21–27 of 27 posts
It kind of sucks that Bitcoin being the poster-boy for free, anonymous currency free of government is still being pestered by governments. I guess Uncle Sam wants his cut!
Bitcoin is not anonymous; every transaction is recorded and public.
Read their terms. They're explicitly front-running. Price data on the public site is delayed (they don't say by how much), but "market makers" can buy faster access. Their FDIC insurance as a trust company covers only US dollars, not Bitcoins. Bitcoins are uninsured. If you have a disagreement with the exchange part of the company, you have to go to binding arbitration in Singapore.
How does one ensure Bitcoins?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does one ensure Bitcoins?
At the rate agreed upon by the purchaser and insurance provider. The considerations are different than those of insuring gold or dollars, but to an actuary, they're all just probabilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin is not anonymous; every transaction is recorded and public.
>Bitcoin is not anonymous by default; every transaction is recorded and public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the rate agreed upon by the purchaser and insurance provider. The considerations are different than those of insuring gold or dollars, but to an actuary, they're all just probabilities.
I think the question was more, with whom does one ensure Bitcoins? Has any insurance provider stepped up and said that they have a solid-enough picture of Bitcoin's risks to know what premium to charge?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the rate agreed upon by the purchaser and insurance provider. The considerations are different than those of insuring gold or dollars, but to an actuary, they're all just probabilities.
I think the question was more, with whom does one ensure Bitcoins? Has any insurance provider stepped up and said that they have a solid-enough picture of Bitcoin's risks to know what premium to charge?
What standards of bitcoin security will the underwriter be evaluating against?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See here: http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2015/pr1505071.htm
This definitely raises more questions than it answers. Can a typical money transmitter just pretend to handle Bitcoin as well and magically exempt itself from the state money transmission framework? Do other states consider this kind of trust company to be a bank or a money transmitter? What does FinCEN think?
It has restrictions and depending on how the Trust was constructed, it may not be applicable in other states for certain transmission activities.
>>Do other states consider this kind of trust company to be a bank or a money transmitter?
They evaluate what the Trust was built for,and what the company wants to do in their state, and evaluate whether there is a delta or overlap.
>>What does FinCEN think?
no diff, still have BSA/AML obligations and commitments.