Second largest US mortgage lender will accept crypto payments this year

Post by nradov » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 11:56 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #105

JoshTriplett wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Generally cash real estate transactions aren't subject to most KYC / AML rules. That's not entirely true. The bank wants to know enough information to make sure that the cash came from the buyer, and not from someone else other than the buyer, for AML reasons as well as creditworthiness. So they do seek proof of the provenance of the cash sufficient to demonstrate that it actually came from the buyer. (Source: deta…

Proof of source of cash funds in a real estate transaction is required because if the house is bought with illegal drug proceeds, the collateral can be seized by the Feds, leaving the note investors holding the bag. The policy originated in the 80s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/realestate/1989/05/06... (family member is a mortgage underwriter)

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 12:03 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #121

toomuchtodo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of source of cash funds in a real estate transaction is required because if the house is bought with illegal drug proceeds, the collateral can be seized by the Feds, leaving the note investors holding the bag. The policy originated in the 80s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/realestate/1989/05/06... (family member is a mortgage underwriter)

That only applies if the buyer applies for a mortgage. The question was about cash transactions.

Post by ac29 » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 12:53 AM UTC

seriousquestion wrote: post #63

peteretep wrote: post #53

It’s all bullshit marketing until someone is accepting payments for goods priced in crypto.

How is that marketing? When I'm in Mexico things are priced in pesos, but I pay with dollars and crypto.

Post by oenetan » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 12:59 AM UTC

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #70

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SPACs have been around for a while and plenty of reputable companies have gone that route

Why so defensive? People have a right to be skeptical about SPACs. They've only been "mainstream" for the past couple years and are quickly losing steam as a vehicle for public exposure[1]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-08/spac-p...

Post by JamisonM » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

MichaelBurge wrote: post #79

JamisonM wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to do all this fancy footwork to make volatility not matter doesn't that prove that volatility does matter. If you price asset X in crypto in the market and then buy options on USD to ensure that your sale price will be redeemable for a certain amount in USD in the future if it sells then aren't you really just pricing in USD? And then suffering a loss on your USD options if the asset doesn't end up selli…

No, it changes the argument to "Bitcoin is inconvenient and requires a lot of maintenance. I have to track margin, not lose my wallet, not get scammed, etc. and if I forget to roll my futures and it collapses I lose 80% of my money" Which I would agree with, but the original "volatile instruments cannot be used for pricing" isn't true. > doesn't that prove that volatility does matter. It doesn't matter for making it…