Topic: Report on the Bitcoin Foundation's Trip to Washington D.C. - page 5. (Read 13034 times)

I didn't mean FinCEN made the initial invitation. That may have happened, but I don't know. I meant FinCEN was more of the lead agency orchestrating the meeting. Whether it was the Bitcoin community or regulatory community that reached out first I don't know. I don't think that really matters as both would have motivation for such a meeting to happen.

I read a couple news articles on this. I believe everyone was invited by FinCEN. One news article said the Foundation was 'host' which fits with MSantori's account. The Foundation was essentially presenting information and answering questions about Bitcoin to a regulatory community very much curious about and new to it.

Were the attending community members "invited" or issued a "subpoena" to attend? The difference would set the tone of the meeting. Did the government representatives offer any advice to the Bitcoin businesses operating in the US currently as a friendly gesture to keep more seized bank accounts from happening? I'm sure Mark Karpeles would like to know how to get back his 5 million dollars.

I trust a thief in the night more than I trust the US Federal government because I always know the exact motivation of the thief.

I think this course is the only chance we have at softer interaction from the inevitable collision of the two communities, and therefore entirely appropriate. Your post puts a huge grin on my face, though. 

Lol, USGOV is just probing the Bitcoin Foundation, not Bitcoin.

They are checking the legitimacy of the members of Bitcoin Foundation, to see if they are fit.
The members of Bitcoin Foundation know this (if not, oops). This isn't a quest of Bitcoin, this is a quest for becoming a high-ranked advisor of the USGOV.
It's a battle for people like MSantori though, they are fighting to become part of the high club.

Now that in itself is nothing to be ashamed off. Just that it's on the back off others is slightly itchy, but that's all. Go for it.

What regulatory and enforcement methodologies did you endorse?

toughest questions and response? if you are allowed to disclose

 

I am skeptical over engaging TPTB in any fashion. BTAIM, I am appreciative of the follow-up report. I would welcome additional missives from your colleagues, if they deign to inform us -- the great unwashed masses.

Update very appreciated.  Thanks.

+1


I'm particularly glad you emphasized this.

Thank you sir , for this update. I was beginning to wonder what came of it.

As many of you know, in addition to being an attorney in private practice, I am Chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation's Regulatory Affairs Committee.

The Foundation was invited to a private conference held yesterday by FinCEN in Washington, D.C.  In attendance were high-level representatives from FinCEN, IRS, FDIC, Federal Reserve, OCC, FBI, DEA, Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security and more.  It was a packed house.  FinCEN did an impressive job of bringing together in one room nearly all of the agency stakeholders in the Bitcoin issue.

At the conference, Patrick Murck, Peter Vessenes, Brian Klein, Jim Harper and I each gave presentations totaling about an hour.  We canvassed Bitcoin the protocol, bitcoins the currency, regulatory challenges, enforcement and investigation methodologies – everything under the Bitcoin sun.  We then responded to questions from the agency representatives for about an hour.  Our goal was to begin a frank dialogue with the federal government about Bitcoin and dispel some of the publicly-available misinformation.

It was a smashing success.  

First and foremost, we received a very friendly reception.  The attendees were engaged and interested in learning about distributed finance in general and Bitcoin in particular.  Each Foundation member lit the subject matter through his own lens.  Peter walked the government through a discussion of the core technology.  Brian, an ex-federal prosecutor, discussed investigative methodologies.

I, of course, discussed regulatory challenges.  I discussed some of the ways in which the regulatory landscape in the US did not achieve the government’s policy goals.  In particular, I spent a few minutes just going through the ambiguity in the March FinCEN Guidance, and emphasized the importance of supporting innovation in the Bitcoin industry.  I hit some points very hard – like how the regulatory environment has disincentivized businesses from launching in the US and from servicing US customers.  I also discussed how some businesses were simply picking up and leaving the US entirely.

Our message was straightforward: It is critical that the industry and the regulators work together to create a safe and sane regulatory environment for Bitcoin businesses in the United States.

To be sure, they asked the tough questions.  The agencies have some very real and legitimate concerns.  We often had to give the tough answers.  By the time we were through, though, many of the representatives approached me and some the other presenters to say that they had a much better understanding of the industry and the technology.  I don’t think anyone believes we achieved world peace, or solved the regulatory challenges once and for all.  

We started a dialogue – the first step in understanding each other.