111–120 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speculation / gambling. Crypto is the greatest casino ever.
The stock market is far larger than crypto, and RoaringKitty is proving that it is the greatest casino ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stock market is far larger than crypto, and RoaringKitty is proving that it is the greatest casino ever.
The stock market is too tied to reality. Where other than crypto can you stick a dog meme on a joke coin and have a $23bn market cap out of it?
That's where your premise is wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has nothing to do with this. To do that you would be long-term leaving the money in their account, requiring their cooperation because they would have the legal right to withdraw it. The same scheme works when you have the person whose name is on the account open it themselves. On top of that, that isn't even how withholding works. The tax isn't taken out by the bank, it's taken out by the employer, so to make y…
Not all transactions are subject to withholding, especially the ones one might want to hide.
Unless you're talking about overt crime like drug deals, and then we're back to that already being independently illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This doesn’t sound like one of those stories. Even if this turns out to be one of the stories where the defendants are actually wrongdoers, those laws are still resulting in "countless stories of small businesspeople suddenly being locked out of their bank accounts because their transaction patterns looked suspicious." Which isn't worth it, because the wrongdoers can still be prosecuted for their underlying crimes…
Huh? I'm not big on police over-reach but to claim that the chain of responsibility for a crime ends at some arbitrary point is silly on its face. Should either side of a hitman-for-hire arrangement not be penalized for participating in a crime? Should we eliminate laws criminalizing murder because some people are wrongfully tried and convicted? Turning off a criminal's money laundering spigot is a deterrent against…
It's not about an arbitrary point, it's about whether you're actively participating in the crime. So for example:
> Should either side of a hitman-for-hire arrangement not be penalized for participating in a crime?
Paying someone to commit murder is conspiracy to commit murder, not money laundering. It has nothing inherently to do with banks or KYC and is just as illegal if you pay the hitman in gold bullion or Monero.
> Turning off a criminal's money laundering spigot is a deterrent against committing that crime.
But that doesn't actually happen, because the rules only trap the unwary. Innocent people who don't know that doing something will get their account locked even though they've done nothing wrong.
Criminal organizations are repeat players with their own lawyers, so they know what not to do, and then they don't get caught because money is fungible. For example, if they're selling pot brownies and it's illegal to sell pot, they just put down on the form that they're selling ordinary brownies. Or cherry pie, or car washes, or it doesn't matter what because they just put a legal product on the form and then they only get caught if the government independently comes to investigate their criminal enterprise, which is the same way they get caught without any kind of bank reporting or KYC.
> Surely there must be data to back up this claim if it's so easily provable. How much stronger would the dollar be today? Source?
How would you even propose to measure this? If there was a source it would just be a paper someone published making the same case as the message board comment. To actually measure the effect you would need to get rid of the KYC laws and then measure the result, which hasn't happened, so the only thing you're going to get either way is reasoning for what would be expected to happen under the circumstances.
But how would you expect other countries to respond to the US leveraging the dollar in this way to infringe on their sovereignty and seize the assets of their citizens?
> Even a source for "countless small businesspeople being locked out of their bank accounts" would be interesting.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in a third world country and nobody uses crypto to send money. The existing remittance system works fine. Crypto's claim in this area is that could be cheaper than remittances in the traditional banking system. But remittance fees using traditional banking are already only 1.5% so we're not talking about saving massive amounts of money in most circumstances. Which is probably why virtually nobody has switched…
Indeed, the fees involved in sending in the vast majority of crypto, certainly Bitcoin and ethereum, are complete non-starters for this use case. In my opinion, it's a shame, because this is something that crypto could do extremely well. But here we are. I do believe that it will be solved at some point, as long as regulation doesn't make that impossible. It is making it much more difficult for new coins to get start…
So crypto is actually more expensive that the traditional banking system on top of just being weirder. Like, you have to use Binance's P2P in my country which is just way more complicated than the traditional remittance system of "give us their bank account details".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all transactions are subject to withholding, especially the ones one might want to hide.
But how does that help you? Whether or not your brokerage is required to withhold income tax, they're still going to file a 1099-DIV or what have you. Unless you're talking about overt crime like drug deals, and then we're back to that already being independently illegal.
I am divesting of a business that has many kinds of transactions. Counterparties often suggest a cash discount so that one or both parties can hide the income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stock market is too tied to reality. Where other than crypto can you stick a dog meme on a joke coin and have a $23bn market cap out of it?
> The stock market is too tied to reality. That's where your premise is wrong.