandemic-and-anarchi… Reposts not detracting tracts whining about neo-liberal capitalism like it was full-blown red-Chinese fascism

1 0

Does "Dolphin Safe" Mean That No Dolphins Were Harmed? - Advertising, Marketing & Branding - United States
by Gunnar Larson 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

No St. Bernards were harmed in sending this message. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/advertising-marketing--branding/1277014… The Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act permits marketers of tuna to promote their products as "dolphin safe" if the tuna is harvested using methods that are not prohibited by the Act. For example, you can't claim that your tuna is "dolphin safe" if the tuna is caught through driftnet fishing. A consumer sued Costco, alleging that the company's claims that its canned tuna is "dolphin safe" are false and misleading on the grounds that the methods used to catch the tuna still do, in fact, harm or kill dolphins. Apparently in recognition of the fact that Costco's use of the "dolphin safe" logo complied with federal law, the plaintiff's claims -- under California law -- aren't based on the use of the logo itself. Instead, the plaintiff bases her claims on other statements made by Costco on its packaging and in its advertising that the plaintiff alleges also communicate that the tuna was caught in a manner that isn't harmful to dolphins. In addition to promoting the tuna as "dolphin safe" on its packaging, the plaintiff alleged, for example, that Costco advertised the tuna as "100% Traceable from Sea to Shelf" and that the tuna was caught using "100% Monofilament Leaders & Circle Hooks." The plaintiff also pointed to statements on Costco's website about its sustainable seafood sourcing efforts and about its participation in the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation. The court found that these statements were sufficient -- at least at the pleading stage -- to show that Costco has made its own heightened promise that the product is dolphin safe, which the court said would not be preempted by federal law. The court explained, "this case is not about whether Costco complied with DPCIA's labeling requirements. It is about Costco's own promise to consumers that the product was dolphin-safe, and whether that statement was false, deceptive, or misleading." This case is a great reminder that, even if you're making an advertising claim that is expressly permitted and regulated by federal law, it doesn't necessarily mean that other similar claims will be preempted. Wright v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, 2023 WL 210936 (N.D. Cal. 2023).

1 0

Another brick in the wall, Roger Waters sez democratic Ukraine polity ’ provoked ’ the KGB.
by professor rat 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

Very Assange ABC News More Invited to UN Security Council by Russia, Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters calls Ukraine invasion illegal, but not unprovoked 19 hours ago

1 0

How Twitter bent over backward to accommodate Trump and his conservative allies.
by professor rat 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

The rot set in early under Jackass Dorsey https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-twitter-officials-confirm-to-congress-that… Reposts not retweets that never meant anything anyway

1 0

FTX Bankruptcy Lawyers Channel their Inner Sam Bankman-Fried – Bill $21,000 for their Meals Over Just 20 Days
by Gunnar Larson 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/02/ftx-bankruptcy-lawyers-channel-their… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 9, 2023 ~ James L Bromley, Partner at Sullivan & Cromwell James L Bromley, Partner at Sullivan & Cromwell The shenanigans going on in Judge John Dorsey’s bankruptcy courtroom, which is overseeing the FTX bankruptcy proceedings of Sam Bankman-Fried’s collapsed crypto empire, are reaching levels that should be attracting the attention of federal prosecutors. The head of the newly-created FTX Task Force, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, has called the looted FTX customer accounts “one of the biggest financial frauds in American history.” On Monday, February 6, the lead counsel in the bankruptcy case, Sullivan & Cromwell, and its hand-picked CEO for FTX, John Ray, argued vehemently against the appointment of an independent examiner in the FTX matter. The independent examiner has been requested since December 1 by the U.S. Trustee, who works for the U.S. Department of Justice. Sullivan & Cromwell law partner, James Bromley, and Ray, cited the high cost likely to be charged by the independent examiner as one of their arguments against the appointment. The very next day, Tuesday, February 7, Sullivan & Cromwell submitted a compensation request for $7.6 million in legal fees for 19 days work in November, plus $105,000 in expenses. As part of those expenses, Sullivan & Cromwell included a request to be reimbursed for $7,202.19 for “Conference Room Dining,” and $1,840.00 for “overtime” meals. Accentuating the increasingly tone deaf nature of this law firm, just a few months ago Sam Bankman-Fried was making headlines for spending $2500 on lavish lunches for himself and staff while his customers’ accounts were being looted. Bromley, who was so concerned about the cost that might be incurred if an independent examiner was hired, billed at an hourly rate of $2,165 for a total of $381,689.50 in legal fees for the period of November 11 through November 30, 2022. Another Sullivan & Cromwell law partner, Andrew Dietderich, also billed at an hourly rate of $2,165 for a total of $465,042.00 over the same span of time. (Emails recently surfaced in another crypto bankruptcy case where Dietderich had written in an email to a different law firm on November 7 that FTX was “rock solid.” FTX halted customer withdrawals the next day and filed bankruptcy on November 11. See Bombshell Emails Raise Questions about What Sullivan & Cromwell Knew about Fraud at Sam Bankman-Fried’s Crypto Firms.) As lead counsel in the FTX bankruptcy matter, Sullivan & Cromwell is well aware that the bankruptcy estate is missing $8 billion of looted customer funds. What it bills is highly likely to reduce what the defrauded customers get paid. Sullivan & Cromwell’s $7.6 million in legal fees for 19 calendar days comes out to $400,000 per day. Annualized, that’s $146 million over the course of a year. The bankruptcy proceeding is expected to last as long as two years. Another compensation request filed on Tuesday was from a firm advising FTX on restructuring, Alvarez & Marsal. Its legal fees for 20 days in November came in at $5 million while expenses tallied to more than $180,000. Its FTX team devoured meals worth $12,324.88 for which it requested compensation. Another law firm that has been hired to work on the FTX bankruptcy, ostensibly to handle legal work that Sullivan & Cromwell is too deeply conflicted to handle, is Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. For a span of 51 days ending on December 31, 2022, it requested legal fees of $1.2 million and a little over $4300 in expenses. There was zero request for repayment for meals. Judge Dorsey did not rule on the request for an independent examiner on Monday, as had been expected. Instead, he called the lawyers, including the lawyer for the U.S. Trustee, into his chambers and, according to reports, told the lawyers to try to reach an agreement. Dorsey likely fears being overturned on appeal if he rules against the U.S. Trustee in one of the largest financial frauds in U.S. history. This could cast a decidedly negative light on the numerous times that this Delaware bankruptcy court’s judges (including Judge Dorsey) have ruled from the bench against appointing an independent examiner, despite legal precedent in published decisions and the clear statutory language. Another hearing in the FTX bankruptcy was scheduled for yesterday, when Dorsey was expected to announce how the independent examiner issue had been resolved. Instead, the hearing was abruptly cancelled. One item of business that was to be taken up at that hearing was the appointment of the law firm Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor to serve as Co-Counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Judge Dorsey signed that order yesterday appointing the firm, despite the cancellation of the hearing. (See Docket entry 657 at this link.) Judge Dorsey worked as a partner for that law firm for 16 years prior to taking his seat on the bench. Sullivan & Cromwell has come under withering criticism for serving as lead counsel in the bankruptcy despite voluminous conflicts of interest from its prior work for FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried and the hedge fund through which he allegedly looted the FTX customer accounts, Alameda Research. The recently surfaced email by Sullivan & Cromwell partner Andrew Dietderich, in the bankruptcy case of Voyager Digital, means that Dietderich could be called as a witness. Sullivan & Cromwell is also fighting a subpoena from law firms Boies Schiller Flexner and The Moskowitz Law Firm. The law firms want troves of documents and depositions from Sullivan & Cromwell over the work they did for FTX and Alameda in the Voyager Digital case. This is likely to mean that Sullivan & Cromwell will find itself in the problematic position of attempting to be both witness and advocate – which could potentially create unnecessarily delays and billings to the FTX bankruptcy estate. It’s not like Judge Dorsey wasn’t warned about this problem. In a letter sent to him on January 9, four sitting U.S. Senators – including bankruptcy law expert Elizabeth Warren – warned as follows: “To name just one challenge: will the firm’s lawyers be able to effectively investigate their current and former partners who were central in FTX’s conduct? Additionally, given their longstanding legal work for FTX, they may well bear a measure of responsibility for the damage wrecked on the company’s victims. Put bluntly, the firm is simply not in a position to uncover the information needed to ensure confidence in any investigation or findings.” An FTX customer, Warren Winter, also filed a formal objection to the appointment of Sullivan & Cromwell, telling the court: “Sullivan & Cromwell was one of the FTX Group’s ‘primary external law firms’ before the FTX Group collapsed. To date, the FTX Group has paid the firm more than $20.5 million in fees and retainers. Now, in the most flagrant attempt by a fox to guard a henhouse in recent memory, Sullivan & Cromwell has applied to be appointed the FTX Group’s bankruptcy counsel with duties that would include ‘investigating all potential estate causes of action’….” Despite the warnings, Judge Dorsey signed an order on January 20 making Sullivan & Cromwell lead counsel in the FTX bankruptcy. It’s time for disinfecting sunshine on what’s going on in this courthouse. We urge our colleagues at mainstream business media to wake from their slumbers and provide it.

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Dubai Bans All Crypto Privacy Coins, Your World Is Next, WarOnCrypto WarOnPrivacy
by grarpamp 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

These total hypocrites allow anonymous Gold and Cash. Every single time that you "wait for regulation" you will continue to get fucked because you didn't stand up for and demand your rights and Crypto Freedom. Stop Getting Fucked, Stop being such fucking sheep, and start fucking them instead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWAwK2fHArc No Regulators !!! Dubai Prohibits Privacy Coins Like Monero Under New Crypto Rules https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/02/08/dubai-prohibits-privacy-coins-un… https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/02/07/dubai-mandates-licensing-for-cry… https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2018/05/29/japans-ban-is-a-wake-up-call-to… https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/11/15/privacy-enhancing-crypto-coins-c… https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/09/dubai-adopts-initial-crypto-law-… https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/11/09/dubai-presses-for-crypto-compani… https://old.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/iti467/perkins_coie_whitepaper_ant… https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/anti-money-laundering-regulati… https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-law-for-a-VPN-in-Dubai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates https://www.vara.ae/media/Virtual%20Assets%20and%20Related%20Activities%20R… https://www.dawateislami.net/magazine/en/evils-of-society/false-accusation The issuance of anonymity-enhancing crypto are banned under the Emirate's new regulations for digital assets. In Dubai, the issuance of, and all activities related to, anonymity-enhancing cryptocurrencies such as monero (XMR) are prohibited under new laws published Tuesday. The jurisdiction in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) published its long-awaited crypto regulations, which sets licensing and authorization requirements for virtual asset companies and issuers looking to operate in Dubai. The new rules define anonymity-enhancing crypto as "a type of Virtual Asset which prevents the tracing of transactions or record of ownership through distributed public ledgers and for which the [Virtual Asset Service Provider] has no mitigating technologies or mechanisms to allow traceability or identification of ownership." Regulators in other jurisdictions like Japan have also taken steps to prohibit privacy-enhancing crypto. The European Union is also considering prohibiting tokens that hinder traceability. "Any obfuscation of fund flows poses a challenge to detecting illicit activities, so it is unsurprising that regulators react strongly to these kinds of asset classes and mechanisms,” said Angela Ang, senior policy adviser at blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs. Crypto activities in Dubai are supervised by its Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA), set up last year. The emirate has been working to attract attract crypto and blockchain companies to set up shop in Dubai. Read more: Dubai Mandates Licensing for Crypto Companies as It Sets Out Regulatory Requirements Update (Feb. 8, 10:33 UTC): Adds comment from Angela Ang. Correction (Feb. 8, 16:08 UTC): Removes mentions of Zcash from headline and first paragraph. It is unclear whether Zcash is affected because the regulator made exceptions for mitigating features, which theoretically could include Zcash's "unshielding" option. 58 comments share save hide report all 58 comments sorted by: best Want to add to the discussion? Post a comment! [–]Iamtutut 87 points 12 hours ago Money laundering city state bans a privacy coin, what a joke. Won’t prevent anyone to use or trade Monero. permalink embed save report reply [–]Ornery_Maintenance_8 41 points 11 hours ago Breaking News: Totalitarian regime bans tool that provides financial freedom to it's users ... I am so surprised xD permalink embed save report reply [–]SirArthurPT 19 points 11 hours ago Honestly, this is like passing a law against wind or rain... permalink embed save report reply [–]dEBRUYNE_1Moderator 13 points 11 hours ago The correction states: Correction (Feb. 8, 16:08 UTC): Removes mentions of Zcash from headline and first paragraph. It is unclear whether Zcash is affected because the regulator made exceptions for mitigating features, which theoretically could include Zcash's "unshielding" option. I don't see how that does not apply to Monero as well. Transactions can be verified with Monero's view key and key images. Additionally, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/iti467/perkins_coie_whitepaper_ant… Which concluded: We conclude that privacy coins protect legitimate individual and commercial privacy interests and that existing financial regulations sufficiently address the AML issues that privacy coins present. And: Not only do privacy coins provide public benefits that substantially outweigh their risks, existing AML regulations properly and sufficiently cover those risks, providing a proven framework for combatting money laundering and related crimes. permalink embed save report reply [–]tripler142 36 points 13 hours ago How can you enforce this? Buy bitcoin on a legit platform, go to one of the p2p "desks" on the 🧅, trade for monero. 🤷‍♂️ permalink embed save report reply [–]notsetvin 47 points 12 hours ago Get caught and get your hand sliced off is how they will enforce this probably. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]tripler142 12 points 12 hours ago Lol, yeah they would do that.... permalink embed save parent report reply [–]EspHack 4 points 10 hours ago yeah, but also, hand slicing will scare business away survival of the fittest ensures we will end up with countries behaving more like hotels permalink embed save parent report reply [–]xmrjunkie223 2 points 9 hours ago You say that but I see these companies building and all encompassing approach to try and stomp this problems out. The cbdc trail in Nigeria and the fight against btc is really a fight against btc and xmr permalink embed save parent report reply [–]Elix_Exo1127 7 points 11 hours ago Like most laws this only hinders legitimate users, further pushing the narrative that Monero is just for criminals. Most users can't wrap their heads around anything more complex than ; "insert credit card here". permalink embed save parent report reply [–]BitsAndBobs304 2 points 8 hours ago they can take it off the CEXs, so you can't offramp anymore and you're locked in the tiny ecosystem of DEX and illegal vendors permalink embed save parent report reply [–]tripler142 4 points 8 hours ago You can swap bitcoin to monero via p2p. As long as it's legal to buy bitcoin is easy to buy monero. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]belsaurn 1 point 8 hours ago You can currently do that, what happens when there is so few that are willing to accept Monero because they have no way of off ramping it? permalink embed save parent report reply [–]ScoobaMonsta 3 points 3 hours ago Because the people who really understand Monero don’t want to cash out of Monero! Monero is not a vehicle for fiat profits! Monero is for using!!! permalink embed save parent report reply [–]BitsAndBobs304 0 points 8 hours ago you can't cash out, you're limited to the very small ecosystem of illegal merchants online and DEXes permalink embed save parent report reply [–]tripler142 6 points 8 hours ago You do the reverse. P2p to bitcoin, back to legitimate exchange cash out... not complicated permalink embed save parent report reply [–]BitsAndBobs304 2 points 7 hours ago you can't, because you'll get tainted btc that won't even be accepted on the CEX offramp or won't be able to show provenance or whatever else issue. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]tripler142 1 point 7 hours ago They would have to ban any cash to crypto transaction that you and I can just do together. The bitcoin is from that guy I met a year ago. Traded cash for his crypto.There. Provenance. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]BitsAndBobs304 3 points 7 hours ago With the taxman you're guilty until proven innocent. If the cash for coin guy gave you tainted or mixed coins they may get rejected. Also, not many people around the world trade cash for coin, and it's risky. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]tripler142 1 point 7 hours ago Tainted coins makes no fucking sense. Then cancel crypto I'll stick with cash. All the trained drug dealer, ponzi scheme cash is flowing and they accept it everywhere. That's like tracking every serial number of every bill ever minted. If they do that I'm out. If I buy it and then sell for a profit I pay taxes. Doesn't matter where it came from permalink embed save parent report reply [–]ScoobaMonsta 1 point 3 hours ago Open your eyes permalink embed save parent report reply [–]No_Industry9653 0 points 5 hours ago I don't think Dubai has the influence to take it off centralized exchanges. It will take a lot to eliminate every no-verification-required swap style exchange. Strangling Monero is possible but there is a high bar, you're going to need comprehensive monitoring of other chains and extensive controls over getting in or out of the "legitimate", fully surveilled and doxxed crypto ecosystem. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]BitsAndBobs304 2 points 5 hours ago they will force the exchanges to make a local version just like they do for european countries and for usa, one without monero. monero is not on any major usa exchange except kraken, even binance has monero but not binance us. EU keeps piling more and more crypto regulation, im sure theyll come for monero too eventually permalink embed save parent report reply [–]No_Industry9653 0 points 4 hours ago You can just use a VPN, forcing a local version doesn't do anything unless the exchange requires additional verification. What might make some difference is if they were pressured to cut off non-verifying smaller exchanges to prevent them from using the larger exchange to resolve liquidity issues, but that's not a showstopper either. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]BitsAndBobs304 2 points 4 hours ago You can just use a VPN, forcing a local version doesn't do anything unless the exchange requires additional verification they require KYC, so ofc you cant just use a vpn permalink embed save parent report reply [–]No_Industry9653 0 points 4 hours ago The largest ones do, but so what? Who uses those when they just want to swap between Bitcoin and XMR for privacy reasons anyway? Like I was saying, the loss condition is total surveillance and control of the visible coins and exchanges such that you can't get in or out, anything short of that doesn't cut it. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]BitsAndBobs304 2 points 4 hours ago what kind of minor CEXs allow you to cash out btc for usd/eur into your bank without kyc? permalink embed save parent report reply [–]No_Industry9653 1 point 4 hours ago None, but the big ones don't prohibit depositing coins that came from other exchanges. They would need to do this for effectively shutting down Monero use. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]beaubeautastic 1 point 7 hours ago gotta be careful though. that btc got your name on it, ln might be fine though permalink embed save parent report reply [–]psiconautasmart 1 point 7 hours ago Others work better than BTC for that. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]tripler142 0 points 7 hours ago Sure just an example, and most underground trading desks only use those 2 coins. Which I why I mention that in case people r into that sort of thing. I'm not. Informational purposes only permalink embed save parent report reply [–]FilmGunShops 8 points 11 hours ago Does this include gold and silver also known as privacy coins? permalink embed save report reply [–]ArticMineXMR Core Team 7 points 8 hours ago* Dubai also severely restricts, if not an outright bans VPNs. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-law-for-a-VPN-in-Dubai So this is not that surprising. This is a country that does not have the independent judiciary or constitutional protections commonly taken for granted in the west. Edit 1: For the example legal arguments around preventing false accusations of criminal activity by blockchain surveillance companies, as a use case for Monero, which could be used in the EU, US etc., would likely not be possible in the UAE. Edit 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates Edit 3: Here is the official link to the actual regulations: https://www.vara.ae/media/Virtual%20Assets%20and%20Related%20Activities%20R… The key point is the definition of: Anonymity-Enhanced Cryptocurrencies means a type of Virtual Asset which prevents the tracing of transactions or record of ownership through distributed public ledgers and for which the VASP has no mitigating technologies or mechanisms to allow traceability or identification of ownership. There is a very strong case that a view key plus key images or even a cryptographic proof that a transaction was sent indicating who sent a transaction would meet the requirement above. Edit 4: The legal system in the UAE is based upon Shar’i Law. Here is some information on false accusations Shar’i Law: https://www.dawateislami.net/magazine/en/evils-of-society/false-accusation It comes down to making the case that blockchain surveillance (BS) is Haraam-e-Qat’ee because of the high probability of false positives. So while the western approach may not work in the UAE there are alternatives. permalink embed save report reply [–]GoXMR 17 points 13 hours ago Nobody changed the world by not going against the status quo. permalink embed save report reply [–]lDanceLikeThis 4 points 13 hours ago is this like a Grammy award? permalink embed save report reply [–]VeThor_Power 4 points 6 hours ago what baffles me is that we are in 2023 and still there is not a reliable DeX to trade Monero. It is ridiculous that this is not a priority for the community. permalink embed save report reply [–]Aotrx 3 points 5 hours ago UAE is modern day slave owning state permalink embed save report reply [–]_The-Resistance 10 points 12 hours ago I think they are referring to Monero on exchanges or KYC Monero, this will not affect individual wallets, cause enforcing this on non custodial wallets is impossible permalink embed save report reply [–]geonic_Monero Outreach Producer 11 points 11 hours ago There is no KYC Monero, stop with that bullshit term. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]_The-Resistance 3 points 11 hours ago If you buy on an exchange they will know you have it, not how you use it or where you use it, but they will have your identity linked to a Monero withdraw, and is worst if you don't withdraw and pay directly from your exchange account, that is why Local Monero exist permalink embed save parent report reply [–]geonic_Monero Outreach Producer 11 points 11 hours ago Right, so you've KYC'd yourself. The coin itself isn't KYC'd. If I send you 1 XMR right now, can you tell whether it's a "KYC Monero" or a regular Monero? permalink embed save parent report reply [–]_The-Resistance 2 points 11 hours ago That is right, what I am trying to say is that if you use an exchange you are fucked up permalink embed save parent report reply [–]geonic_Monero Outreach Producer 1 point 8 hours ago so a KYC monerozanto (monero user) permalink embed save parent report reply [–]LinuxHeki 3 points 13 hours ago WTF permalink embed save report reply [–]shortwavesurfer2009 2 points 6 hours ago Better tell localmonero and DEXes they cant do business their... Oh wait... permalink embed save report reply [–]Solid-Win6743 1 point 10 hours ago Uhhh, so scared, it is written on paper that it's forbiden, so now I can't use it. uhhhhh /s permalink embed save report reply [–]Ur_mothers_keeper 1 point 8 hours ago Is monero explicitly mentioned in this law? Because does have "mechanisms to allow traceability and identification of ownership." You can share individual transactionkey images with authorities, as well as view keys. It's just, the government needs due process or whatever it's process is (a car battery and jumper cables attached to the nuts in some countries) to compel the owner to divulge the necessary information. Maybe a citizen of UAE or a resident can clear that up for us? permalink embed save report reply [–]HoboHaxor 1 point 7 hours ago Didn't happen (mainly going by the droves people here that say you _can't_ ban Monero, thus it never happened.) permalink embed save report reply [–]beaubeautastic 1 point 7 hours ago "Any obfuscation of fund flows poses a challenge to detecting illicit activities, so it is unsurprising that regulators react strongly to these kinds of asset classes and mechanisms,” said Angela Ang, senior policy adviser at blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs. damn right and we aint gonna stop permalink embed save report reply [–]Few-Calligrapher3617 1 point 4 hours ago Hell naw we gotta find a way to sneak in such technology without alerting Dubai they need monero permalink embed save report reply [–]PhillyFan1977 1 point 3 hours ago Keep buying and using it. permalink embed save report reply [–]ScoobaMonsta 1 point 3 hours ago The article on Japan is from 2018. It doesn’t ban Monero. It just forces the exchanges to delist privacy coins. It’s not illegal to own or to use Monero. permalink embed save report reply [–]Vikebeer 1 point 43 minutes ago Alphabet shills are pushing it a place to move to as well. permalink embed save report reply [–]dEBRUYNE_1Moderator 80 points 2 years ago* In sum: We conclude that privacy coins protect legitimate individual and commercial privacy interests and that existing financial regulations sufficiently address the AML issues that privacy coins present. And: Not only do privacy coins provide public benefits that substantially outweigh their risks, existing AML regulations properly and sufficiently cover those risks, providing a proven framework for combatting money laundering and related crimes. permalink embed save report reply [–]CaptainPatent 34 points 2 years ago Glad the attorneys at Perkins Coie have their heads on straight. Hopefully regulators agree. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]geonic_Monero Outreach Producer 22 points 2 years ago* Lawyers think whatever you pay them to think. I wouldn't take what they've written as a personally held opinion. Otherwise they would've written it without being commissioned by Tari Labs & Co (and it would've taken them less time, but, you know... they charge by the hour). Does anyone really think Perkins Coie would refuse to argue FOR the government (or any other institution) and AGAINST privacy-preserving cryptocurrencies, if they had approached them first? Because they believe in the technology? Please. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]CaptainPatent 14 points 2 years ago Lawyers think whatever you pay them to think. "No we don't" -The attorneys of Perkins Coie. This message has been paid for by a grant from the reddit antagonists fund permalink embed save parent report reply [–]geonic_Monero Outreach Producer 4 points 2 years ago 🤣 Exactly. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]SamsungGalaxyPlayerXMR Contributor[S] 23 points 2 years ago They still stand by their word. Perkins Coie is a well-known, prestigious law firm with their reputation on the line. They said everything in this whitepaper, not anyone else. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]geonic_Monero Outreach Producer 9 points 2 years ago Not arguing that. I'm saying that I can't judge their moral character by their professional output. Does anyone really think Perkins Coie would refuse to argue FOR the government (or any other institution) and AGAINST privacy-preserving cryptocurrencies, if they had approached them first? Because they believe in the technology? What do you think about this part? permalink embed save parent report reply [–]SamsungGalaxyPlayerXMR Contributor[S] 5 points 2 years ago I simply don't understand how that question is relevant. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]geonic_Monero Outreach Producer 12 points 2 years ago I was replying to someone who had said that the lawyers "have their head on straight". That implies a moral judgment. If they had refused to argue for the other side or had done the work pro bono, because they believe in the cause, I might be inclined to agree. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]Epidemic_Fancy 7 points 2 years ago Thank you; (and) yes this is a moment we all need to seriously appreciate and remember. We are here in a place of important historical remembrance where we prove our freedom is justifiably interwoven with truth and privacy as well as anti criminal pursuits. Beautifully written and now “peer” reviewed. Thank you to all who have made our wonderful and abstract journey possible. Have a beautiful day. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]PhillyFan1977 2 points 2 years ago Exactly 100% agree. There is no need for any further regulations permalink embed save parent report reply [–]jesuispero 18 points 2 years ago* Don't lose the forest for the trees. Did anyone even read the paper? Most of their suggestions, regarding Monero, if implemented by exchanges and payment service providers would mean a nightmare for everyone in this community except for those select few that are already well connected, have fancy lawyers and "optimal" legal structures. We as a community shouldn't condone or incentivize this type of discourse, even if it means financial "gains" in the short term. Most of their suggestions if put in practice would be a direct attack on Monero users, and yet here we are, celebrating. As /u/geonic_correctly pointed out this paper feels like a missed opportunity more than anything else. We as a community need to remain vigilant and not fall for the same traps that have plagued some other projects in this space, code can change, communities consensus can change, be mindful of playing the state apparatus game and hoping that somehow you'll "win" by playing by their rules. You'll lose, badly. Even if some people would be financially better off in the short term. That was never Monero's goal, keep that in mind. permalink embed save report reply [–]ErCiccioneXMR Contributor 12 points 2 years ago playing the state apparatus game and hoping that somehow you'll "win" by playing by their rules. You'll lose, badly. Get a moral gold medal. I'm happy to see there are still people in this community who refuse this kind of regulatory bullshit. I hate to see many acting like Monero will survive only if it will fit state regulations. Too many seem to see Monero as simply a product that needs to fit as many regulations as possible to become mainstream. I don't care of Monero becoming mainstream and worth 1 bajillion a coin. People who actually need Monero will never go through KYC or other regulatory bullshit. They will use an half-broken smartphone found in the streets of a city in Rwanda to send money to the rebels who are trying to overthrow the dictatorship. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]tempMonero123 5 points 2 years ago Monero can still be used outside of regulatory requirements, just like physical cash can. If Monero was made only to fit in such requirements (become neutered to the point it's basically Bitcoin), then I would have a problem with it. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]Alex058 3 points 2 years ago* How did this whitepaper change the community from cypherpunk to regulatory bootlickers? The tech hasnt changed, the people neither: chill man! EDIT: ErCiccione pointed out to me he didnt write anything like this, I must have read it elsewhere. Anyhow, my apologies to him EDIT2: I see I mixed up two replies, but that doesnt change the fact I was wrong 😅 permalink embed save parent report reply [–]ErCiccioneXMR Contributor 3 points 2 years ago How did this whitepaper change the community from cypherpunk to regulatory bootlickers? I never said any of that. You should probably reread my comments. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]Alex058 4 points 2 years ago Hi, I would have sworn I had read that exact words in one of your replies. But cant find it now, so I must have been mistaking, hence my well meant apalogies! I will edit my reply immediately permalink embed save parent report reply [–]jesuispero 4 points 2 years ago Also it's worth keeping in mind that loose community agreements shift, new people join the community, etc BTC community was mostly cypherpunk at some point, it's far from it these days, sometimes those things change fast. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]Alex058 3 points 2 years ago Agreed. Good thing is, if this community would change for the bad, a new one would arise permalink embed save parent report reply [–]rbrunner7XMR Contributor 3 points 2 years ago They will use an half-broken smartphone found in the streets of a city in Rwanda to send money to the rebels who are trying to overthrow the dictatorship. Woah, you lean pretty far out of the window here :) But yeah, has something. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]ErCiccioneXMR Contributor 6 points 2 years ago I could have made a softer example about rural asian communities receiving fundings for their farm in XMR directly to their phone from a random guy in australia, but the rwanda rebels thing was a more powerful example :P permalink embed save parent report reply [–]jesuispero 1 point 2 years ago I'm happy to see there are still people in this community who refuse this kind of regulatory bullshit. I hate to see many acting like Monero will survive only if it will fit state regulations. Too many seem to see Monero as simply a product that needs to fit as many regulations as possible to become mainstream. I don't care of Monero becoming mainstream and worth 1 bajillion a coin. I think we can close this thread now :) permalink embed save parent report reply [–]MoneroArbo 4 points 2 years ago Do you have any specific concerns? permalink embed save parent report reply [–]jesuispero 10 points 2 years ago* "To target and lessen the anonymity-related risks of privacy coins, appropriate enhanced due diligence would likely include measures to prove a customer’s source of funds, place of residence, and profession. Other measures may include a requirement that customers describe in detail their purpose for transacting privacy coins (e.g., the holder is a cryptocurrency trader or operates a business in which cryptocurrency is accepted as payment), along with anticipated privacy coin transaction volumes and anticipated privacy coin transaction counterparties." "Although it would be a blunter instrument for risk mitigation than per-customer analysis, a VASP could reasonably and effectively lessen the overall AML risk of a privacy coin offering by categorically prohibiting customers who are in higher risk categories or geographies from accessing the privacy coin offering" " a VASP could require supplemental information from a customer before processing a privacy coin transaction (e.g., details regarding the purpose of a transaction, the name and address of the recipient, and contact information for the recipient)." "Users can reveal an XMR transaction’s details that are specific to their account via key-based functionality that is built into the Monero protocol. Specific view keys can be shared with any third party to grant insight into the account associated with the view keys. This enables users and VASPs to disclose certain transaction details associated with a given account to a third party without publicly disclosing that user’s transactional information. In addition, VASPs can require up-front disclosures as part of their registration process and on an ongoing basis to meet their obligations." Imagine if all (or a combination of the above) becomes the standard of the industry, is this (as a community) what we are really rooting/lobbying for? permalink embed save parent report reply [–]tododiamesmacoisa 4 points 2 years ago Imagine if all (or a combination of the above) becomes the standard of the industry, is this (as a community) what we are really rooting/lobbying for? Eh, maybe. I mean, even if that becomes the industry standard... This community would develop alternatives, as some of them already exist. The goal of the paper was to prove that Monero can be completely aligned with KYC/AML practices and there's no need to ban it, which would be a lot, really a lot worse than just forcing KYC in the standard exchanges. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]jesuispero 2 points 2 years ago "Standard" exchanges that want to list Monero already do without (almost) none of the above measures. Coinbase doesn't list Monero because they don't want to, period. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]tododiamesmacoisa 6 points 2 years ago Cool. So I don't get your point. This whole whitepaper is literally just ammunition for when people or other entities come around spewing bullshit that they need to ban monero or something like that because it's impossible to apply the existing regulations to it. I prefer to have this ammunition than to not have it. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]jesuispero 2 points 2 years ago That the suggestions they make, if they were to become standard across the industry, would be a disaster for monero users. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]Alex058 2 points 2 years ago I disagree. This is allready standard practice with normal banks/fiat, as it is with buying crypto from VASPS’s with a bit higher volumes. I’d rather have XMR then USD, being sure there’s no unlimited printing AND I can buy stuff without companies knowing what and where I buy my groceries permalink embed save parent report reply [–]jesuispero 3 points 2 years ago Great that normal banks/fiat is the standard we hold ourselves up to these days. Regarding the rest, if your grocery store were to be using a payment processor they would potentially fall under some of this regulations, were they to follow some of this recommendations it's not necessarily true that "companies wouldn't know where you buy your groceries". Also, this paper clearly incentivizes entities to discriminate against "privacy coin" (blergh!) users to a degree of scrutiny that "other coin" users are not subject. That in of itself is concerning, it could also be used by current market participants (that deal with monero with no issues) to change their compliance policies to incorporate some of these suggestions. All in all, it's nothing to write home about, let alone celebrate. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]tempMonero123 1 point 2 years ago Yes, those are concerns, and I'd rather not have those requirements. However it doesn't stop Monero from being a useful tool. This would prevent people from not 'being their own bank'. People can still use Monero to transact and secure their wealth and pay for things without going through a bank or other financial institution. I don't like discrimination, and this could prevent someone like a cam performer from getting a crypto bank account (even though their services are legal, places like PayPal already refuse to have them as customers). This hypothetical cam performer may not be able to get a traditional mortgage, but they could still rent-to-own. I'm sure other products/services would pop up in the future that would allow for people to more safely 'be their own bank'. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]jesuispero 8 points 2 years ago* On another note, another high-level concern I have is that we as a community will change our culture and start focusing on these "compliance questions" too much, foregoing possible protocol improvements/research because that would potentially mean "delisting". Being not compliant with policies as draconian as the FAFT or AMLD5, would in other periods in this community, not that long ago, been seen as a badge of honor. Or that we'll become gradually more like the Bitcoin community, more and more focused on "number go up", "institutional investors" and similar crap like that. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]ErCiccioneXMR Contributor 6 points 2 years ago This is probably my biggest fear. Luckily that's not the case yet, but i cannot hide that seeing so many in the community being so focused about compliance (not talking about the average guy who only wants to see numbers going up, talking about actual contributors) worries me. Luckily i don't see key developers like moneromooo becoming regulatory bootlickers, so as long as things stay as they are, we are good. On a personal note, i wouldn't really want to be part of a project focused on pleasing institutions and regulations. That's not the reason i'm here. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]geonic_Monero Outreach Producer 31 points 2 years ago While I applaud the effort, it's disappointing that they decided to amplify the "privacy coin" meme. "Privacy-preserving" or "privacy-enabling cryptocurrencies" should've been used throughout. I would've also liked to see a section on "privacy-eroding cryptocurrencies", starting with Bitcoin, and how that affects the individual user. This was an opportunity to change the narrative around this technology and to underline how Bitcoin's radical transparency is the niche, not Monero's privacy-preserving technology. To explain to regulators and others that Bitcoin is unlike *any product* currently available in the financial world. Does any bank offer a transparent account that anyone can peer into? Why not? The paper also misses some of the more important benefits of fungible money. Guilt by association is a thing with Bitcoin. You need to not only be sure of the person you receive your Bitcoin from, but also be careful who you spend it with, since that person might commit a crime and you are the source of his funds. Bitcoin erodes freedoms on so many levels it is preposterous. permalink embed save report reply [+][deleted] 2 years ago* (1 child) [–]pcre 5 points 2 years ago Can I violate the money laundering law as a private person? Suppose I sell Monero on localmonero.co for cash. I cannot check whether the money comes from illegal transactions. I have to assume the innocence of the other person. The money laundering law turns this around. You have to prove your innocence. permalink embed save report reply [–]HoboHaxor 9 points 2 years ago Does it really matter? Cryptologists, mathematicians, scholars, security experts, all have testified before congress/senate stating the backdooring crypto just won't work. Yet the keep writing new bills and will until the anti encryption passes. permalink embed save report reply [–]Kukri4321 8 points 2 years ago Woo! Been waiting for this! permalink embed save report reply [–]Tallest-man 10 points 2 years ago At long last!! Thanks Perkins! permalink embed save report reply [–]johnfoss68 7 points 2 years ago Great work, and well done to all those involved in making it happen. permalink embed save report reply [–][deleted] 7 points 2 years ago Thank you team Tari permalink embed save report reply [–]endogenicXMR Contributor 5 points 2 years ago Great effort on this. I did notice the following references to auditing Monero exist in the paper... Specific view keys can be shared with any third party to grant insight into the account associated with the view keys. ... The confidential transactions feature is a cryptographic tool that allows for verification that no additional XMR has been created or destroyed as part of a given transaction, without revealing the exact transaction amount. 42 ... Unlike the Bitcoin protocol, Monero users have two sets of private keys and public keys (four keys total). The pair of public keys make up the wallet address of a Monero user, whereas the two private keys (the view key and spend key) allow an individual to determine whether an output is addressed to them (view key) and enables the individual to send XMR and determine whether it has been spent (spend key).43 To verify transfers of XMR, a third-party observer must know that the XMR is owned by the individual using it. To enable this verification, the individual using the XMR signs the previously received XMR with the one-time address used, thereby proving that the individual knows the private keys and therefore rightfully controls the XMR that the individual is using. The private view key may be given to others to grant transparency into certain details of particular transactions associated with the address or addresses. Monero also contains an optional text field called “tx_extra” that can store arbitrary data in encrypted format. While this text field can be used for a variety of compliance purposes, this use has not been widely recommended by researchers and developers.44 … which are great! But I personally would like to have seen a small section to show (via the Monero command-line system or a symbolic representation) some techniques, specific tools, and processes of exactly how legally liable entities or operators can, in PC's confidence, sufficiently comply, maybe with some basic examples for different entity types. How awesome that PC did this! permalink embed save report reply [–]fluffyponyzaXMR Core Team 9 points 2 years ago How awesome that PC did this! Just want to point out that they didn't do this of their own volition. Tari Labs commissioned it, and paid for it (with the help of some others). permalink embed save parent report reply [–]endogenicXMR Contributor 3 points 2 years ago Yes, I remember working on an original high level technical description of how Monero works during the MRL workshop which MyMonero and Tari sponsored and Naveen and I put on. We called it a one-sheet and it was requested for this 'regulatory writeup' work. Its on the MRL workshop minutes from back then, sarang, surae and I wrote it in Nashville, but was years before we saw what we became of it so I'm glad to see the post.. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]unjack 4 points 2 years ago I still don't see how it helps. permalink embed save report reply [–]Febos 20 points 2 years ago* It will help random new guy that heard of Monero and then heard FUD how not complaint Monero is with regulations and how will be delisted from all exchanges. It will help small exchanges or small merchants or any service that plan to use or use Monero and was uncertain because of the FUD. Now will normally continue doing what they were doing or start doing it with Monero. And they will point to the paper when people will ask about it. It will help you and me to explain to people, that FUD how Monero dont have future and how only surveillance coins will exist, is false. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]aaj094 8 points 2 years ago Well, for a while it has been a view that exchanges are hesitant to list monero because of regulatory concerns. This paper seems to allay fears that privacy coins are inherently incompatible with current regulatory regimes. permalink embed save parent report reply [–]TrasherDK 3 points 2 years ago Wrong reply. permalink embed save parent report reply [+][deleted] 2 years ago* (3 children) [+][deleted] 2 years ago (1 child) [–]TrasherDK 2 points 2 years ago Cool. Been waiting for this one forever. permalink embed save report reply

1 0