Topic: Metamask Implemented Crypto Tax on their ToS (Read 380 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.
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.
But it doesn't make Metamask will not ever implemented this kind horrible rule. I remember someone hold his tokens on Metamask, but Metamask not allow him to send his tokens because he's live in a country where Metamask implemented a new rule about banned jurisdictions.Quote
I guess unstoppable wallet is good, i haven't personally used it because i mostly only buy/use Bitcoin, but i have seen some users recommend it.
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.
Metamask is really going stronger by the day and i really appreciate the impact they have made in crypto space, I read some where that they might do airdrop in the future, anybody know how true this is?
MetaMask, a popular cryptocurrency wallet and browser extension, has recently implemented a new addition to their Terms of Service (ToS) regarding crypto tax. With the increasing regulatory scrutiny surrounding digital currencies, MetaMask has recognized the importance of addressing tax obligations for its users. The inclusion of a crypto tax provision in their ToS signifies MetaMask's commitment to promoting compliance and responsible use of cryptocurrencies. By acknowledging the significance of tax compliance, MetaMask aims to provide a transparent and legally compliant platform for its users, ensuring that they are well-informed about their tax obligations when engaging in cryptocurrency transactions.
Soon KYC will be in every wallet. Even in hardware wallets. MetaMask, like other wallets, has long collected KYC, such as when connecting various payment gateways or when trying to buy or exchange cryptocurrency for fiat currencies. MetaMask has long been notorious for its bad reputation as a wallet that collects personal data of its owner. It is unlikely that this mechanism will work everywhere for every wallet user, because all countries have different tax systems. Most likely, the news is intended primarily for North America.
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.Now what's the good wallet to use for altcoins? 
I guess unstoppable wallet is good, i haven't personally used it because i mostly only buy/use Bitcoin, but i have seen some users recommend it.
Metamask now become a less decentralized wallet where they restrict few jurisdictions and now they would withhold their users token due to tax need.
Trust wallet is closed source and sometime have a terrible fee measurement.
Ledger aka hardware wallet has a problem of sharing private key to third party, we have other options, but we don't know if they might turn be like ledger.
Now what's the good wallet to use for altcoins?
I guess Myetherwallet (MEW)?
Trust wallet is closed source and sometime have a terrible fee measurement.
Ledger aka hardware wallet has a problem of sharing private key to third party, we have other options, but we don't know if they might turn be like ledger.
Now what's the good wallet to use for altcoins?
I guess Myetherwallet (MEW)?
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?
As understand the full context of that update. They will charge as requirements of the law that means it depends on the country you are residing before they apply taxes on your assets. AFAIK metamask track our personal info including our IP to determine our country.
It’s really bad news for all user that using crypto to avoid tax but somehow that update is good for audit purposes since you will automatically pay your taxes automatically when IRS audit you.
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.
They already clarified that their terms are still the same and it might be a sign for their users to take some actions regarding their reliance on Metamask because anytime they could change their terms and might going to cause some trouble to others.
I wonder how powerful the social media. Since it came to their attention the circulating tweets. Now they clarified it easily and push a pedal on the issue. For sure if they push this idea nevertheless the metamask users will totally decrease without a doubt. People dont like to be treated liks some sort of prisoners. Well taxes are due but not in a decentralized space. For sure OGs are tweeting a lot now about metamask craps. 
I am a Metamask user and I am very comfortable with the user experience of Metamask. It would be a shame if I had to switch to another wallet. But yes of course this is what metamask should do because they have to avoid a fine from the SEC. I think they will change their concept to be a custodial business. 
They already clarified that their terms are still the same and it might be a sign for their users to take some actions regarding their reliance on Metamask because anytime they could change their terms and might going to cause some trouble to others. That's why it's nice to have your own personal wallet and only use 3rd party wallets when you really need to. That's to avoid some technical issues such as this one and also remain as unanimous as you want because right now the SEC is not slacking about further expanding their terms until they have full control of the crypto industry.
📢 We are aware of tweets circulating with inaccurate information about ConsenSys' terms of service.
Let's clarify one thing upfront: MetaMask does NOT collect taxes on crypto transactions and we have not made any changes to our terms to do so.
This claim is false.
Let's clarify one thing upfront: MetaMask does NOT collect taxes on crypto transactions and we have not made any changes to our terms to do so.
This claim is false.
The tax section in our terms of service falls under the "fees and payment" section, and it exclusively pertains to products and paid plans offered by ConsenSys. For example, Infura has credit card developer subscriptions which include sales tax.
That is now crystal clear. Though, they also address how complex documents such as Terms of Service or Policy Policy. The complexion of legal terms that are mainly made and is tied to a specific regular user is a burden for them. Let alone even if they bother to read and comprehend it.
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.
I am a Metamask user and I am very comfortable with the user experience of Metamask. It would be a shame if I had to switch to another wallet. But yes of course this is what metamask should do because they have to avoid a fine from the SEC. I think they will change their concept to be a custodial business.
Withhold taxes requires the wallet to effectively control the transactions. I believe MetaMask won't do that further, or even migrate MetaMask into a custodial wallet as the above comment said. On the contrary, I believe such kind of clause is required in order for Consensys to not get into legal trouble.
On the other hand, it seems that it has something to do with their buying cryptocurrency feature[1]. We know that recently cryptocurrency regulations getting tighter, Consensys, as US based company, might add that to play the safe side on their wallet developments.
[1] https://metamask.io/buy-crypto/
This could be their way to prevent being sued in the future, hope its not too late for them though.On the other hand, it seems that it has something to do with their buying cryptocurrency feature[1]. We know that recently cryptocurrency regulations getting tighter, Consensys, as US based company, might add that to play the safe side on their wallet developments.
[1] https://metamask.io/buy-crypto/
I’m just thinking what kind of transactions they are going to impose taxes, is it for buying, swapping or transferring of money? Metamask have to be clear on this so users can decide if they will continue to use the platform or they will just look for alternatives, looks like many wallets will ended up to have the same clause and follow the regulations.
I have not used metamask in years but I recommend to those that do to stay away from it or one day they may receive a very nasty surprise.
It kinda sounds like an additional extract in there Terms of Services, so they won't get in trouble with the SEC and the treasury of the United States.
I assume they would not go all in with the leaking of private keys, but I assume it would be just matter of time before Metamask is asked by the government to stockpile as many master public keys as possible, so the agencies can track the movements of each American citizen or suspected American citizen, to evaluate or not if that person is using crypto to evade taxation.
Anyways, with this and the Ledger news on management of Seeds, it seems our community is currently under pressure by regulators. Let us wait and see what happens next...
I assume they would not go all in with the leaking of private keys, but I assume it would be just matter of time before Metamask is asked by the government to stockpile as many master public keys as possible, so the agencies can track the movements of each American citizen or suspected American citizen, to evaluate or not if that person is using crypto to evade taxation.
Anyways, with this and the Ledger news on management of Seeds, it seems our community is currently under pressure by regulators. Let us wait and see what happens next...
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?
I can't agree with this. Mostly of crypto related projects who have been targeted by SEC always issued the security. As long as consensys will not try to sell the security to its users and there's nothing to be worried.
Consensys was just updating the TOS for its API. Consensys is now able to suspend account too.
People are still paranoid about this wallet, especially when they decided update their terms and conditions about collection of user data
Anyway about a few hours ago, they tried to clarify on what was actually going on. I still wonder what took them so long to respond to the issue
This is the thread >> https://twitter.com/ConsenSys/status/1660353688446050304
Anyway about a few hours ago, they tried to clarify on what was actually going on. I still wonder what took them so long to respond to the issue
This is the thread >> https://twitter.com/ConsenSys/status/1660353688446050304
📢 We are aware of tweets circulating with inaccurate information about ConsenSys' terms of service.
Let's clarify one thing upfront: MetaMask does NOT collect taxes on crypto transactions and we have not made any changes to our terms to do so.
This claim is false.
Let's clarify one thing upfront: MetaMask does NOT collect taxes on crypto transactions and we have not made any changes to our terms to do so.
This claim is false.
The tax section in our terms of service falls under the "fees and payment" section, and it exclusively pertains to products and paid plans offered by ConsenSys. For example, Infura has credit card developer subscriptions which include sales tax.
Withhold taxes requires the wallet to effectively control the transactions. I believe MetaMask won't do that further, or even migrate MetaMask into a custodial wallet as the above comment said. On the contrary, I believe such kind of clause is required in order for Consensys to not get into legal trouble.
On the other hand, it seems that it has something to do with their buying cryptocurrency feature[1]. We know that recently cryptocurrency regulations getting tighter, Consensys, as US based company, might add that to play the safe side on their wallet developments.
[1] https://metamask.io/buy-crypto/
This could be their way to prevent being sued in the future, hope its not too late for them though.On the other hand, it seems that it has something to do with their buying cryptocurrency feature[1]. We know that recently cryptocurrency regulations getting tighter, Consensys, as US based company, might add that to play the safe side on their wallet developments.
[1] https://metamask.io/buy-crypto/
I’m just thinking what kind of transactions they are going to impose taxes, is it for buying, swapping or transferring of money? Metamask have to be clear on this so users can decide if they will continue to use the platform or they will just look for alternatives, looks like many wallets will ended up to have the same clause and follow the regulations.
The issue now is that these so-called DEFI apps are the ones doing the bidding of the Centralised governments, Uniswap and MetaMask are pure evil and I am surprised that people are not turning against them, things have really changed in this space maybe people have made money and are comfortable with this, so, if you decided to withhold my funds but you claim you are a DEX then this is crazy since they started monitoring people's transaction and I believe they give this information to IRS or other government agencies, we need a truly decentralized wallet that is not tracking you
Ok, hold your horses. What part of this is "pure evil"? The fact that they offered the service to buy with credit card? I guess that makes every shop out there pure evil. Or is it the fact that they follow regulations because they are a technology company based in NYC and have to follow rules or possibly get jailed for not doing so?If you think they are pure evil by developing free services then by all means find a copypaste dex with anon devs that only offer pure dex services. Preferably one that doesn't rug you and is audited by same company who did uniswap v3. Or build your own one.
I really don't get this hate.
The issue now is that these so-called DEFI apps are the ones doing the bidding of the Centralised governments, Uniswap and MetaMask are pure evil and I am surprised that people are not turning against them, things have really changed in this space maybe people have made money and are comfortable with this, so, if you decided to withhold my funds but you claim you are a DEX then this is crazy since they started monitoring people's transaction and I believe they give this information to IRS or other government agencies, we need a truly decentralized wallet that is not tracking you
I saw it & it sucks. It’s probably forced on them due to regulatory pressure. Just be aware though that this isn’t going to happen to the majority of people. They are just making users aware that if they are a criminal or something & the wallet gets subpoenaed by authorities for information on a person then they will pass the information to the feds. This is not going to happen to 99.999999% of normal, law abiding citizens.
So is anyone seen the pop up on their app regarding the newly changes terms and conditions services?
Its not also clear on how they are gonna do this per country with different taxation regarding cryptocurrency.
Its not also clear on how they are gonna do this per country with different taxation regarding cryptocurrency.
I miss this one when reading the pop-up but this is something new and I also wonder how will the implementation be being a noncustodial wallet they only have it in their terms but there's no formal announcement and how it will operate
and guidelines for implementation, there's a lot of confusion in the community on these new terms.
All I know is it's the investors who have control when it comes to paying taxes to their respective countries.
if they are planning to have a custodial wallet then we will read an announcement and this taxation is just a prelude to that.
Withhold taxes requires the wallet to effectively control the transactions. I believe MetaMask won't do that further, or even migrate MetaMask into a custodial wallet as the above comment said. On the contrary, I believe such kind of clause is required in order for Consensys to not get into legal trouble.
On the other hand, it seems that it has something to do with their buying cryptocurrency feature[1]. We know that recently cryptocurrency regulations getting tighter, Consensys, as US based company, might add that to play the safe side on their wallet developments.
[1] https://metamask.io/buy-crypto/
On the other hand, it seems that it has something to do with their buying cryptocurrency feature[1]. We know that recently cryptocurrency regulations getting tighter, Consensys, as US based company, might add that to play the safe side on their wallet developments.
[1] https://metamask.io/buy-crypto/
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?
I don't think those taxes will be implemented on all users crypto transactions, for it would be unwise of them since they don't know the country in which the users who are performing transactions are based or how their tax law is being explained.
But what I think is that Metamask might gradually move from being a decentralized wallet to more of a custodial wallet since they have already implemented a few payment gateways to their system, so users can now use their credit or debit card to purchase crypto directly using their wallet. This will, at some point, link the user's card and other verifications to an individual wallet that the government can keep track of. So this form of transaction I believe is the way they plan to be charging their customers since anyone who wants to use those options is also showing their identity, which they can use to justify which country the person is using their wallet from and charge them based on the country's tax law. This is just my guess and suggestions.
Anyone who cares about his or her privacy will be strongly advised to avoid using those newly integrated purchase options.
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?
Jump to: