It's not any surprising news that Government wants to regulate their citizen's finance. In fact, they would ban the use of Bitcoin if they could not bring their people under regulation.
You know, China initially tried to regulate Bitcoin but was unable to do so and eventually banned it. They have banned both Bitcoin and Mining. I don't know how successful they are, and how they keep their people away from cryptocurrency.
Maybe the Biden administration will make the right decision, also their own products Coinbase, Bittrex cannot be used without full KYC, and KYC is now as usual matter.
Topic: Biden & BTC - page 2. (Read 353 times)
Biden wants to control bitcoin but it will be difficult, bitcoin is too decentralized and is mined from various countries that's why biden wants to push the bitcoin price down so that he can control the market with an institution like the FED, this is not the right time to know for sure the state of the market because of bulls or bearish at the moment is their game. DYOR if you want invest in BTC at this time because many various issue will be coming
Secondly there’s nothing wrong with some regulation and here’s the truth, if there’s no regulation like this then governments will ban cryptocurrency and it’ll be much more difficult to transact.
There is another option, The government could allow the citizens use bitcoin as it was intended without having access to their personal details.There is a lot wrong with regulations. For one, Bitcoin was originally designed to be a peer-to-peer network which eliminates the need for a third party to mediate transactions, and regulations overrides that as exchanges would effectively be acting like banks under the control of the governments and the citizens have to operate through them.
Secondly, forced regulations means forced loss of control. If the government controls the exchanges, then they are in control of the funds stored or sent there for trades, overriding the fact that the bitcoin algorithm is permissionless as transactions on exchanges are usually off chain.
The Biden administration is prepared to issue an executive order tasked with the responsibility of regulating digital assets such as Bitcoin on a national security basis. Do you think this is a good step?
What more can he possibly do to Bitcoin except regulating entry and end points like financial services, for example, centralized cryptoexchanges (note that I did not say decentralized, because there is absolutely nothing he can do there).
All he is going to make happen is a lot of FUD that makes the weak hands shake and this will only make the whales happy, as they buy more coin...
But that dip will be superficial and Bitcoin will keep growing. So, what can he possibly do?
As long as they are thinking about imposing regulations and they are not really not thinking about banning bitcoins I think regulation would be a good step. When we talk about any Decentralized currency like bitcoins and the government they have to meet half way. We cannot expect them to just forget about bitcoins perse. But what we should be worried about is the kind of regulations that would be imposed. I hope they are not extremely ridiculous with people paying the price. There is already KYC almost everywhere now, the taxation should also not be extremely high. What matters is how people would have a say in this and how well the government handles the whole thing.
More regulations, more drama. Cryptocurrency isn't illegal in the US. That means more regulations on Cryptocurrency wouldn't good news for us. If the USA walk to the regulations way, then Cryptocurrency users there would be in more trouble. However, I don't think they will do something like China, because the USA knows the potential of Bitcoin. I think they just want to find a way to control Bitcoin movements though it's quite hard. We can't say anything in advance unless we see the draft.
IMO this will not affect us, the users, in a positive way. Seeing that most regulations thus far have been about knowing more from the user, this will not be far off from that. Imagine having someone actively snooping on your finances just because you're involved in cryptocurrencies, it isn't a fun experience and certainly not something that everyone is comfortable with.
Then again, most of us become slaves of everything that we consume. Almost everyone is fine with it, albeit them not 'trusting' the government on anything.
Then again, most of us become slaves of everything that we consume. Almost everyone is fine with it, albeit them not 'trusting' the government on anything.
I'm not up to speed on the "America COMPETES" bill, but regarding this:
I mentioned it elsewhere, I don't necessarily blame the companies that implement KYC since it's through government pressure that they're doing this in the first place. A great example is buying sim card only phones without giving your details has been restricted in certain countries, because of the fact that criminals have used them in the past as "burner phones", now they're requiring personal identification upon purchasing them. So, despite most of us not using them for malicious acts, we're being punished by giving up our own personal data just to buy something that could be used for ill intent.
It's a bit like Bitcoin, the idea is that criminals could use Bitcoin to money launder or for other criminal activities, and therefore the government, and exchanges want to protect against that. Despite, the majority of exchange users using the service legally. It's sickening that they then use that as an excuse to put further restrictions on everyone as a result. It's weird as well, because generally in a court of law you're treated as innocent until proven guilty, yet in this instance (I know it isn't a court of law) we're being treated as criminals without having actually done anything.
I can understand KYC with certain things, although it should be a choice, and not forced upon you. Limiting your experience would at least be a little better, but platforms have started to outright deny use of their services without giving up personal data, which we already know has been used for marketing in the past.
I'm afraid that the regulations will be even stricter. Also, the reality is that most people don't care about their privacy, and Binance losing[2] only 3% after enforcing KYC is proof of that so although I don't see what "more KYC rules" would look like, I'm pretty sure that most of our community won't have a problem complying.
I would have to agree, this has been a problem in several industries, and isn't just Bitcoin. See cookies, and various other things that people just don't care about relating to how companies use their data. However, it's rather alarming that Bitcoin, something which originally attracted privacy conscious people is now turning into something totally different. I mentioned it elsewhere, I don't necessarily blame the companies that implement KYC since it's through government pressure that they're doing this in the first place. A great example is buying sim card only phones without giving your details has been restricted in certain countries, because of the fact that criminals have used them in the past as "burner phones", now they're requiring personal identification upon purchasing them. So, despite most of us not using them for malicious acts, we're being punished by giving up our own personal data just to buy something that could be used for ill intent.
It's a bit like Bitcoin, the idea is that criminals could use Bitcoin to money launder or for other criminal activities, and therefore the government, and exchanges want to protect against that. Despite, the majority of exchange users using the service legally. It's sickening that they then use that as an excuse to put further restrictions on everyone as a result. It's weird as well, because generally in a court of law you're treated as innocent until proven guilty, yet in this instance (I know it isn't a court of law) we're being treated as criminals without having actually done anything.
I can understand KYC with certain things, although it should be a choice, and not forced upon you. Limiting your experience would at least be a little better, but platforms have started to outright deny use of their services without giving up personal data, which we already know has been used for marketing in the past.
All depends on what the regulations end up being. Though the fact that politicians (like most of the public) tend to not have a clue about Bitcoin and crypto doesn't give me high hopes of intelligent regulations. But hopefully the people actually writing the regulations will have at least a moderate understanding of crypto and not do the kind of insane stuff that the Trump admin was trying to ram through just before they left office.
They already highly regulate which exchanges can be used by US citizens. I think they should require these centralized exchanges to all have loss insurance in case they get hacked so they can pay back those who lose their money on those exchanges. Stablecoins will get regulations to make sure the centralized stablecoins are always properly backed and the government will probably require full access to centralized stablecoin transactions to try to track and stop illegal uses. They should come up with a light regulatory framework for coin sales (pre-mines) that protect against fraud projects that might rug pull, and require these projects to list all their information publicly on their website so everyone can see the exact numbers of these tokens. They should set up rules for how companies can hold cryptocurrencies on their balance sheet because apparently the way that gets reported today doesn't make much sense. And they should setup separate legal labels for cryptocurrencies as opposed to trying to smash things into a 'security' label, like Bitcoin gets viewed as a commodity or currency, and everything else is its own thing that has some regulations but is less than securities. Mostly they just need to not try to cram crypto into old models that don't apply to crypto. Like you can't require crypto finance applications to report on the senders and receivers of transactions because there are not IDs associated with cryptocurrencies and sometimes the end user is just a smart contract anyways rather than a person.
The main goal should be to provide a light regulatory touch that focuses on stopping crimes and protecting against loss from hacks, makes sure centralized projects are safe, and provides regulatory clarity for wider adoption, all while making sure not to get in the way of how crypto fundamentally works.
They already highly regulate which exchanges can be used by US citizens. I think they should require these centralized exchanges to all have loss insurance in case they get hacked so they can pay back those who lose their money on those exchanges. Stablecoins will get regulations to make sure the centralized stablecoins are always properly backed and the government will probably require full access to centralized stablecoin transactions to try to track and stop illegal uses. They should come up with a light regulatory framework for coin sales (pre-mines) that protect against fraud projects that might rug pull, and require these projects to list all their information publicly on their website so everyone can see the exact numbers of these tokens. They should set up rules for how companies can hold cryptocurrencies on their balance sheet because apparently the way that gets reported today doesn't make much sense. And they should setup separate legal labels for cryptocurrencies as opposed to trying to smash things into a 'security' label, like Bitcoin gets viewed as a commodity or currency, and everything else is its own thing that has some regulations but is less than securities. Mostly they just need to not try to cram crypto into old models that don't apply to crypto. Like you can't require crypto finance applications to report on the senders and receivers of transactions because there are not IDs associated with cryptocurrencies and sometimes the end user is just a smart contract anyways rather than a person.
The main goal should be to provide a light regulatory touch that focuses on stopping crimes and protecting against loss from hacks, makes sure centralized projects are safe, and provides regulatory clarity for wider adoption, all while making sure not to get in the way of how crypto fundamentally works.
The Biden administration is prepared to issue an executive order tasked with the responsibility of regulating digital assets such as Bitcoin on a national security basis. Do you think this is a good step?
Just like the Winter, we all knew regulations are coming! The question was - when?
From the arricle it seems that US people do not have to wait for for long before the crypto regulations hit the market. But it's very early to jump into a conclusion without looking at the regulations. So let's wait and see what's in there! It might not be necessarily bad but crypto people may have to shell out more in taxes. But I don't think US government will do something drastically different which will disturb the current ecosystem.
It’s not about the Biden administration, the same thing was with the Trump administration which had very controversial plans for cryptocurrencies, but it only presented them at the end of the term and the next administration just continues in the same direction. People don't understand what we're dealing with, and if (when) the US administration shows its real intentions towards Bitcoin, I believe many will be unpleasantly surprised.
The largest crypto exchange (Coinbase), the largest fund (Grayscale), companies like Microstrategy are located in the US as well as the largest crypto ATM network. If we add that the US increased its hash rate to as much as 35.4% after the Chinese mining ban, then it is clear how much Bitcoin depends on that country - too much if you ask me.
If at some point Bitcoin begins to pose a threat to US national interests, there is no doubt that any president and his administration will do something similar to what China has done.
The largest crypto exchange (Coinbase), the largest fund (Grayscale), companies like Microstrategy are located in the US as well as the largest crypto ATM network. If we add that the US increased its hash rate to as much as 35.4% after the Chinese mining ban, then it is clear how much Bitcoin depends on that country - too much if you ask me.
If at some point Bitcoin begins to pose a threat to US national interests, there is no doubt that any president and his administration will do something similar to what China has done.
Personally I don’t see this as that big of an issue. First off I think this all is a bit of conjecture, so we don’t actually know what their plans are yet. Secondly there’s nothing wrong with some regulation and here’s the truth, if there’s no regulation like this then governments will ban cryptocurrency and it’ll be much more difficult to transact.
The Biden administration is prepared to issue an executive order tasked with the responsibility of regulating digital assets such as Bitcoin on a national security basis. Do you think this is a good step?
most people like to create high expectations for the price to increase a lot, I have no proof but I can assume that the bitcoin news channels are doing this propaganda for the market to act in a positive way but we all know that while it's still is proposed or some bill cannot be trusted that it will be passed and implemented, we have to trust the things we can see
-snip-
I don't think these regulations will have a positive effect for us, users. I believe those governments are always trying to get more information and break privacy on bitcoin transactions. Mostly forcing exchange to more KYC rules...
I don't think these regulations will have a positive effect for us, users. I believe those governments are always trying to get more information and break privacy on bitcoin transactions. Mostly forcing exchange to more KYC rules...
I'm afraid that the regulations will be even stricter. Also, the reality is that most people don't care about their privacy, and Binance losing[2] only 3% after enforcing KYC is proof of that so although I don't see what "more KYC rules" would look like, I'm pretty sure that most of our community won't have a problem complying.
What I'm more worried about right now is the "America COMPETES" bill[2] and how easily this could be abused to shut down bitcoin exchanges.
[1] https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/crypto/cryptocurrency-exchange-binance-lost-3-percent-of-its-customers-due-to-mandatory-kyc-requirements-7632594/
[2] https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/132074/crypto-advocates-sound-alarm-on-america-competes-bill-over-new-financial-surveillance-provisions
According to bloomberg, this is what they are talking about:
I think the main idea is to have one single document with all efforts from different agencies and coordinate those efforts.
I don't think these regulations will have a positive effect for us, users. I believe those governments are always trying to get more information and break privacy on bitcoin transactions. Mostly forcing exchange to more KYC rules...
Quote
-The directive would place the White House in a central role overseeing efforts to set policies and regulate digital assets, Bloomberg reported.
-Federal agencies have already been studying or providing regulatory guidance around the digital asset sector for years.
-The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission have issued guidance letters, informal statements and public rule-making efforts to direct how different aspects of the crypto industry should comply with federal law. But these efforts have not been coordinated in a single document or by one agency.
-Biden Administration senior officials have met multiple times to discuss the directive, which will be presented to the president in the next few weeks, according to Bloomberg.
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/01/24/biden-administration-to-release-executive-order-on-crypto-as-early-as-february-report/-Federal agencies have already been studying or providing regulatory guidance around the digital asset sector for years.
-The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission have issued guidance letters, informal statements and public rule-making efforts to direct how different aspects of the crypto industry should comply with federal law. But these efforts have not been coordinated in a single document or by one agency.
-Biden Administration senior officials have met multiple times to discuss the directive, which will be presented to the president in the next few weeks, according to Bloomberg.
I think the main idea is to have one single document with all efforts from different agencies and coordinate those efforts.
I don't think these regulations will have a positive effect for us, users. I believe those governments are always trying to get more information and break privacy on bitcoin transactions. Mostly forcing exchange to more KYC rules...
For context here is the news article about it: https://cointelegraph.com/news/white-house-reportedly-preparing-executive-order-on-crypto. As of right now it's entirely based on information from "a source close to the white house". Wether or not it is a good thing really depends on your perspective. It makes sense from a countries point of view to do this (depending on how it is handled). As I understand the main concern is related to the fact that crypto can be used as money-laundering device. This is certainly true.
The thing I wonder is how this revelation will affect the price of BTC in the short term.
The thing I wonder is how this revelation will affect the price of BTC in the short term.
The Biden administration is prepared to issue an executive order tasked with the responsibility of regulating digital assets such as Bitcoin on a national security basis. Do you think this is a good step?
Jump to: