Author

Topic: full picture on US MSB regs, state and federal (Read 5109 times)

donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
Above we see exemption clauses. 3 questions.
1) As I read the law, Bitpay should fall into the exemption clause of ii (B). However later it is stated that the clause is an exemption only if it is done infrequently and not for profit. So are Bitpay playing by the book, or are the purposely playing stupid?

It does not state that.  There is ANOTHER exemption for entities who's activity who's activity otherwise meets the MSB requirements but the activity is only done infrequently and not for profit.  For example if you one time sell your friend some BTC technically you meet the requirements as an MSB and would need to register however you could claim that you are not regulated under the "infrequently and not for profit" exemption.

Quote
(Cool Limitation. For the purposes of this section, the term “money services business” shall not include:

(i) A bank or foreign bank;

(ii) A person registered with, and functionally regulated or examined by, the SEC or the CFTC, or a foreign financial agency that engages in financial activities that, if conducted in the United States, would require the foreign financial agency to be registered with the SEC or CFTC; or

(iii) A natural person who engages in an activity identified in paragraphs (ff)(1) through (ff)(5) of this section on an infrequent basis and not for gain or profit.

The exemption in (Cool(iii) is independent of the one in (5)(ii)(B)

Quote
(ii) Facts and circumstances; Limitations. Whether a person is a money transmitter as described in this section is a matter of facts and circumstances. The term “money transmitter” shall not include a person that only:

...

(B) Acts as a payment processor to facilitate the purchase of, or payment of a bill for, a good or service through a clearance and settlement system by agreement with the creditor or seller;


Simplified version:
A) if you infrequently exchange virtual currency for real currency and do so not for profit your activity would be exempt under the exemption in (Cool(iii)
B) If you operate a payment processing network to facilitate payments from consumers to merchants (aka a clone of BitPay) you would be exempt under exemption in (5)(ii)(B).
The two have nothing to do with each other.  You don't need to be a payment processor to gain the exemption in (Cool(iii) and you don't need to be not for profit to gain the exemption in (5)(ii)(B).
NOTE: the above if informational and should not be construed as legal counsel.  If you have a specific question about your specific activity you should retain legal counsel.

Quote
2) Furthermore we see "(E) Provides prepaid access; or" as an exemption clause. I did not understand this. Exactly what falls under pre paid access? Why doesn't MtGox offer prepaid access to an count with funds in it?

This doesn't "help", banks are also exempt from Money Transmitter registration (see (Cool(i) above) because they are required to register under separate regulations.  Issuers of prepaid access are required to register as MSB just not under (ff)(5) "Money Transmitter" they do so under ff(4) "Provider of prepaid access".   Remember there are 7 categories on activity which require registering as an MSB.  Money Transmitter (#5) is just one of seven.  The regs make it difficult to follow because after they name on type they then go into multiple pages of exemptions, and other supporting regs.  Here is what it looks like stripping out all the supporting paragraphs:

Quote
(ff) Money services business. A person wherever located doing business, whether or not on a regular basis or as an organized or licensed business concern, wholly or in substantial part within the United States, in one or more of the capacities listed in paragraphs (ff)(1) through (ff)(7) of this section. This includes but is not limited to maintenance of any agent, agency, branch, or office within the United States.

(1) Dealer in foreign exchange. A person that accepts the currency, or other monetary instruments, funds, or other instruments denominated in the currency, of one or more countries in exchange for the currency, or other monetary instruments, funds, or other instruments denominated in the currency, of one or more other countries in an amount greater than $1,000 for any other person on any day in one or more transactions, whether or not for same-day delivery.

(2) Check casher — In general. A person that accepts checks (as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), or monetary instruments (as defined at § 1010.100(dd)(1)(ii), (iii), (iv), and (v)) in return for currency or a combination of currency and other monetary instruments or other instruments, in an amount greater than $1,000 for any person on any day in one or more transactions.

(3) Issuer or seller of traveler's checks or money orders. A person that Issues traveler's checks or money orders that are sold in an amount greater than $1,000 to any person on any day in one or more transactions; or Sells traveler's checks or money orders in an amount greater than $1,000 to any person on any day in one or more transactions.

(4) Provider of prepaid access — In general. A provider of prepaid access is the participant within a prepaid program that agrees to serve as the principal conduit for access to information from its fellow program participants. The participants in each prepaid access program must determine a single participant within the prepaid program to serve as the provider of prepaid access.

(5) Money transmitter — In general. (A) A person that provides money transmission services. The term “money transmission services” means the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means. “Any means” includes, but is not limited to, through a financial agency or institution; a Federal Reserve Bank or other facility of one or more Federal Reserve Banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or both; an electronic funds transfer network; or an informal value transfer system;

(6) U.S. Postal Service. The United States Postal Service, except with respect to the sale of postage or philatelic products.

(7) Seller of prepaid access. Any person that receives funds or the value of funds in exchange for an initial loading or subsequent loading of prepaid access if that person: Sells prepaid access offered under a prepaid program that can be used before verification of customer identification under § 1022.210(d)(1)(iv); or Sells prepaid access (including closed loop prepaid access) to funds that exceed $10,000 to any person during any one day, and has not implemented policies and procedures reasonably adapted to prevent such a sale.






Quote
3) If the answer to question 1 was "bit pay is playing by the rules despite being for profit and on a frequent basis", could the clause stated in question 2 be used to escape regulation using pre paid vouchers?

No.  That isn't the reason Bitpay is "playing by the rules".  BitPay is a payment process which are exempt.  Period.  They don't need to meet any other criteria other than being a payment processor.  In the same respect VISA and MC are not MSBs they are payment processors.  
Be sure to read the regs multiple times, there are lots of categories and types.  Prepaid vouchers are "prepaid access" under MSB rules and are regulated.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
Also I would like to know the legal statues of pre-paid debit cards, and gift cards. What has to be done in order to issue a pre paid debit card or gift card?

At the federal level issuers of prepaid cards and gift cards are MSBs under the category "prepaid access".  The previous term was "stored value" and they are essentially similar.
Just about every state regulated issuers of stored value and requires pretty massive bonds and licensing requirements.  For that reason almost no retailer actually issuers their own gift cards.  They are issued (read small print on back of one) by a handful of companies which specialize in that business (and have licensing in all states). 

The reason is stored value is a promise to pay in the future.  If starbucks issues you a $100 starbucks card although you may hand Starbucks the cash today, that cash doesn't below to Starbucks.  Starbucks technically hasn't generated any profit yet.  They add $100 to their prepaid account (asset) but the also gain a $100 liability (accounts payable).  Only when you make a purchase with that card is the liability removed.  The company is prohibited from using, spending, even comingling any of the funds on prepaid cards that haven't yet been redeemed.  States regulate this heavily because imagine what happens if a company sells $50M in gift cards and then the CEO wires it to a non extradition treaty country and hops a plane.  Ooops.  Your stored value is worthless piece of plastic.

Bitcoin isn't stored value for a whole host of what should now be very obvious reasons but if it were the regulatory requirements at the state level are just as high for stored value issuers.

Quote
If I were willing to buy Amazoncoins from you and send you dollars in return, does that make amazon coins a digital currency that has to follow all Fincen and MSB regulation. It makes no sense to me.

Amazoncoins are a virtual currency under FinCEN guidance.  If you ran a business converting USD to AMZ or the reverse (which you can't because AMZ prohibits all such activity) then you would under FinCEN guidance be a MSB.
Of course if you sell "traditional" gift cards instead you would still be an MSB (or required to be an agent of an existing MSB).  Take GreenDot for example.  They are an MSB however lots of places (wallmart, 7-11, etc) sell MoneyPaks which aren't MSBs.  An MSB can choose to make a third party an agent of that MSB and the agent is not required to be licensed or registered as long as they are acting only in the capacity of an agent of an existing MSB.
sr. member
Activity: 1078
Merit: 254
Also I would like to know the legal statues of pre-paid debit cards, and gift cards. What has to be done in order to issue a pre paid debit card or gift card?
Why can't bitcoins be considered a gift card? you can only purchase certain items with them. If I were willing to buy Amazoncoins from you and send you dollars in return, does that make amazon coins a digital currency that has to follow all Fincen and MSB regulation. It makes no sense to me.
sr. member
Activity: 1078
Merit: 254
Above we see exemption clauses. 3 questions.
1) As I read the law, Bitpay should fall into the exemption clause of ii (B). However later it is stated that the clause is an exemption only if it is done infrequently and not for profit. So are Bitpay playing by the book, or are the purposely playing stupid?

2) Furthermore we see "(E) Provides prepaid access; or" as an exemption clause. I did not understand this. Exactly what falls under pre paid access? Why doesn't MtGox offer prepaid access to an count with funds in it?

3) If the answer to question 1 was "bit pay is playing by the rules despite being for profit and on a frequent basis", could the clause stated in question 2 be used to escape regulation using pre paid vouchers?
 
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
agentbluesceen, I apologize if was excessively flippant, but I do believe that your credit-based definition of a bitcoin unit is wholly incorrect. However, many people have been confused about its status, partly because bitcoins are/have been evolving into money as an organic process since 2009.

I urge you to take the time to read the following thesis which considers the term "commodity-money", but recognizes that bitcoin is on the road to becoming a fully-fledged currency.

http://dev.economicsofbitcoin.com/mastersthesis/mastersthesis-surda-2012-11-19b.pdf

In fact I think it has reached the point where it is clearly a powerful new type of money with inbuilt currency and payments systems.


Well the Austrian national-socialist "economizers" still don't understand the fundamental difference between a mere, inanimate 3rd rate Commodity-pile of too much of some "wealth" (Medium of Savings Commodity) and the Prime Resource value of a "money" (Medium of Labour-Resource Exchange), nor do they recognize the crucial moral difference between loving and growing goal-oriented economies of Our human families and the ever-decaying soullessly bestial enslavement-oriented corporate monopolist ones.

According to the stupid Austrian fascists, the various commodity-crud of their world just gets up and "does itself all day" (medium of exchange) necessitating a "money commodity" to replace/substitute for the commodity-junk that other commodity-junk "doesn't want or need".

I can assure you that without the Prime Resource of labour, no commodity-thing ever gets up or does anything to anything, by or for anyone, with anything or without anything and there is and can be no such thing as "economics". Their emptying, Malthusian zero-sum philosophical planet is one where ennobled carts of "their crap" are pushed around for them by "so-many" disposable horses.

A "money" is a reasonably stable-valued, standardized Medium of Labour Resource Exchange token - period!

You can exchange anything with anything, that doesn't make either of them a "money".  A "money" is the token of human Labour Resource Exchange-Value that humans pre-agree to get paid in for the private properties of works that humans perform, so that humans can choose what humans want or need to obtain out of it's human Labour Resource Exchange-Value afterwards.

A "money" is not just "some commodity" it is The Prime Resource Token of the human value of the Prime Resources of every economy. It is the token of measure of the property values of it's people's labour-properties.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
As set forth in the landmark case of Godzilla v. Tokyo, your credit-swap derivative argument is invalid.

Invalid by what logic?

I was only being humorous.  The comment was really more on the Godzilla meme than your theory.  Also, have you not seen the "your argument is invalid" meme? If not, you are missing out the best part of the internet: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/your-argument-is-invalid

Both Solex and I were being flippant.  But since you mention it, I think the point of Solex's Godzilla picture is that the statement "bitcoin is legal because it is a credit swap" is not really an accurate one. You can draw a lot of parallels between a bitcoin transaction and a credit swap, but that isn't what makes one legal.  States of affairs are prima facie legal.  Certain laws, like the MSB regulations in this instance, can be a reason why an act or state of affairs is "illegal", but the contrapositive is not true.

Also, the statement "BTC is an Over the Counter Credit Swap Derivative  (OCD) in the eyes of the law" is just not a coherent one.  A BTC transaction may be many things under many circumstances, and fall under more than one regulatory regime.  For example, FinCen, by and large, treats a bitcoin as a 'virtual currency'.  The IRS treats most BTC transactions as something similar to a barter.  Some people offer credit swaps denominated in bitcoin, but that doesn't make "a bitcoin" a credit swap.

Does that make sense?

Edit: oh, I see you ninja-edited some more into to your post.

Allow me to apologize to both of you, I am just trying to present the philosophical rebuttal to the DHS ticket-cop's write-up.

I rather fancy that most people still have little idea of what bitcoin is, or the truly monumental breakthrough it represents in the science of independent human resource exchange-valuation transmission. It is a quantum leap beyond anything else that has ever been used by humans as their own Medium of Labour Resource Exchange. Though it may bark like a money and quack like a money it is most assuredly not any sort of a national socialist foreign-exchange "currency", nor is it backed by anything other than faith in our own human natures. Furthermore it cannot be seen thus cannot be construed to even appear let alone "look like" (prima facie) anything anyone has ever used as a "money" (national-socialist trade-backed foreign-exchange currency).

It is not a genuine nor a "reserve"-counterfeited (fiat) gold or silver deposit-receipt note issued by any smithy or nation, nor is it a constitutionally valid publicly owned and operated for public profit "fiat" greenback-currency like that of Julius Caesar, Henry 1st or the Continental Congress/Lincoln/JFK. It is not a privately issued for private profit debt note to private lenders backed by ancient gold enslavement bonds possessed by a bankrupted nation in receivership's gold-Pharaoh boardroom-socialist creditors, either...

So when we look to see the true nature of the Commercial Resource instrument that it is, we see that it is a "derivative token" of a known, previous "funded credit" transaction that may potentially be exchanged for an unknown and unknowably-valued future "credit funding" transaction whereby it can change hands once more, and so on.

Therefore it is a token derivative of a past and likely future Credit Swap, that may be had in a marketplace or over a counter, to use as an alternative to/from conducting a legal tender transaction.

That does not make it either a "currency" or a "money" unless one chooses to redeem it for one, (by selling it to another "credit funder") and then apply that funder's currency to the transaction conducted.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1006
100 satoshis -> ISO code
agentbluesceen, I apologize if I was excessively flippant, but I do believe that your credit-based definition of a bitcoin unit is wholly incorrect. However, many people have been confused about its status, partly because bitcoins are/have been evolving into money as an organic process since 2009.

I urge you to take the time to read the following thesis which considers the term "commodity-money", but recognizes that bitcoin is on the road to becoming a fully-fledged currency.

http://dev.economicsofbitcoin.com/mastersthesis/mastersthesis-surda-2012-11-19b.pdf

In fact I think it has reached the point where it is clearly a powerful new type of money with inbuilt currency and payments systems.
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
As set forth in the landmark case of Godzilla v. Tokyo, your credit-swap derivative argument is invalid.

Invalid by what logic?

I was only being humorous.  The comment was really more on the Godzilla meme than your theory.  Also, have you not seen the "your argument is invalid" meme? If not, you are missing out the best part of the internet: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/your-argument-is-invalid

Both Solex and I were being flippant.  But since you mention it, I think the point of Solex's Godzilla picture is that the statement "bitcoin is legal because it is a credit swap" is not really an accurate one. You can draw a lot of parallels between a bitcoin transaction and a credit swap, but that isn't what makes one legal.  States of affairs are prima facie legal.  Certain laws, like the MSB regulations in this instance, can be a reason why an act or state of affairs is "illegal", but the contrapositive is not true.

Also, the statement "BTC is an Over the Counter Credit Swap Derivative  (OCD) in the eyes of the law" is just not a coherent one.  A BTC transaction may be many things under many circumstances, and fall under more than one regulatory regime.  For example, FinCen, by and large, treats a bitcoin as a 'virtual currency'.  The IRS treats most BTC transactions as something similar to a barter.  Some people offer credit swaps denominated in bitcoin, but that doesn't make "a bitcoin" a credit swap.

Does that make sense?

Edit: oh, I see you ninja-edited some more into to your post.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
As set forth in the landmark case of Godzilla v. Tokyo, your credit-swap derivative argument is invalid.

Invalid by what logic? Do you always present your learned arguments by "B" sci-fi movie characterizations?

Why do you think FinCen was not only forced, but absolutely obligated to deal Bitcoin a strict "hands off" for their TBTF masters?

The answer to that goes back to Brooksely Barnes and the CFTC.

Any legislation or regulatory rumblings in any way or manner affecting their sacred, secret back-counter Derivative Swaps is like showing a "blessed, holy cross" to these vampires, you silly!

If a precedent be established whereby regulators could regulate the Bitcoin Credit-Swap OTC market, then they could also regulate and require disclosures of actual, secret, "over the (back) counter" Credit Swaps that the investment banksters use to insider-trade and swap losses for their swap-alternating short/long positions to fix prices (and concertedly rob markets) with, to keep cyclically swap-neutralized short-selling losses off of their books.


Unless the DHS Gestapo have a hankering to become relics of the past in a big hurry, they'd better just drop this half-assed, half-baked fishing expedition!  LOL
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
As set forth in the landmark case of Godzilla v. Tokyo, your credit-swap derivative argument is invalid.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1006
100 satoshis -> ISO code
BTC is an Over the Counter Credit Swap Derivative  (OCD) in the eyes of the law. You can't regulate it without stepping on some very very TBTF bankstering toes.


A bitcoin is an Over the Counter (OTC) Credit-Swap (funded Credit Default Swap or fCDS).

To you, it is only worth what the last guy sold it to you for and made off with. You funded "his" credit for it and the next guy (is assumed to be willing to) fund yours! It is a funded credit derivative backed by nothing but faith.(in a "next guy")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

The reason Bitcoins/Altcoin tokens are legal is because they are OTC derivatives. Otherwise they would be a Ponzi scheme.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1832923


newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
My partner Joe Skocilich wrote a fairly good post awhile back about why we don't think that bitcoin is a "security" http://adlervermillion.com/blog/innovation-and-legal-panic%E2%80%94bitcoin/

Ya know, the bitcoin foundation really ought to commission a policy position paper of some sort...

BTC is not, itself, a security.  However, there are people creating and buying and selling items packaged as securities in which the underlying business is BTC-based.  They trade on what are purported to be "stock exchanges."  Some of these are outright Ponzi scams.

Similarly, BTC is not, itself, a Ponzi scam.  However, Ponzi scams exist in which the underlying currency is BTC.

If nothing else, some of these highly questionable products look like some kind of commodities future.

Fair point. It is possible that a btc-denominated contract could be considered a "security" especially since many of the promoters refer to them that way. I consider the bitcoin "stock" exchanges to be amusing novelties at the moment, but for sure some of the larger issues do involve material sums.

BTC is an Over the Counter Credit Swap Derivative  (OCD) in the eyes of the law. You can't regulate it without stepping on some very very TBTF bankstering toes. Anything that would threaten Over the Counter Swaps would totally threaten and jeopardize the principle criminal loophole by which the TBTF "investment" banksters can insider trade all day long to fix stock prices and bond and futures markets by merely ping-ponging predetermined losses back and forth, thus keeping their shorted Defaulted Credit Losses completely "off their books" by "swapping them" (and keeping any profits they've stampeded) each day.


A bitcoin is an Over the Counter (OTC) Credit-Swap (funded Credit Swap or fCS).

To you, it is only worth what the last guy sold it to you for and made off with. You funded "his" credit for it and the next guy (is assumed to be willing to) fund yours! It is a funded credit derivative backed by nothing but faith.(in a "next guy")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

The reason Bitcoins/Altcoin tokens are legal is because they are OTC derivatives (of their own past-funding transaction) with a uniquely intrinsic digital anti-conterfeiting network-transfer capability (marginal intrinsic value). Otherwise they would be a Ponzi scheme.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1832923
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
My partner Joe Skocilich wrote a fairly good post awhile back about why we don't think that bitcoin is a "security" http://adlervermillion.com/blog/innovation-and-legal-panic%E2%80%94bitcoin/

Ya know, the bitcoin foundation really ought to commission a policy position paper of some sort...

BTC is not, itself, a security.  However, there are people creating and buying and selling items packaged as securities in which the underlying business is BTC-based.  They trade on what are purported to be "stock exchanges."  Some of these are outright Ponzi scams.

Similarly, BTC is not, itself, a Ponzi scam.  However, Ponzi scams exist in which the underlying currency is BTC.

If nothing else, some of these highly questionable products look like some kind of commodities future.

Fair point. It is possible that a btc-denominated contract could be considered a "security" especially since many of the promoters refer to them that way. I consider the bitcoin "stock" exchanges to be amusing novelties at the moment, but for sure some of the larger issues do involve material sums.
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
....

Bitcoin is not a convertible currency, and the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001 thus clearly states that it does not address bitcoin.

That is a dead-end street to go down. At a stroke of a pen they can just add "crypto-currency", "digital currency" or even "Bitcoin" to the guidance.


Then we're all down a dead-end street. What are the state's laws but pen strokes?

Bitcoin exchanges should keep playing dumb with the state for as long as they can; probably about a year. After that exchanges will be chased from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, until they end up in the tor network. The alternative is a decentralized P2P exchange that, like bit torrent, is too diffuse and popular to destroy.
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100

BTC is not, itself, a security.  However, there are people creating and buying and selling items packaged as securities in which the underlying business is BTC-based.  They trade on what are purported to be "stock exchanges."  Some of these are outright Ponzi scams.

Similarly, BTC is not, itself, a Ponzi scam.  However, Ponzi scams exist in which the underlying currency is BTC.

If nothing else, some of these highly questionable products look like some kind of commodities future.

This is precisely the issue.  You only need to take a quick glance at some of the "Project Development" posts to realize that people are acting and planning to act as broker/dealers, unregistered exchanges, fund managers... the list goes on.  What these people are doing is simply illegal, and in many instances criminal. 

Many of them are hiding behind some halfhearted belief that they are immune from enforcement so long as they are dealing in bitcoin.  While there may be some truth to that as a practical matter, it is becoming less and less true as the stakes become higher and the authorities catch on.

Right now, as I type and you read, the SEC and DOJ are investigating many of these people and building their cases.  They won't know about it until it's too late.

This isn't a "risk-averse securities lawyer" thing.  This is a no-brainer lawyer thing.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
My partner Joe Skocilich wrote a fairly good post awhile back about why we don't think that bitcoin is a "security" http://adlervermillion.com/blog/innovation-and-legal-panic%E2%80%94bitcoin/

Ya know, the bitcoin foundation really ought to commission a policy position paper of some sort...

BTC is not, itself, a security.  However, there are people creating and buying and selling items packaged as securities in which the underlying business is BTC-based.  They trade on what are purported to be "stock exchanges."  Some of these are outright Ponzi scams.

Similarly, BTC is not, itself, a Ponzi scam.  However, Ponzi scams exist in which the underlying currency is BTC.

If nothing else, some of these highly questionable products look like some kind of commodities future.
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
Right. So far, the enforcement framework has it's pivot foot in fiat.  That is,  crypto-to-crypto exchanging and dealing doesn't seem to be the topic of any MSB enforcement at all.  The regs say differently, but laws and the enforcement of those laws are two different things. Government enforcement - at least today at 11am - seems to concern itself only with people operating businesses that deal - at some point in their chain of value - with fiat currency.  Thus, exchanges are prime targets for noncompliance.  That might change 45 minutes from now when FinCEN promulgates a new regulation, or DHS nails a new pure bitcoin business, but for now, dealing in fiat seems to be what makes an MSB a target.

That's only the MSB regulations, though.  What really surprises me is that nobody seems to be talking about the securities laws!  The securities laws are far more byzantine and far-reaching than the MSB regs.  Yet, there are investment pools, informal "stock exchanges" and "stock sales" - none of which comply with state blue sky regulations or the '33 Act.

You heard it here first - the  next big enforcement push his going to be by the SEC.

My partner Joe Skocilich wrote a fairly good post awhile back about why we don't think that bitcoin is a "security" http://adlervermillion.com/blog/innovation-and-legal-panic%E2%80%94bitcoin/

Ya know, the bitcoin foundation really ought to commission a policy position paper of some sort...
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
That's only the MSB regulations, though.  What really surprises me is that nobody seems to be talking about the securities laws!  The securities laws are far more byzantine and far-reaching than the MSB regs.  Yet, there are investment pools, informal "stock exchanges" and "stock sales" - none of which comply with state blue sky regulations or the '33 Act.

Indeed.  I have always operated under the assumption that these operations are so clearly unlawful that it is better just to stay out of them.  Additionally, many of these alleged "securities," which basically do not come near complying with the legal requirements for such things, are for "businesses" that are little more than outright Ponzi scams. 

They are essentially unlicensed and unregulated "stock exchanges" in which many participants act in as lawless and unprincipled a manner as one would expect.
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
Yup - you hit the nail on the head. I edited my post to clarify.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
Right. So far, the regulatory framework has it's pivot foot in fiat.  That is,  crypto-to-crypto exchanging and dealing doesn't seem to be the topic of any MSB regulation at all.

Well lack of enforcement doesn't mean there won't be future enforcement.

Per FinCEN they at least believe Virtual Currency exchanged for other Virtual Currencies fall under their domain.  

Quote
An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency.

....

The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies. Accepting and transmitting anything of value that substitutes for currency makes a person a money transmitter under the regulations implementing the BSA.

http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

Seems an over reach to me but they are the ones with all the guns (and monopoly on lawful violence).


(Note this was a surprise to me too.  Missed it in the first reading back in March.  I noticed it when looking up a different cite for the post above and updated my incorrect post.)
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
Right. So far, the enforcement framework has it's pivot foot in fiat.  That is,  crypto-to-crypto exchanging and dealing doesn't seem to be the topic of any MSB enforcement at all.  The regs say differently, but laws and the enforcement of those laws are two different things. Government enforcement - at least today at 11am - seems to concern itself only with people operating businesses that deal - at some point in their chain of value - with fiat currency.  Thus, exchanges are prime targets for noncompliance.  That might change 45 minutes from now when FinCEN promulgates a new regulation, or DHS nails a new pure bitcoin business, but for now, dealing in fiat seems to be what makes an MSB a target.

That's only the MSB regulations, though.  What really surprises me is that nobody seems to be talking about the securities laws!  The securities laws are far more byzantine and far-reaching than the MSB regs.  Yet, there are investment pools, informal "stock exchanges" and "stock sales" - none of which comply with state blue sky regulations or the '33 Act.

You heard it here first - the  next big enforcement push his going to be by the SEC.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
Something that may be useful for people who sell products or services for BTC might be something like a How-to to avoid inadvertently becoming a money transmitter.  For example, does someone who sells a single Green Dot MoneyPak become a money transmitter?  What if they do it a few times?  What if they actually set up a business that sells items like this?  How about Linden Dollars for BTC?  What level of activity triggers these obligations?  If your nephew visits you and you take 1 BTC from him in exchange for walking around money, does that?  Pretty much anyone in the BTC community has done some kind of transaction like this.

A couple clarifications.

1) Selling goods or services (no FinCEN doesn't consider "real" currency in any form to be a "goods or services") is never a MSB regulated activity. So you can sell computer parts, gold bullion, heroin (illegal for non MSB reasons but still not MSB), diamonds, webhostings, search engine optimizations, relaxation therapy, etc for BTC without running afoul of MSB requirements.

2) It is the action of exchanging virtual currency for real currency (or other virtual currency) which requires registration as a MSB (specifically money transmitter type)*.  As for "what level" per FinCEN any amount of conversion makes you a MSB if done as a "business".

Per the guidance letter.

Quote
An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. ... An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person.

Looking at the actual MSB regs we see ...

Quote
(ii) Facts and circumstances; Limitations. Whether a person is a money transmitter as described in this section is a matter of facts and circumstances. The term “money transmitter” shall not include a person that only:

(A) Provides the delivery, communication, or network access services used by a money transmitter to support money transmission services;

(B) Acts as a payment processor to facilitate the purchase of, or payment of a bill for, a good or service through a clearance and settlement system by agreement with the creditor or seller;

(C) Operates a clearance and settlement system or otherwise acts as an intermediary solely between BSA regulated institutions. This includes but is not limited to the Fedwire system, electronic funds transfer networks, certain registered clearing agencies regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and derivatives clearing organizations, or other clearinghouse arrangements established by a financial agency or institution;

(D) Physically transports currency, other monetary instruments, other commercial paper, or other value that substitutes for currency as a person primarily engaged in such business, such as an armored car, from one person to the same person at another location or to an account belonging to the same person at a financial institution, provided that the person engaged in physical transportation has no more than a custodial interest in the currency, other monetary instruments, other commercial paper, or other value at any point during the transportation;

(E) Provides prepaid access; or

(F) Accepts and transmits funds only integral to the sale of goods or the provision of services, other than money transmission services, by the person who is accepting and transmitting the funds.

and for MSB in general ...

Quote
(Cool Limitation. For the purposes of this section, the term “money services business” shall not include:

(i) A bank or foreign bank;

(ii) A person registered with, and functionally regulated or examined by, the SEC or the CFTC, or a foreign financial agency that engages in financial activities that, if conducted in the United States, would require the foreign financial agency to be registered with the SEC or CFTC; or

(iii) A natural person who engages in an activity identified in paragraphs (ff)(1) through (ff)(5) of this section on an infrequent basis and not for gain or profit.

The part B above could be nicknamed the "BitPay" exception.  BitPay is simply acting as a payment network and thus isn't (my opinion not legal counsel) subject to regulation.  The part iii is likely the exemption most applicable to a user.  Key words are infrequently and not for profit. Actually making a profit doesn't matter, as you could be a bad businessman as still be for profit. So if you exchange $100 into BTC for your nephew so he can get his first coin and do so without any markup well you probably are not a MSB.  If you do so for 100 of his friends over the course of a year and collect a 10% markup for your time well you probably are a MSB.  Ultimately the regs are very "loose" so it comes down to does FinCEN think you are a MSB (or if it gets that far does a judge agree with FinCEN determination).

Edited for clarification and included cites:

"FinCEN Virtual Currency Letter":
http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

"FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY" regulations:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=b3dbf70d55232935bba654ea6c52ba2b&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title31/31cfr1010_main_02.tpl

"PART 1022—RULES FOR MONEY SERVICES BUSINESSES" regulations:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=b3dbf70d55232935bba654ea6c52ba2b&rgn=div5&view=text&node=31:3.1.6.1.6&idno=31


* Prior to FinCEN guidance the "common sense" conclusion would be that exchangers would be classified as a "Currency Dealer" but FinCEN makes it clear that this type of MSB is only for conversion between two REAL currencies.  The conversion of virtual currency nonsensically falls under "money transmitter" type of MSB.  So as of today an entity which exchanges virtual currency for real currency is a money transmitter and one that exchanges real currency for real currency is a currency dealer.  One that does both is both.  Both currency dealer and money transmitter (along with check casher, money order issuer, etc) are sub-types of the MSB.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
My law partner pointed me to this fairly good overview of US federal and state msb laws as applied to btc:
http://contrariancompliance.com/2013/04/14/is-us-regulation-the-single-biggest-threat-to-bitcoin/

Registering with FinCen is not the end of the story, by a long shot.

Thanks for this.  I imagine a lot of people were looking for exactly this.  While I am a recent law school graduate myself and have worked in the law, the area of financial regulation is exceedingly complex and really requires a specialist to understand and explain.

Something that may be useful for people who sell products or services for BTC might be something like a How-to to avoid inadvertently becoming a money transmitter.  For example, does someone who sells a single Green Dot MoneyPak become a money transmitter?  What if they do it a few times?  What if they actually set up a business that sells items like this?  How about Linden Dollars for BTC?

What level of activity triggers these obligations?  If your nephew visits you and you take 1 BTC from him in exchange for walking around money, does that?  Pretty much anyone in the BTC community has done some kind of transaction like this.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
It is interesting that point (2) seems to refer to something like bitcoin mining.  I am unaware of any convertible currency which is created in such a manner.  

Well that probably is because "convertible" doesn't mean what you think it means.  Still I do agree that it was horribly bad form for FinCEN to use the word "convertible" without providing a definition.  Still you are making an assumption that "convertible" means "a fixed 1:1 exchange rate" which is quite a leap not supported by other datapoints (presentations by FinCEN, responses given on FinCEN hotline, DHS action, etc).

However if you still aren't convinced request an administrative ruling from FinCEN demanding clarification of the term "convertible" and asking for examples of both convertible and non-convertible virtual currency.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9cd941ce33a75e80167579c14e862a5a&rgn=div6&view=text&node=31:3.1.6.1.2.7&idno=31
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
That's it, I give up. Hashman, why don't you go test this by setting up a Mt Gox replacement and see what happens.
legendary
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008
Are you looking at the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001?  This document does not contain the word "decentralized" nor the prefix "crypto".  It states very clearly that it addresses convertible virtual currencies. 



How could you possibly miss it.

Quote
         c.   De-Centralized Virtual Currencies

            A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.

            A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

Lol, thank you.  I thought I read that but then on search I forgot the hyphen! 

Note however that they are quite clearly still talking about convertible currency here.  Again, bitcoin has no guarantee or contract of convertibility at any rate into any real currency. 

It is interesting that point (2) seems to refer to something like bitcoin mining.  I am unaware of any convertible currency which is created in such a manner.   

 
legendary
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008
My law partner pointed me to this fairly good overview of US federal and state msb laws as applied to btc:
http://contrariancompliance.com/2013/04/14/is-us-regulation-the-single-biggest-threat-to-bitcoin/

Registering with FinCen is not the end of the story, by a long shot.


Well I'm not a lawyer either but this FinCen threat looks like it is NOT on solid ground.  Bear with me here while I try some pro bono work:  

Quote from: FinCen

This guidance addresses "convertible" virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.


Well I guess we can stop reading here.

Bitcoin unequivocally does *not* have an equivalent value in real currency, *nor* does it act as a substitute for real currency  (using the term real currency here as it was defined in FinCen guidelines).

Coin as for example purchased by an individual from an exchange, is information - in particular information which is, or allows control of, a private key corresponding to published data (the block chain), and the sale of a coin is more akin to the sale of an ebook or a domain name than a legal tender equivalency vehicle (such as an amazoncoin).  There is NO guarantee by the seller of a coin to ANY quantity of real currency, let alone a conversion.          

If a litecoin or a private key to GPG pair are convertible currencies, then so must be the euro, a blog post, the new top level domains, and a 2 minute streaming video.  Clearly they are not, and so we have a proof by contradiction.

Bitcoin is not a convertible currency, and the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001 thus clearly states that it does not address bitcoin.


    

I don't understand your proof by contradiction. Can you clarify how bitcoin does not act as a substitute for real currency? Also, if it does not act as a substitute for real currency, what exactly does it act as?

http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html


Maybe it would be more clear if we looked at an example of convertible virtual currencies.  One example is the Liberty Reserve dollar.  A single unit of this acts as a substitute for a single US dollar.  It can be converted (there is a fixed ratio) by the manufacturer.  Another example is a MtGox USD code (which no longer exist AFAIK).  These can be converted at a fixed conversion rate to real currency (legal tender, in this case federal reserve notes).  I believe BTC-E creates such convertible virtual currency as well now.  At the moment of redemption (conversion to real currency) they are removed from circulation (destroyed).     

A bitcoin on the other hand does not act as anything other than what it is (a number), there are no guarantees for any convertible value in any real currency.  Note that e-books in circulation probably have created more real currency revenue for publishers than bitcoins have for miners.  Note further that domain names (DNS entries) in circulation have create more real currency revenue for registrars than bitcoins have for miners.  Like bitcoin, these things can be sold for real money or traded for goods and services.  They are not convertible virtual currencies, because no fixed conversion rate exists. 

The nature of the bitcoin as information (which is valuable in virtue of its use in reference to published data known as the block chain) makes the most obviously relevant legal precedent the domain name (which is valuable in virtue of its use in reference to published DNS tables). 
sr. member
Activity: 388
Merit: 250
My law partner pointed me to this fairly good overview of US federal and state msb laws as applied to btc:
http://contrariancompliance.com/2013/04/14/is-us-regulation-the-single-biggest-threat-to-bitcoin/

Registering with FinCen is not the end of the story, by a long shot.


Well I'm not a lawyer either but this FinCen threat looks like it is NOT on solid ground.  Bear with me here while I try some pro bono work:  

Quote from: FinCen

This guidance addresses "convertible" virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.


Well I guess we can stop reading here.

Bitcoin unequivocally does *not* have an equivalent value in real currency, *nor* does it act as a substitute for real currency  (using the term real currency here as it was defined in FinCen guidelines).

Coin as for example purchased by an individual from an exchange, is information - in particular information which is, or allows control of, a private key corresponding to published data (the block chain), and the sale of a coin is more akin to the sale of an ebook or a domain name than a legal tender equivalency vehicle (such as an amazoncoin).  There is NO guarantee by the seller of a coin to ANY quantity of real currency, let alone a conversion.          

If a litecoin or a private key to GPG pair are convertible currencies, then so must be the euro, a blog post, the new top level domains, and a 2 minute streaming video.  Clearly they are not, and so we have a proof by contradiction.

Bitcoin is not a convertible currency, and the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001 thus clearly states that it does not address bitcoin.


    

I don't understand your proof by contradiction. Can you clarify how bitcoin does not act as a substitute for real currency? Also, if it does not act as a substitute for real currency, what exactly does it act as?

http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
Are you looking at the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001?  This document does not contain the word "decentralized" nor the prefix "crypto".  It states very clearly that it addresses convertible virtual currencies. 



How could you possibly miss it.

Quote
         c.   De-Centralized Virtual Currencies

            A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.

            A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.
legendary
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008
....

Bitcoin is not a convertible currency, and the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001 thus clearly states that it does not address bitcoin.

That is a dead-end street to go down. At a stroke of a pen they can just add "crypto-currency", "digital currency" or even "Bitcoin" to the guidance.


The guidance specifically addresses decentralized cryptocurrencies. The question is, are you doing something that makes you an issuer or exchanger. But then, this is only guidance that says FinCen thinks virtual currency is already covered by existing laws, rules & regs. If people think they might be covered, they should actually read the applicable law themselves and not just rely on this one piece of guidance.

Are you looking at the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001?  This document does not contain the word "decentralized" nor the prefix "crypto".  It states very clearly that it addresses convertible virtual currencies. 
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
....

Bitcoin is not a convertible currency, and the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001 thus clearly states that it does not address bitcoin.

That is a dead-end street to go down. At a stroke of a pen they can just add "crypto-currency", "digital currency" or even "Bitcoin" to the guidance.


The guidance specifically addresses decentralized cryptocurrencies. The question is, are you doing something that makes you an issuer or exchanger. But then, this is only guidance that says FinCen thinks virtual currency is already covered by existing laws, rules & regs. If people think they might be covered, they should actually read the applicable law themselves and not just rely on this one piece of guidance.
legendary
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008
....

Bitcoin is not a convertible currency, and the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001 thus clearly states that it does not address bitcoin.

That is a dead-end street to go down. At a stroke of a pen they can just add "crypto-currency", "digital currency" or even "Bitcoin" to the guidance.


Well of course they could, but they make it quite clear here they aren't talking about bitcoin:

Quote

An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency.


Do you see any coins being redeemed or withdrawn from circulation?  I don't think even the so called destruction of blockchain assets (by sending to addresses without private keys) could be described as withdrawing them from circulation, and there is nothing like a redemption involved with using private keys to make signatures. 

 

legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1006
100 satoshis -> ISO code
....

Bitcoin is not a convertible currency, and the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001 thus clearly states that it does not address bitcoin.

That is a dead-end street to go down. At a stroke of a pen they can just add "crypto-currency", "digital currency" or even "Bitcoin" to the guidance.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
That's certainly true for a lot of larger operations.  Remember that the state MT regs were written with big businesses in mind.  Smaller operations with no employees, no office space, etc., - largely in virtue of their diminutive size - can comply with a more modest layout of costs and resources.

As to legal fees, well, that depends on how nicely you treat your lawyer  Kiss

Oh, and yes, excellent article!

hahaha.  good post!  it's also a view shared by our attorney.  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008
My law partner pointed me to this fairly good overview of US federal and state msb laws as applied to btc:
http://contrariancompliance.com/2013/04/14/is-us-regulation-the-single-biggest-threat-to-bitcoin/

Registering with FinCen is not the end of the story, by a long shot.


Well I'm not a lawyer either but this FinCen threat looks like it is NOT on solid ground.  Bear with me here while I try some pro bono work:  

Quote from: FinCen

This guidance addresses "convertible" virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.


Well I guess we can stop reading here.

Bitcoin unequivocally does *not* have an equivalent value in real currency, *nor* does it act as a substitute for real currency  (using the term real currency here as it was defined in FinCen guidelines).

Coin as for example purchased by an individual from an exchange, is information - in particular information which is, or allows control of, a private key corresponding to published data (the block chain), and the sale of a coin is more akin to the sale of an ebook or a domain name than a legal tender equivalency vehicle (such as an amazoncoin).  There is NO guarantee by the seller of a coin to ANY quantity of real currency, let alone a conversion.          

If a litecoin or a private key to GPG pair are convertible currencies, then so must be the euro, a blog post, the new top level domains, and a 2 minute streaming video.  Clearly they are not, and so we have a proof by contradiction.

Bitcoin is not a convertible currency, and the FinCen guidance of March 18 FIN-2013-G001 thus clearly states that it does not address bitcoin.


    
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
Truer words...
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
So anyone who sells coin for a living must have millions of dollars and an army of lawyers?

Yes. Unless you want to live as an outlaw. But if you're an outlaw, you'd better not be a half-assed outlaw.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
So anyone who sells coin for a living must have millions of dollars and an army of lawyers?
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
That's certainly true for a lot of larger operations.  Remember that the state MT regs were written with big businesses in mind.  Smaller operations with no employees, no office space, etc., - largely in virtue of their diminutive size - can comply with a more modest layout of costs and resources.

As to legal fees, well, that depends on how nicely you treat your lawyer  Kiss

Oh, and yes, excellent article!
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
You really need a solid year and a few million bucks in the bank to approach this with any level of comfort. Legal budget is a relatively small component of that, however. Mostly talking about compliance personnel, state bond requirements, reserves required in your business.
legendary
Activity: 3192
Merit: 1279
Primedice.com, Stake.com
Yup, good read.

Quite a bit of legwork to get any sort of exchange up and running legally.

Anyone have a general idea of how long all of this would take to get processed/get filed to be ready for a launch?
newbie
Activity: 25
Merit: 0
My law partner pointed me to this fairly good overview of US federal and state msb laws as applied to btc:
http://contrariancompliance.com/2013/04/14/is-us-regulation-the-single-biggest-threat-to-bitcoin/

Registering with FinCen is not the end of the story, by a long shot.

Excellent post!
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
My law partner pointed me to this fairly good overview of US federal and state msb laws as applied to btc:
http://contrariancompliance.com/2013/04/14/is-us-regulation-the-single-biggest-threat-to-bitcoin/

Registering with FinCen is not the end of the story, by a long shot.
Jump to: