Basing on different payment freezes and account bans made by centralized services I can say that they don't really need a significant trigger to do so. They don't like p2p in general. They prefer you to use their service and only their service and even that will not prevent them to act against you. If not that bitcoin hardly ever was anyhow popular. So it is not a surprise that interacting with any centralized service is a risk each time. If you use centralized services you should take that risk into account. And as long as they don't disclose the way they evaluate the "dirtiness" of the translation, you can only guess what will trigger them.
its actually written in regulations, which money service businesses(MSB) and virtual asset service providers(VASP) follow, which says those services should look out for mixer users and flag them as risk/suspicious .. end of story.. no ifs or buts
mixer mixer promoters want to pretend regulation dont exist or regulations dont state to treat mixed coins differently.. but REAL WORLD FACT regulations do exist and do apply to specifically want to flag mixer used funds.. no if's or but's about it.
the guys in this topic deny it because it hurts their affiliate income if they cant recruit users, the people in this topic in denial are not posting using common sense or logic or stating facts that would help users avoid being flagged/monitored. all they care about is lulling people into a false narrative that mixing is harmless.. trying to recruit more victims to cause those victims more trouble just so the promoters can get paid or use victims clean coins while stinging the victims with the promoters dirty coin
if these promoters actually cared about REAL PRIVACY they would actually want to read the regulations. learn what is and isnt described and think outside the box for solutions not even using the word "mixer" "obfuscation" "anonymity" and instead be creative with a new service that gives the privacy end result but in a way thats not stipulated in regulations
its like uber doesnt call itself a taxi service, to get around taxicab regulations
its how homoeopaths and nutritionists get to play doctor selling snake oil without needing a doctorate, because they are creative with the description of their service
its how supplements can get away with health claims without needing FDA approval, because they are creative
if even now after so much time of mixers knowing their service is on a list. if they just continue as they are just trying to promote they are mixers. they dont care about their customers privacy they just want the commission
there are many many many things in many regulations about mixers, ill give a short example
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/guidance/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf (made in 2021, so plenty of time to read)
Quote
Risk factors relating to VAs and VASPs
42
Elements relating to VASPs
j. The specific types of VAs that the VASP offers or plans to offer and any unique
features of each VA, such as AECs, embedded mixers or tumblers, or other
products and services that may present higher risks by potentially obfuscating
the transactions or undermining a VASP’s ability to know its customers and
implement effective CDD and other AML/CFT measure
85. AML/CFT regulations will apply to covered VA activities and VASPs, regardless of
the type of VA involved in the financial activity (e.g., a VASP that uses or offers AECs
to another person for various financial transactions), the underlying technology
(e.g., whether it uses mainnet or the use of embedded layering or other scaling
solutions), or the additional services that the platform potentially incorporates
(such as a mixer or tumbler or other potential features for obfuscation)
174. In the context of VA and VASP activities, countries should ensure that VASPs
licensed by or operating in their jurisdiction can manage and mitigate the risks of
engaging in activities that involve the use of anonymity-enhancing technologies or
mechanisms, including but not limited to AECs, mixers, tumblers, privacy wallets
and other technologies that obfuscate the identity of the sender, recipient, holder,
or beneficial owner of a VA. If the VASP cannot manage and mitigate the risks posed
by engaging in such activities, then the VASP should not be permitted to engage in
such activities.
Mitigating the ML/TF Risks
240. The FATF Recommendations require supervisors to allocate and prioritize more
supervisory resources[/u] to areas of higher ML/TF risk. This means that supervisors
should determine the frequency and intensity of periodic assessments based on the
level of ML/TF risks to which the sector and individual VASPs are exposed.
Supervisors should give priority to the potential areas of higher risk, either within
the individual VASP (e.g., to the particular products, services, or business lines that
a VASP may offer, such as particular VAs or VA services like AECs or mixers and
tumblers that may further obfuscate transactions or undermine the VASP’s ability
304. Further information on red-flag indicators for VAs that could suggest criminal
behaviour are set out in the FATF’s Virtual Asset Red Flag Indicators of Money
Laundering and Terrorist Financing. These indicators help VASPs and other obliged
entities to detect and report suspicious transactions involving VAs. Key indicators
include:
a. Technological features that increase anonymity - such as mixers, tumblers or
AECs;
42
Elements relating to VASPs
j. The specific types of VAs that the VASP offers or plans to offer and any unique
features of each VA, such as AECs, embedded mixers or tumblers, or other
products and services that may present higher risks by potentially obfuscating
the transactions or undermining a VASP’s ability to know its customers and
implement effective CDD and other AML/CFT measure
85. AML/CFT regulations will apply to covered VA activities and VASPs, regardless of
the type of VA involved in the financial activity (e.g., a VASP that uses or offers AECs
to another person for various financial transactions), the underlying technology
(e.g., whether it uses mainnet or the use of embedded layering or other scaling
solutions), or the additional services that the platform potentially incorporates
(such as a mixer or tumbler or other potential features for obfuscation)
174. In the context of VA and VASP activities, countries should ensure that VASPs
licensed by or operating in their jurisdiction can manage and mitigate the risks of
engaging in activities that involve the use of anonymity-enhancing technologies or
mechanisms, including but not limited to AECs, mixers, tumblers, privacy wallets
and other technologies that obfuscate the identity of the sender, recipient, holder,
or beneficial owner of a VA. If the VASP cannot manage and mitigate the risks posed
by engaging in such activities, then the VASP should not be permitted to engage in
such activities.
Mitigating the ML/TF Risks
240. The FATF Recommendations require supervisors to allocate and prioritize more
supervisory resources[/u] to areas of higher ML/TF risk. This means that supervisors
should determine the frequency and intensity of periodic assessments based on the
level of ML/TF risks to which the sector and individual VASPs are exposed.
Supervisors should give priority to the potential areas of higher risk, either within
the individual VASP (e.g., to the particular products, services, or business lines that
a VASP may offer, such as particular VAs or VA services like AECs or mixers and
tumblers that may further obfuscate transactions or undermine the VASP’s ability
304. Further information on red-flag indicators for VAs that could suggest criminal
behaviour are set out in the FATF’s Virtual Asset Red Flag Indicators of Money
Laundering and Terrorist Financing. These indicators help VASPs and other obliged
entities to detect and report suspicious transactions involving VAs. Key indicators
include:
a. Technological features that increase anonymity - such as mixers, tumblers or
AECs;
they are not saying "mixing is illegal" they are saying that mixing is a higher risk that requires a higher amount of supervision and flagging it as suspicious
notice 85.. it also talks about subnetworks like LN. so LN is on the list too. just not as big a supervisory risk as mixers
if privacy service operators want to stay in business and not cause issues for their customer. they need to become more creative or find out that they and their customers get blacklisted/flagged/supervised at best or banned from other services at worse
