Topic: Metamask Implemented Crypto Tax on their ToS (Read 325 times)
Metamask was a good wallet in the past but since their tos have changed and they decided to register the ip and the wallet address using rcp of infura many users have already escaped now that they also want to withhold taxes which i don't know how they will do since it is a non-custodial wallet i think there will be very few left to use it
It happened and happened like you mean. I'm also confused that suddenly there is a notification when I will connect the metamask to a certain network. and if we click there is a change that makes me confused. Regardless of whether it is considered safe or not, the metamask platform for me really has a big role and contribution in this crypto world.
Last year, some users in parts of the world woke up to discover that their Metamask wallets no longer work on browser extensions, which was a shock to all wallet users everywhere around the world. Shutting down the wallet, even for a short period of time, in specific regions around the world proves that MetaMask developers are able to collect user data through the browser and can determine usage according to the geographical location of users.
Everyone was surprised at the time, because everyone believed the exact opposite, and that the wallet acts as a bridge to interact with the blockchain, nothing more.
I mention this incident to confirm that what this wallet is doing today is not strange, and that it is really able to locate its users and thus be able to deduct taxes on transfers according to their geographical location. Thus, all the blame falls on the users who still trust it.
True, but the easiest option is to create a wallet in metamask. it depends on what the wallet address is used for. So, what should we do if it is already familiar to me and maybe other people too and I think this platform almost new dicrypto users use it too.
The problem is not in choosing the wallet because there are many alternatives to Metamask, but the problem is that many crypto-related service platforms support the Metamask wallet to activate withdrawals and deposits, and thus this encouraged more demand for it and it became popular as we see it today.
In order not to be biased, I think it is important to mention that the Metamask wallet provides many good options, the most important of which is its support for various networks, and the development team is working hard to continue to support and secure the wallet. It should be noted that the Metamask wallet has not been subjected to any successful hacking since its launch. This makes it one of the best options, but this also has its price.
Gotta wonder why it's included in the Metamask terms when they're saying it's for other Consensys or Infura products. Perhaps they are trying to condition our minds as early as possible? Maybe they already have a plan to implement these changes if they're forced to. Not impossible considering they are based in the US.
- It seems that in the future it will not be good to use metamask. If they force their users. It will not appear to be a non-custodial wallet and it is also possible that in the end they will ask metamask users for Kyc.
I hope not, and that there is another way to not affect the communities that they have built for several years in this industry, because by chance I will find another alternative that is just like Metamask and probably do the same others for sure. Because Metamask is decentralized, then that's how it will appear, it's no longer a Dex concept.
It happened and happened like you mean. I'm also confused that suddenly there is a notification when I will connect the metamask to a certain network. and if we click there is a change that makes me confused. Regardless of whether it is considered safe or not, the metamask platform for me really has a big role and contribution in this crypto world.
Last year, some users in parts of the world woke up to discover that their Metamask wallets no longer work on browser extensions, which was a shock to all wallet users everywhere around the world. Shutting down the wallet, even for a short period of time, in specific regions around the world proves that MetaMask developers are able to collect user data through the browser and can determine usage according to the geographical location of users.
Everyone was surprised at the time, because everyone believed the exact opposite, and that the wallet acts as a bridge to interact with the blockchain, nothing more.
I mention this incident to confirm that what this wallet is doing today is not strange, and that it is really able to locate its users and thus be able to deduct taxes on transfers according to their geographical location. Thus, all the blame falls on the users who still trust it.
True, but the easiest option is to create a wallet in metamask. it depends on what the wallet address is used for. So, what should we do if it is already familiar to me and maybe other people too and I think this platform almost new dicrypto users use it too.
It happened and happened like you mean. I'm also confused that suddenly there is a notification when I will connect the metamask to a certain network. and if we click there is a change that makes me confused. Regardless of whether it is considered safe or not, the metamask platform for me really has a big role and contribution in this crypto world.
Last year, some users in parts of the world woke up to discover that their Metamask wallets no longer work on browser extensions, which was a shock to all wallet users everywhere around the world. Shutting down the wallet, even for a short period of time, in specific regions around the world proves that MetaMask developers are able to collect user data through the browser and can determine usage according to the geographical location of users.
Everyone was surprised at the time, because everyone believed the exact opposite, and that the wallet acts as a bridge to interact with the blockchain, nothing more.
I mention this incident to confirm that what this wallet is doing today is not strange, and that it is really able to locate its users and thus be able to deduct taxes on transfers according to their geographical location. Thus, all the blame falls on the users who still trust it.
It happened and happened like you mean. I'm also confused that suddenly there is a notification when I will connect the metamask to a certain network. and if we click there is a change that makes me confused. Regardless of whether it is considered safe or not, the metamask platform for me really has a big role and contribution in this crypto world.
I bet Consensys understand that very well and that's probably why they are already playing safe by placing that in the Metamask ToS.
Of course they do. They have linea and infura projects upcoming and those are decentralized platform so its conflict on interest if metamask would be like that. Im really sure that this is just for show to avoid being target by SEC and regulatory violations. Anyway, its up to them if they wanna push this upfront terms but they should be ready to lose potential users of metamask. 
is this extortion against metamaks wallet users. of course the fee will be double the usual this makes me less agree, if it has a normal appropriate draft policy to apply tax it's ok. if this new regulation is enforced i think there will be other competing wallet projects besides metamaks in the future, this could be the trigger for less people to use metamaks.
This will definitely be regarded as an extortion on it users if they are tasking them with the pay on tax dues, i remember when the issue like this erupted in India, I can't blame them for implementing a tax because they are not a single entity but a government, which there little fareness in that because most of the generated income will still go back to the society, but in case of Metamask, what should we call it because they are not a government but a private individuals, so i want to believe in the news that renders the whole case invalid that such decision is not coming from Metamask.
Maybe they already have a plan to implement these changes if they're forced to. Not impossible considering they are based in the US.
Their defense is simple its only to implement using metamask depends on country rules. But since they said it was just to put there for some regulation purposes, then I guess this should be far from happening unless consensys dont want to have as many users as now. They have upcoming projects like linea and infura doubt these will happen if they doing new projects for a decentralized approach. So if you care about the privacy of your coins, you better avoid using them (Metamask and all POS coins)
As much as I wanted to avoid such restriction and privacy rules. I am keen on earnings from PoS coins mostly which I believe isnt bad only if Bitcoin and other PoW coins can have same convenience and earnign features. But since some dex utilize this I take my chances. I believe this is only a bluff from metamask team. If ever they did this then say goodbye to dozens of customers who wanted a semi decentralized which doesnt give in KYC. 
is this extortion against metamaks wallet users. of course the fee will be double the usual this makes me less agree, if it has a normal appropriate draft policy to apply tax it's ok. if this new regulation is enforced i think there will be other competing wallet projects besides metamaks in the future, this could be the trigger for less people to use metamaks.
This will definitely be regarded as an extortion on it users if they are tasking them with the pay on tax dues, i remember when the issue like this erupted in India, I can't blame them for implementing a tax because they are not a single entity but a government, which there little fareness in that because most of the generated income will still go back to the society, but in case of Metamask, what should we call it because they are not a government but a private individuals, so i want to believe in the news that renders the whole case invalid that such decision is not coming from Metamask.
is this extortion against metamaks wallet users. of course the fee will be double the usual this makes me less agree, if it has a normal appropriate draft policy to apply tax it's ok. if this new regulation is enforced i think there will be other competing wallet projects besides metamaks in the future, this could be the trigger for less people to use metamaks.
Metamask now become a less decentralized wallet where they restrict few jurisdictions and now they would withhold their users token due to tax need.
Metamask have debunked the news as being false, a user already posted that some posts above mine. When i initially saw this i couldn't wrap my head around the procedure they were going to use to achieve this, it is centralized services that are known to do stuffs like this, that's why i'm not surprised it turned out to be false.This is not the first of it kind i will also be seing concerning Metamask wallet, well i want to believe that the initial ones have be true on scam or hack related issues, maybe this time they are wrong about them, some people even take old news for trending one just to cause confusion in other to stir the ecosystem or paint their reputation bad, nevertheless enough have been said before now concerning Metamask and i think having an alternative as you've said is the best option and your recommendation is not a bad idea.
For a while now this wallet has been accelerating towards centralization, it has started freezing addresses and now imposing taxes, I expect that after a while they will provide a service where you can store your private key because they are afraid that you might lose that key.
-cut-
I see something like this a very possible scenario. Many countries have very strong consumer protection laws and i always felt like concepts like self custody and permissionless transfers is something that wouldn't fit automatically in on those.-cut-
Basically centralized provider of services that is handling your money should be ultimately responsible for it and repayments. But these laws were done before permissionless immutable payments were a thing so they are operated on uncharted waters and everything is very much still on grey area. This however is going to be temporary. This is why i assume if bitcoin or other becomes a legal tender, things get very much complicated for these companies.
For a while now this wallet has been accelerating towards centralization, it has started freezing addresses and now imposing taxes, I expect that after a while they will provide a service where you can store your private key because they are afraid that you might lose that key.
You do not necessarily have to be taxed, but what happens is a disclaimer of responsibility, since if the government decides to impose restrictions on it, they will provide your data to third parties for verification.
So if you care about the privacy of your coins, you better avoid using them (Metamask and all POS coins)
You do not necessarily have to be taxed, but what happens is a disclaimer of responsibility, since if the government decides to impose restrictions on it, they will provide your data to third parties for verification.
So if you care about the privacy of your coins, you better avoid using them (Metamask and all POS coins)
Maybe they already have a plan to implement these changes if they're forced to. Not impossible considering they are based in the US.
Their defense is simple its only to implement using metamask depends on country rules. But since they said it was just to put there for some regulation purposes, then I guess this should be far from happening unless consensys dont want to have as many users as now. They have upcoming projects like linea and infura doubt these will happen if they doing new projects for a decentralized approach.
Gotta wonder why it's included in the Metamask terms when they're saying it's for other Consensys or Infura products. Perhaps they are trying to condition our minds as early as possible? Maybe they already have a plan to implement these changes if they're forced to. Not impossible considering they are based in the US.
It is also worth noting, some people did not know that MetaMask's parent company is ConsenSys. Two things that I also did wrong in my post above, I thought the updates were recent, but it is not. Lastly, it is specifically for other ConsenSys products, not MetaMask.
So we are worrying about something that is not there, if that is the case then its better to lock this thread because all the other early posts are specifically mentioning that the taxes are for meta mask users when it turns out to be on ConsenSys products, or better change the title too.
That's a good recommendation, I though unstoppable wallet is only accept Bitcoin, but it's actually a multi crypto wallet. Although it seems not many people use it, but I have not heard about serious accusations against this wallet.
Yeah, Unstoppable wallet is a multi-crypto wallet, i would not recommend it to a user searching for a Bitcoin only wallet, there's electrum that's sufficient for that. Unstoppable wallet seems to be a good multi-crypto wallet, and you are right that there isn't a lot of discussions from the community about it, but there is a discussion about it in the thread below, you can read it if you want reviews or opinions from people who have used the wallet and have some experience about it, you can also prolly raise questions there if you have any.https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unstoppable-wallet-user-experiences-5436273
So is anyone seen the pop up on their app regarding the newly changes terms and conditions services?
A post here on Twitter emphasized that metamask would withhold taxes on users. As a decentralized non custodial wallet, I think this would break its concept means they are gonna do kyc to identify wallets for taxation or they just gonna cut some tax based on trasaction made on metamask swap? Have anyone tried or seen an option when using it? Its not also clear on how they are gonna do this per country with different taxation regarding cryptocurrency.
Image source:
https://twitter.com/Ashcryptoreal/status/1660160399998689281?s=20
I think many would be alarm on this but Im thinking they are doing this to suffice their partners on the industry to avoid being targeted to violations by SEC. Anyway metamask is a business after all. Any thoughts?
A post here on Twitter emphasized that metamask would withhold taxes on users. As a decentralized non custodial wallet, I think this would break its concept means they are gonna do kyc to identify wallets for taxation or they just gonna cut some tax based on trasaction made on metamask swap? Have anyone tried or seen an option when using it? Its not also clear on how they are gonna do this per country with different taxation regarding cryptocurrency.
Image source:
https://twitter.com/Ashcryptoreal/status/1660160399998689281?s=20
I think many would be alarm on this but Im thinking they are doing this to suffice their partners on the industry to avoid being targeted to violations by SEC. Anyway metamask is a business after all. Any thoughts?
Alot of things were already happening these days giving us more concern about their authencity, how could a decentralized wallet be active ing like a centralized one, or maybe this same thing is what others have been milking from is in every of our transactions unaware to us, there need to be a revision on this and we must take it very serious that the trust and privacy confide in them are not brieged upon, but this tax of a thing is a big contention now.
Jump to: