ID Protecting Solution to FATF Crypto Guidance

MonsterV

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1008

Quote from: Ozero on July 05, 2019, 05:05:01 PM

As far as I know, the FATF decision states that persons who send or receive cryptocurrencies worth more than one thousand dollars must be tested by KYC, and if the transaction amount is more than $ 15,000, then such a transaction is reported to the relevant government agencies. I do not see that these rules are too strict.

It may not be too tight for people who have low assets, but for those who have assets of more than $1000, they must show their privacy with KYC. I myself am not too worried about the regulations stipulated, because my country is not a member of the FATF and not all countries in the world are members. Maybe you can check your country through the official FATF website https://www.fatf-gafi.org/countries/#FATF

squatter

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1196

STOP SNITCHIN'

Quote from: ccryptopark on July 05, 2019, 04:56:30 PM

My question is once they do find sort of suspicious activity how do they track it back to the person? Through KYC? Is this also only applied to exchanges that do require KYC

That's the only place it's relevant, yes. The FATF guidelines require KYC and information sharing among VASPs for transfers of $1,000 or more. So essentially, if two exchanges are sharing information about your transactions using this protocol then both of them already have your KYC on file. If you get flagged for suspicious activities and the authorities investigate you, both exchanges will be able to hand everything to them on a silver platter.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: akeegan on July 05, 2019, 02:34:19 PM

Blockchain analytics company Ciphertrace and attestation platform Shyft have come together to find a solution to protect users identity in the case if a travel rule were to apply.

this sounds absurd since the very nature of these companies are contradictory to what the article says they want to do! they are literary created to NOT-protect users identity by revealing it through blockchain analysis and gathering of a lot of data from them. i can't think of any reason why they would take any step in doing otherwise and protecting user identity!

Ozero

full member

Activity: 2142

Merit: 183

As far as I know, the FATF decision states that persons who send or receive cryptocurrencies worth more than one thousand dollars must be tested by KYC, and if the transaction amount is more than $ 15,000, then such a transaction is reported to the relevant government agencies. I do not see that these rules are too strict.

ccryptopark

jr. member

Activity: 300

Merit: 5

My question is once they do find sort of suspicious activity how do they track it back to the person? Through KYC? Is this also only applied to exchanges that do require KYC

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Just hope that the solution is a fool-proof one, else once it gets mishandled, data breaches and leaks would again be the talk of the town and everyone ends up pointing fingers on whoever they want to just to take the blame away from them. Ever since a lot of scandals and data leaks happened, I became so weary and untrusting to companies wanting to get my information on whatever things they want it to. And I do travel frequently, and if this regulation applied to me, knowing that I'm a crypto holder, I need assurance that my data is safe, because complying is the only thing I can do, really.

squatter

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1196

STOP SNITCHIN'

Quote from: akeegan on July 05, 2019, 02:34:19 PM

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/ciphertrace-shyft-team-id-protecting-solution-fatf-crypto-guidance

This doesn't address the fundamental problem -- required KYC with your VASP and transaction reporting for tiny amounts of money.

This is the beginning of a dystopian nightmare. Regular people will have voluminous files about their personal and financial life that the authorities can parse through if they are ever interested for any reason, malicious or not. There was never any pretense to do this level of reporting with banks, with cash or any other monetary instruments.

Fearmongering around cryptocurrencies and terrorism has made these extremely small $1,000 thresholds acceptable to people. What a nightmare. Undecided

Nolimitz84

sr. member

Activity: 980

Merit: 252

It's nonsense.You simply offer to collect data about all cryptocurrency users on your platform.I think the best solution would be simply to use anonymous cryptocurrency, than to deal with the sites that You offer.

jdarren

member

Activity: 296

Merit: 12

I think this is a great reaction in regards to the FATF travel rule. $1k seems like a fairly low amount to keep traces of but if there are no real red flags in the movements of money the exchanges won't have any way to access these individuals identities. It's companies like ciphertrace and shyft that are doing their best to preserve crypto and people's privacy.

akeegan

jr. member

Activity: 236

Merit: 4

A few weeks ago the FATF released guidance regarding cryptocurrency activitiy especially what is known as the 'travel rule' which banks are required to share clients information when they transfer more than $1k to another bank. This upset the crypto community for a good reason.

Blockchain analytics company Ciphertrace and attestation platform Shyft have come together to find a solution to protect users identity in the case if a travel rule were to apply. The two created a proof-of-knowledge identity protocol similar to a zero-knowledge proof which allows one party to reveal that it knows information without sacrificing the information itself.

This is done via smart contract with shared access between exchanges and other crypto service companies. How does everyone feel about this? Do you think this is an ideal move to bridge governments and individuals privacy?

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/ciphertrace-shyft-team-id-protecting-solution-fatf-crypto-guidance

Topic: ID Protecting Solution to FATF Crypto Guidance (Read 214 times)