On the bright side, FinCEN reopened the public comment period for these proposed changes, amidst backlash from Bitcoin companies complaining of insufficient time given. They are giving another 15 days for the reporting rule changes, and 45 days for the self-hosted wallet regulation. They don't give specific dates, so I don't know if that means from the date of this publication, or the date of the previous deadline.
Either way, I would expect to get some closure on the Travel Rule regulations around the end of January and the self-hosted wallet regulations around end of February, assuming the Biden and Trump administrations see eye to eye on the proposed changes.
Topic: Mr. Mnuchin plans to regulate non-custodial wallets. (Read 909 times)
Stopping any sort of ML, crime, missed KYC duties
^^ Yeah, the travel rule is also what I wanted to see $250 threshold? prfft!!
I think it surely does have some effect, those 8 are powerful congressman to begin with, so it might influence and as you have said, the new administration will take over that time so we might see some changes and hopefully it will be on our side.
I think it surely does have some effect, those 8 are powerful congressman to begin with, so it might influence and as you have said, the new administration will take over that time so we might see some changes and hopefully it will be on our side.
Just some update:
US representatives ask Mnuchin to extend comment period for proposed wallet rule to traditional 60 days.
Are they just extending the inevitable here? Or are we going to find middle grounds?
US representatives ask Mnuchin to extend comment period for proposed wallet rule to traditional 60 days.
Quote
Now, Reps. Tom Emmer, David Schweikert, Warren Davidson, Ted Budd, Bill Foster, Darren Soto, Susan DelBene and Tulsi Gabbard have signed a letter to Mnuchin, with FinCEN Director Kenneth Blanco cc'ed, asking the office to extend the period to 60 days. If the rule is implemented, the letter also asks FinCEN to consider a six month extension of implementation to allow stakeholders to find solutions to the upcoming rule.
Are they just extending the inevitable here? Or are we going to find middle grounds?
60 days + 6 months would be a godsend---too good to be true. if that happened, it would probably kill the proposal since biden is gonna appoint a new treasury secretary, who will likely appoint a new FINCEN director.
i don't have high hopes that 8 house reps will turn the tide. i really hope i'm wrong, but i get the feeling the treasury department is gonna cram these regs through before trump leaves office. they don't explicitly say in the proposal when the new rules would go into effect but this makes me think it could be immediately:
Quote
FinCEN has determined that the substantial concerns about national security, terrorism, ransomware, money laundering, and other illicit financial activities discussed above, and the need for an effective response in a rapidly changing area of major national concern, support making the amendments in the proposed rule effective as quickly as is feasible.
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-28437.pdf
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-28437.pdf
the other thing i'm waiting with bated breath for: implementation of the travel rule, with a possible $250 threshold instead of the FATF's recommended $1000.
Just some update:
US representatives ask Mnuchin to extend comment period for proposed wallet rule to traditional 60 days.
Are they just extending the inevitable here? Or are we going to find middle grounds?
US representatives ask Mnuchin to extend comment period for proposed wallet rule to traditional 60 days.
Quote
Eight members of Congress have sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin expressing concern over the shortened comment period for the Treasury's recently proposed rule for virtual currency transactions.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would require more stringent know-your-customer and reporting measures for exchanges, cracking down on anonymous transacting and self-hosted wallet activity. In its notice, it provided for a 15 day comment period as opposed to the traditional 60 days for significant proposed rules.
Now, Reps. Tom Emmer, David Schweikert, Warren Davidson, Ted Budd, Bill Foster, Darren Soto, Susan DelBene and Tulsi Gabbard have signed a letter to Mnuchin, with FinCEN Director Kenneth Blanco cc'ed, asking the office to extend the period to 60 days. If the rule is implemented, the letter also asks FinCEN to consider a six month extension of implementation to allow stakeholders to find solutions to the upcoming rule.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would require more stringent know-your-customer and reporting measures for exchanges, cracking down on anonymous transacting and self-hosted wallet activity. In its notice, it provided for a 15 day comment period as opposed to the traditional 60 days for significant proposed rules.
Now, Reps. Tom Emmer, David Schweikert, Warren Davidson, Ted Budd, Bill Foster, Darren Soto, Susan DelBene and Tulsi Gabbard have signed a letter to Mnuchin, with FinCEN Director Kenneth Blanco cc'ed, asking the office to extend the period to 60 days. If the rule is implemented, the letter also asks FinCEN to consider a six month extension of implementation to allow stakeholders to find solutions to the upcoming rule.
Are they just extending the inevitable here? Or are we going to find middle grounds?
There are two distinct but related proposals in play. One regards the "self-hosted wallet" rule change discussed in this thread, which would require money services businesses to collect KYC information for transactions of $3,000 or more to a non-custodial wallet.
The second was actually published in late October, and is intended to implement the FATF Travel Rule. The rule requires KYC collection on cross-border transactions with a de minimis threshold of no higher than 1,000 USD or EUR.
The Fed and FinCEN are taking a ridiculously hard line by lowering that threshold to $250:
Of course, the "self-hosted wallet" rule change would apply to these transactions as well.
From what I can tell these are both just proposals, but that may be a formality. I expected FinCEN to pass new regulations complying with the Travel Rule a while ago. I would be surprised if they proposed this rule change right before Trump exits only to forget about it.
The second was actually published in late October, and is intended to implement the FATF Travel Rule. The rule requires KYC collection on cross-border transactions with a de minimis threshold of no higher than 1,000 USD or EUR.
The Fed and FinCEN are taking a ridiculously hard line by lowering that threshold to $250:
Quote
The existing requirements in 31 CFR 1020.410(a) and 31 CFR 1010.410(e) and (f) to collect, retain, and transmit information on funds transfers and transmittals of funds currently apply only to funds transfers and transmittals of funds in amounts of $3,000 or more. The Agencies are proposing to lower the threshold under the Recordkeeping Rule, and FinCEN is proposing to lower the threshold under the Travel Rule, to $250 for funds transfers and transmittals of funds that begin or end outside the United States.
Of course, the "self-hosted wallet" rule change would apply to these transactions as well.
From what I can tell these are both just proposals, but that may be a formality. I expected FinCEN to pass new regulations complying with the Travel Rule a while ago. I would be surprised if they proposed this rule change right before Trump exits only to forget about it.
$3k ain't that bad.
That's how it starts. First $10k fifty years ago, now $3k, a lot less when accounting for inflation.
$250 scares the shit outta me.
And that's how it ends.
I've had a number of payments via PP in the past of comparably low size (from USA, of course) that were sent to me reversed for AML reasons. (the person I was dealing with at the time was for some reason unable to make an international bank transfer, fortunately Bitcoin came in to save the day, that might become impossible in the future for ordinary people.)
can anyone clarify---is the reporting threshold in the proposed law $3000 per day, as stated here? because i also see mention of this in FINCEN's original notice:
the coindesk article does go onto say, "[The controversial rule] originally was thought to be far more stringent than the final version published last week."
but i can't help but wonder if there is an important distinction being missed here. wtf is this about "international transactions"?
$3k ain't that bad. $250 scares the shit outta me.
Quote
the proposed decrease in the applicable threshold for international transactions from $3,000 to $250
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28437/requirements-for-certain-transactions-involving-convertible-virtual-currency-or-digital-assets
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28437/requirements-for-certain-transactions-involving-convertible-virtual-currency-or-digital-assets
the coindesk article does go onto say, "[The controversial rule] originally was thought to be far more stringent than the final version published last week."
but i can't help but wonder if there is an important distinction being missed here. wtf is this about "international transactions"?
$3k ain't that bad. $250 scares the shit outta me.
Will this become a reality? And if something happens then, an end to confidentiality? "Last week we heard rumors that the U.S. Treasury and Secretary Mnuchin were planning to rush out some new regulation regarding self-hosted crypto wallets before the end of his term."
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
I also began to see information that cryptocurrency regulation awaits us, which means governments want access to information about the owners of cryptocurrencies. Unfortunately, all this goes exactly to this and sooner or later we will have to face the system and find a compromise. As for whether the crypto community can do something, I doubt that the crypto community has leverage over this situation. The latest high-profile events show that the authorities have taken seriously the crypto sphere and, gradually studying it, are making their own adjustments.
Will this become a reality? And if something happens then, an end to confidentiality? "Last week we heard rumors that the U.S. Treasury and Secretary Mnuchin were planning to rush out some new regulation regarding self-hosted crypto wallets before the end of his term."
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
i am not afraid of that announcement , there are people with enormeous amounts of bitcoin in wallets that are made long ago , mostly impossible to get a map or something to follow each wallet to their owner.Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
but indeed , it is getting harder for new bitcoiners to stay anonimous
Is it really impossible to buy bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies for cash in Europe or the USA?
It's not illegal in Russia or Kazakhstan now, but I don't know how it happens in other countries.
Will this become a reality? And if something happens then, an end to confidentiality? "Last week we heard rumors that the U.S. Treasury and Secretary Mnuchin were planning to rush out some new regulation regarding self-hosted crypto wallets before the end of his term."
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
i am not afraid of that announcement , there are people with enormeous amounts of bitcoin in wallets that are made long ago , mostly impossible to get a map or something to follow each wallet to their owner.Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
but indeed , it is getting harder for new bitcoiners to stay anonimous
How Upcoming Crypto Wallet Restrictions Will Affect You
https://decrypt.co/51917/how-upcoming-crypto-wallet-restrictions-will-affect-you
"The US Treasury is expected to impose transaction reporting restrictions on self-hosted crypto wallets soon."
If the same regulation is introduced in the United States, then most crypto companies will leave this country.
https://decrypt.co/51917/how-upcoming-crypto-wallet-restrictions-will-affect-you
"The US Treasury is expected to impose transaction reporting restrictions on self-hosted crypto wallets soon."
If the same regulation is introduced in the United States, then most crypto companies will leave this country.
I'm not positive about these restrictions, but I understand that the mass adoption isn't possible without the strict regulations.
Don't bother yourself, such "strict regulations" are round the corner. "G7 Finance Ministers Support Regulating Cryptocurrencies" This poses a risk that all in all expected mass adoption of cryptocurrency will never come. The thing is aggrevated by the central banks plans to release centralized digital currencies in the nearest future.
cover up their asses without doing anything.
We might saw some form of adoption but this regulation or possible plans would really be a big hindrance or a wall that will partially block on what we do aim for.
So expect that there might be some implementation of these things in near future.
Too much hassle to fulfill what they want, imagine people always have to ask for documents to verify the recipient.
(Finally, many recipients (in the U.S. or abroad) who value their financial privacy, may simply not want to upload more identifying documents to various companies,
which could be hacked or stolen.)
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1331745443399647233
Hopefully, it's just a plan without realization, so many aspects to be considered and overcome to make this regulation functioning properly.
(Finally, many recipients (in the U.S. or abroad) who value their financial privacy, may simply not want to upload more identifying documents to various companies,
which could be hacked or stolen.)
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1331745443399647233
Hopefully, it's just a plan without realization, so many aspects to be considered and overcome to make this regulation functioning properly.
It is already happening everywhere. Any exchange that doesn't do KYC, does KYC after a while when you want to withdraw your funds no matter how big or small they are. I know from my experience with binance. They don't care. They want your passport scan.
This doesn't make it any better for anyone though, be it crypto or non-crypto people. Through little steps, they've reached the point where outlawing non-verified addresses becomes a legit contemplation of politicians. If we keep going the "we're being tracked anyway" route, things will get very bad in a matter of years.
If they want to find out who I am as a customer and where my money comes from, let them do it. Maybe there are some criminals among the customers of a shop. But it's a very, very bad idea to monitor everyone. This is exactly as if we're all potential criminals from point zero.
Let's take fiat as an example; I think it is already enough that we're giving away our data to so many stores for online orders we make. I would not want to register the USD banknotes I own to my ID to legally use them. It's creepy. Imagine the government knew where every single bill from every single US citizen's wallet goes. You may argue that is exactly the case of debit cards - yeah, except they're still a personal option, not mandatory.
If they want to find out who I am as a customer and where my money comes from, let them do it. Maybe there are some criminals among the customers of a shop. But it's a very, very bad idea to monitor everyone. This is exactly as if we're all potential criminals from point zero.
Let's take fiat as an example; I think it is already enough that we're giving away our data to so many stores for online orders we make. I would not want to register the USD banknotes I own to my ID to legally use them. It's creepy. Imagine the government knew where every single bill from every single US citizen's wallet goes. You may argue that is exactly the case of debit cards - yeah, except they're still a personal option, not mandatory.
I am not saying we have to obey just because we are already being tracked.
I am saying that it won't be easy to earn your freedom without putting up a fight.
That's not how it works.
Nobody will give you your freedom if you are not willing to take it yourself.
In the end they will turn crypto into more of the same thing, but better. Digital FIAT without any physical bank notes. Any government's wet dream.
For crypto users maybe. The others that don't use crypto are already being tracked anyway.
Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.
Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.
This doesn't make it any better for anyone though, be it crypto or non-crypto people. Through little steps, they've reached the point where outlawing non-verified addresses becomes a legit contemplation of politicians. If we keep going the "we're being tracked anyway" route, things will get very bad in a matter of years.Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.
Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.
If they want to find out who I am as a customer and where my money comes from, let them do it. Maybe there are some criminals among the customers of a shop. But it's a very, very bad idea to monitor everyone. This is exactly as if we're all potential criminals from point zero.
Let's take fiat as an example; I think it is already enough that we're giving away our data to so many stores for online orders we make. I would not want to register the USD banknotes I own to my ID to legally use them. It's creepy. Imagine the government knew where every single bill from every single US citizen's wallet goes. You may argue that is exactly the case of debit cards - yeah, except they're still a personal option, not mandatory.
Oh, well, if Mnuchin's plan succeeds, things would get only worse than they've ever been.
For crypto users maybe. The others that don't use crypto are already being tracked anyway.
Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.
Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.
Too much hassle to fulfill what they want, imagine people always have to ask for documents to verify the recipient.
(Finally, many recipients (in the U.S. or abroad) who value their financial privacy, may simply not want to upload more identifying documents to various companies,
which could be hacked or stolen.)
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1331745443399647233
Hopefully, it's just a plan without realization, so many aspects to be considered and overcome to make this regulation functioning properly.
Oh, well, if Mnuchin's plan succeeds, things would get only worse than they've ever been.
For crypto users maybe. The others that don't use crypto are already being tracked anyway.
Even if you don't comply and don't report your holdings, those merchants and others businesses will report theirs and will do KYC on you when the government asks them.
Which basically means you won't be able to buy anything online unless you comply.
Will the current regulations now get anything worst? Because IMO custodial wallets in the US are heavily regulated. Coinbase and other custodial wallets have been handing out "random" reports for the IRS, they have also helped to track the Twitter hack that had happened easily, they have also freeze several accounts already when it comes to illicit activities. So really what more regulations they can do for the people to experience when they already have a lot of control with custodial wallets? Are they thinking about some kind of license for us to be able to use custodial wallets or something?
Oh, well, if Mnuchin's plan succeeds, things would get only worse than they've ever been. Their plan is to basically outlaw any address that is not verified with your identity. As in, you would only be able to use your address in the USA if you officially and legally register it to your personally identifiable information. Any address that is not registered to an ID would be outlawed.
Will the current regulations now get anything worst? Because IMO custodial wallets in the US are heavily regulated. Coinbase and other custodial wallets have been handing out "random" reports for the IRS, they have also helped to track the Twitter hack that had happened easily, they have also freeze several accounts already when it comes to illicit activities. So really what more regulations they can do for the people to experience when they already have a lot of control with custodial wallets? Are they thinking about some kind of license for us to be able to use custodial wallets or something?
Everyday that I try and learn about sane financial law and policy it gets even muddier. It is so obvious that regulators serve their self interest at the expense of the citizenry and the people just concede because its such dense nonsense and regulatory by law. Their rules are simple, keep a hold of financial industries, and tax people the maximum amount. Period. Which is why bitcoin exists in the first place. to wrestle financial control away from these absolute monsters.
Jump to: