Topic: The US Treasury is developing a framework for international crypto engagement. (Read 207 times)

at the start of the year there was a EO asking for agencies to look into whats needed to make a healthy ecosystem for crypto which can also be regulated to protect and monitor it for criminal acts

.. and this month its not a 'here is a budget list of what we need to fund X employee's in team X, and here is the training programs they wil go on to learn their new roles. and here are some idea's of certain changes to rules and regs that would need to be made.

instead it was ' yea we should talk to other countries more and then we can get an idea of what needs to be done later'

Another banking system being built, which will make rich more richer and poor more poorer. US and allies want to regulate crypto to suit their agendas. They know that a recession is coming, and this recession is due to dollar's weakening and inflation is already at its peak and if a recession actually hit the market, dollar will be the biggest loser. Investors might take up crypto as a new asset. Now they just want to save their dollars and nothing more. And to do this they have one option.. Regulate crypto.
But the draft seem to be very ambiguous with no clear and defined objectives and no clear roadmap ahead.

Part of me rolls my eyes at this.

Another part is thinking that it's good. Although as franky1 said that means that they are beginning to at least think and plan. Governments move slowly.
Unless they start something somewhere it's never going to finish. Now, the question is how long and how many people are going to get involved and how distorted is it going to be from it's original vision & reasons.

-Dave

ther have been changes. though minor and hidden in regulation purely aimed at the back-end policy of exchanges.
but there were also stuff happening that changed from the obama->trump transition too

but lets deal with things as they are today.

there have been many concepts over the years that will never get adopted although should have got adopted and helped "disrupt wall street"
. one of which is a simple paradigm change on the exchange market orders.

changing from listing a crypto vs fiat. to a listing instead, where by its min wage units vs crypto
where by any person on the planet can buy the same equal amount of crypto by paying just the amount that equates to their local nations amount of min wage units of their local currency

EG if btc was 2000min wage hours (volatility would vary in minutes and seconds and ATH would be like 7000hours)
(but lets say this moment it was 2000 min wage hours amount)
someone in africa can pay his 2000 min wage hours amount in his african currency and buy a whole btc the same as an american would pay the US equivalent to US min wage of 2000 hours

the thing is. this would trigger a "national security" concern about disrupting forex/wallstreet by creating a massive forex arbitrage opportunity by everyone converting USD->african native currency->btc->US->african native currency->btc (repeat repeat repeat)

where everyone doing this gets more profit until USD:African native currency becomes 1:1 (something america will refuse to let happen and would not tolerate)

exchanges would not be allowed to do this and are not allowed to. which is why we have the recently trending "fiat coupling" topics
but we wont decouple from a fiat measure and most exchanges will lean towards USD as that "coupled" measure to prevent favouritism of other currencies and to prevent a drop of the USD forex top status

I don’t know how correct I am, but stand to be corrected, that nothing has pretty much changed in the fully acceptance of Crypto-currency by the US government since power changed hands from Donald trump to Joe Biden, if I am correct then on that regards I think I am disappointed in his regime. US is a power nation that many other countries look up to and if they can fully accept Crypto-currency it would sit well with other countries and may be the major breakout adoption all over the world.

your not understanding the concepts at all. your driven by friends and group social experiments.

if you took away the personal drama crap you always respond with and instead put on a developer code cap on. and ran scenarios thinking about code and bugs and finding worse case scenarios to test how great or bad something is. your own biases would change

take the CBDC and lets use your favoured network as the bases of understanding of function..

the "funding TX"
imagine it as simply

BC1qUSTreasury (10 trillion UST) -> BC1qBankOfAmerica ($2.35 trillion UST)
                                                     BC1qJPMChaseBank ($3.19 trillion UST)
                                                     BC1qWellsfargobank ($1.78 trillion UST)
                                                     BC1qCitibankGroup ($1.67 trillion UST)
                                                     BC1qUSTreasury(1.01 trill UST)
signed (all 5 parties)

they then use that UTXO where BOA for instance would then divide its 2.35 into splits with the 5 parties.. and also allot itself its own reserve amount for its own subnet group within its network(customerbase)

EG
BC1qBankOfAmerica ($2.35 trillion UST)-> BC1qUSTreasury($0 trill UST)
                                                     BC1qJPMChaseBank ($0.5 trillion UST)
                                                     BC1qWellsfargobank ($0.5 trillion UST)
                                                     BC1qCitibankGroup ($0.5 trillion UST)
                                                     BC1qBOAagent3($0.45 trillion UST)
                                                     BC1qBOAagent2($0.25 trillion UST)
                                                     BC1qBOAagent1($0.15 trillion UST)
(signed all 5 parties)


where by agent1 group is for agents(hubs that then have channels bleeding out from this, splitting funds per sub-hub/partner where it splits down per hop to small levels of just say $1k amounts for end customers channels within the BOA customerbase

these agent1 hubs in their own subnet. supply an app that has no KYC requirement. but no insurance backing the balance. where its treated like digital bank notes. where users have an account limit and a spending limit. lets say users in the agent1 hubs can only send or receive $1k to and from customers. where by if the customer wishes to send or receive more. they have to upgrade and apply to agent2 app which requires some KYC

a user making a payment from an agent1 subnet account/app does not send personal info with his payment to anyone on the network. even the US treasury doesnt know who.

the agent2 and agent3 subnets would have levels of KYC where THEY store the databases within the banks servers. and only send the info to the SEC or police if the banks own investigations see them as a suspicious user. (the same as how fiat does it now)

even china's CBDC is like this
the PBOC and the chinese authorities dont/wont watch all activity on the agent123. and will only get info about SAR reports about customers of agent23 customers. if and when the banks of those customers see red flags

none of the CBDC are a system where governments see and read every payment of every customer. they simply do not have the resourcecs, time manpower
(get that out of your tin foil hat thinking they do)
even in fiat today, they delegate that duty onto the bank/payment service provider to to the customer overwatch and only send SAR's for the suspicious customers
(learn what info is sent to authorities in fiat and what is not and why those that are sent, are sent.. (take tin foil hat off when doing research)

so now you are clearer of how the 'privacy' and 'overwatch' is of most planed CBDC works

you need to then learn how real life privacy and limitations are then caused.
EG we all know right now people with debit cards can go to an ATM and without question do ~$500 withdrawals no questions asked. but as soon as you want to move serious money. then banks start asking questions

(EG in the UK i have to talk to a team at my bank each time i want to move £5k to ensure its me and that my purpose is my choice and im not being coerced into handing serious money to scammers/criminals and that im not being suckered into a bad advice investment, even when i am trying to deposit into a legit bitcoin exchange)

yes i hate it. and yes i will still have those headaches in a CBDC. but for small amounts ill just have a small account for daily spend stuff..

however then you need to learn about the flaws of smart contracts vs blockchains. and you might then see why i prefer network wide public open audited blockchains. rather then private non-blockchains with no network wide audit

its not about "authorities learn everything" (EG authorities dont learn everything from bitcoin network about my usage of bitcoin) its about the audit and security of funds that prevent double spending/money printing/ fractional reserving,

It's clear that franky1's biases are clouding his judgement.  Anyone thinking rationally would understand that the topology of a centralised system will look remarkably different to a decentralised one.  Just because something is built on a similar foundation, that does not mean it will offer you the same freedoms.

CBDCs are about giving more power to gatekeepers, meaning fewer freedoms for you.  Bitcoin/LN doesn't have gatekeepers.  You are free to do anything with your wealth.  Anyone attempting to conflate the two is either grossly disingenuous, or simply doesn't understand why CBDCs are a threat to your liberties.

I wouldn't say that they are embracing because it's more on containing it to make it more manageable to regulate asince crypto spread like a wild fire. I expect the next movement will be pure punishment for all crypto user up to the point that crypto user will leave the crypto voluntarily due to there stricter policy same as what happened to India which the government insane tax to all crypto user.

I don’t trust US government that will be pro crypto in near future because it will hurt the $ badly.

Although the main content of this regulatory framework is targeted at controlling the digital currency market in the US but it is also a good news. At least the government of the United States have now acknowledged that Bitcoin is unstoppable and the best option for them is to embrace it. The government has also pledge to support the sector with the needed financing to promote technology and research. In recent times we have seen government law enforcement agencies assisting in recovering crypto fund either hacked or acquire illegal, which is an indication that government might have a part to play in protecting consumers and investors in the crypto space.     

funny part of doomads statements is that the main CBDC's such as the chinese one are not using blockchains. but a LN esq smart contract->hub/spoke-> routing platform
(but where the federated(chosen group of signers) genesis funding commitment is not backed by a blockchain unit of measure, but instead just creating units of measure out of nothing(simply signed into existence))

maybe now he is ready to see the flaws in his 'ideal' network preference

..
as for the g20 group that want to regulate the businesses at the edges of crypto, and the US influence and plan for regulation.. details are vague about how much licence fee, entry requirements, policies would be required to actually get involved or use crypto for business purposes. and how that may impact users generally.
we are still not at a actual frame work about where their jurisdiction ends and where open-utility begins(well in their view)

I'm surprised it has taken them this long to be honest.  Some in the establishment have finally realised that individual governments pursuing their own individual approaches to crypto effectively harms all of them.  In their mind, they need to coordinate their efforts with other nations in order to get ahead.  Although, in practice, it's likely they will only decelerate the speed at which they are falling behind.  They're eventually going to start to build infrastructure in accordance with their establishment ideals.  Ideals which are not aligned with Bitcoin.  Be vigilant.  Resist.  They will try to lure you in with talk of ease and convenience.  But know that willingly surrendering freedom in exchange for convenience is too costly a price to pay.  

They want to use crypto as a tool for control.  However, crypto was designed to empower individuals.  Do not allow them to succeed in usurping it.

i wouldnt say its a frame work. nor even a blueprint

its just a
"we need to communicate better with the g20 countries to be able to send each other info better about plans for regulating crypto and info we need to provide to each other"
and
"we need to communicate more with the g7 countries to build the CBDC bridges"

yea it makes suggestions that it wants USA to be crypto centre, to create opportunities and blah.. and wants the crypto to not harm the dollar. but it lacks the critical detail about the main things we actually care about

The US Treasury Department sent President Biden a regulatory framework for interagency engagement with foreign counterparts when dealing with digital assets on Thursday.

The Treasury Department created the fact sheet in response to President Biden's Executive Order on "Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets" issued on March 9, 2022.


Source/Continue Reading: https://mycryptoparadise.com/us-treasury-develop-framework-for-crypto-international-engagement/