As long as you run a validator and only validate your own transaction you are not a money transmitter but you also have to keep record for every transaction for 25 years as by law.
The moment you touch anyone else's money (validate ) you come a money transmitter and must have license.
If only Ripple would validate, it's central banking.
I read through a big document and wrote to you a wall of text in order to explain what you were misunderstanding, thinking that there's a chance you're not troll but a misinformed person, but I guess I was wrong.
You don't seem to understand very simple English and you deny established and public facts (eg: Ripple isn't running all the nodes).
Money Transmitter is someone who is holding digital assets for at least a moment and then resells or exchanges it for someone else. Have you ever seen a simple XRP transaction in the blockchain?
When wallet A sends to wallet B, then the transactions goes like this:
A -> B, not
A -> NODE -> BWhen I wrote about the miners, I wasn't talking about a miner confirming the transaction other users are sending, that's does not classify them as transmitters.
Since they receive block rewards though, if they exchange those rewards then they might be considered transmitters. It's not very clear how it works for mining but this discussion would belong to the Bitcoin section. As far as XRP and Ripple is concerned, running a node doesn't require any license.
Just read my post again and please stop spreading lies.
1) This looks like an explanation of existing rules, not a new law. I spent some time reading it and it just explains to not-crypto-related people many things we're already familiar with.
1st page, 2nd paragraph,
This guidance does not establish any new regulatory expectations or requirements.
Rather, it consolidates current FinCEN regulations, and related administrative rulings
and guidance issued since 2011, and then applies these rules and interpretations to
other common business models involving CVC engaging in the same underlying
patterns of activity.
2) This is from "Bank Secrecy Act", it's only affecting US. All US based cryptocurrency projects already require KYC from their customers, this is nothing new nor related to XRP only.
3) You make it sound like it's something terrible, but a company needing a license isn't that big of a deal. You probably didn't realise this, but this document you linked would be more damaging for Bitcoin and it'd probably wouldn't affect XRP at all.
Let me explain (3),
In page 9 of this document, it is stated that
FinCEN regulations, specify certain activities are excluded from the definition of “money transmitter.”
Specifically, a person is not a money transmitter if that person only: provides the delivery, communication, or network access services used by a money transmitter to support money transmission services;From the above quote we understand that XRP nodes wouldn't be affected by this even if it was something new, they do not received a mining/staking reward for their services... even though I believe getting an extra licence and being reviewed by one more agency isn't a catastrophe.
Now read pages 20-21, section 4.5.2 which talks mainly about anonymity-enhanced coins, but the same principal should apply to BTC as well. Quoting paragraph (C),
note that CVC = Convertible Virtual Currenciesa person that develops a decentralized CVC payment system will become a
money transmitter if that person also engages as a business in the acceptance
and transmission of value denominated in the CVC it developed (even if the
CVC value was mined at an earlier date). The person would not be a money
transmitter if that person uses the CVC it mined to pay for goods and services on
his or her own behalf.
From what I understand from the above paragraph and the rest of the document, being a node doesn't qualify you as a "money transmitter". Ripple Labs themselves should still be qualified as "money transmitters" since they're selling XRP to companies, but this is nothing new and it hasn't stopped them from doing their business.
It makes me wonder though, how are Bitcoin miners viewed under this law? The moment they sell their coins to another entity, they are considered "money transmitters" and the obligations mentioned in section 2.1 should apply to them.
I'd like to see how an average person who is mining Bitcoin will operate within the law!
