KYC data is by definition PII data, but the opposite is definitely not true. You can have PII data without it being relevant to nor mandated by KYC regulations.
Please understand that the muddying of terms only harms your argument, instead of strengthening it.
That difference matters only to the institution. To the user, however, the risk and damage from the leak of any type of serious PII is one and the same in that it is a risk to be avoided.
In other words, the technicality you state is the difference between the user getting punched in the guts versus in the gonads. Both are to be avoided.
Oh cool a blockchain crypto thing that will actually be compliant and do KYC and such and not take forever to settle things.
If crypto destroys the fx money changer companies that charge egregious fees and makes it such that I can send money to friends and family without delay and fees I’d be all for that.
Maybe sane officials will let the US Federal Reserve launch a digital dollar and finally fix all the middle men sucking no-value-added rents out of the financial system
The problem with a good "blockchain crypto thing" is that if they were going to be good anyway, there are much better/cheaper technologies for doing banking.
Blockchain technology is not just a scam industry by happenstance. The technology is so bad at what it usefully does that it necessitates being a scam industry. If it was to compete with mainline banking, it would lose 10 times out of 10.
> If your money replacement involves dismanteling the little protection we have against money laundering and banking AlQueda (amonst others). I'm going to put you in the "Bad Blockchain" bucket.
I am sure you can make a more efficient banking system if you don't do any checks at all. That's not an interesting observation.
Yup. Most crypto maximalists are unknowingly (knowingly?) aligned with terrorists and other criminals looking for anonymity online skirting existing banking rules.
That's complete nonsense, although they do reasonably believe that money transmission is a fundamental human right. In contrast, bad people like you would charge them for oxygen if they could.
I don’t want to charge people for money. I’m just leery of the I must be anonymous in everything crowd. I’m pro encryption, I’m also pro KYC and other anti money laundering programs — I do think the industry could be disrupted a bit though the exchange fees are egregious. Most of it is just going to profit margin and by activities that are just rent seeking.
You're leery because you've been privileged in that you have not been victimized or unfairly targeted for your actions. Money laundering is a fake/made-up liberty-stealing concept by corrupt people that want to enslave others and tell them what they cannot do. If you think that Monero and stablecoins are equivalent to the other things you named, you are not even very educated.
Are you aware of the Coinbase customer data leak that happened this year? It revealed cryptocurrency balances, names, and home addresses. It was a disaster for the customers who will now risk kidnappings and death threats from extortionists. This nightmare was a direct result of KYC. It would have been a non-issue without KYC in a stablecoin economy.
Please spare me the tears. At risk groups, minorities, etc have over the years gained many protections and will continue to do so. You write as if crypto is the only thing around to save the lives of these folks when it's instead used for grey and black market things mostly.
I was hoping we could find common ground in destroying the margins the payment processors rake in ... and still do KYC while still knowing that crypto is otherwise used for quick gains and is more or less just a Ponzi scheme.
You get to share your beliefs, but don't get to force or impose your beliefs on others. If the people don't care for KYC, the people will get what they want. You do not represent the growing percentage of crypto users.
The biggest ponzi, larger than all other ponzis combined, is the exponentially growing debt of the national currency. It is destined to devalue the national currency.
Your assertion about cryptocurrency being used mostly for a particular market is self-suiting nonsense.
The world is full of those who want to be enslavers and those who want to be free. You are in the former group.
“Enslavers” “exponential” … so doomsday of you. My points were made yet not countered with evidence. I could very well be wrong. We will never know. ;-)
KYC is among others the law of the land for financial institutions. Even if not don’t you want to know you’re not aiding terrorists or sex traffickers or drug cartels in washing their money and funding crimes that harm or kill people?
Some freedoms are traded in a civil society for civility. What did you do before crypto? Not bank? Not buy anything? Never use a credit card? Always pay cash? Live off the grid?
It is a statistical fact that the growth of the US national debt, and that of many countries, is exponential in its grwoth. This will have ramifications that will heavily affect everyone holding dollars. Just plot it and see the equation. Of course those who choose to remain clueless will indeed never know.
KYC is the law for financial institutions, one that it would be in their best interest to lobby against. It is also not the law for self-custody crypto, and certainly not for users, not that it could ever be one since it would be impossible to enforce anyway. The users have no interest in it.
Your nonsense of aiding terrorists, traffickers, cartels, is just that -- plain nonsense. This is because just as with cash, the usage of cryptocurrency is orthogonal to the criminal activities. The law increasingly wants practically every freedom traded away, not for civility, but for repression. They are the ones harming more people as of late, with an increasingly undemocratic and oppressive agenda. Moreover, the government already heavily tracks the usage of non-privacy cryptocurrencies; its is like a dream for them.
It is not my own universe. You are in 100% denial of the numbers. Ask an LLM to grab the data and plot it for you.
Self-serving freedom-hating people like you will always try to restrict what others can do, falsely in the name of protecting them, but we see through it.
If your money replacement involves dismanteling the little protection we have against money laundering and banking AlQueda (amonst others). I'm going to put you in the "Bad Blockchain" bucket.
I am sure you can make a more efficient banking system if you don't do any checks at all. That's not an interesting observation.
Money laundering is an ill-defined made-up concept. Anyone can get accused of it without evidence and suffer disastrous consequences, without the actions. If is a discriminatory act used by fascists to deny people their rights. Who are you to tell anyone how they can spend their money. You are so full of hate that you think other people must do as you say and be servile to you, even if it means taking their liberties away without cause. Well they won't.
Firstly, one has to submit strong evidence, call them repeatedly, and wait for many months. It is not a pleasant experience.
Secondly, in the real world, any vendor like Amazon or Ebay or Uber or Lyft will immediately freeze the user's account if a dispute is initiated, barring the user from using the service. This is a substantially worse outcome for the user.
> Firstly, one has to submit strong evidence, call them repeatedly, and wait for many months.
You should get an Amex. (I've had little issue with various Visa/MC issuing banks, though. Quick and easy.)
> Secondly, in the real world, any vendor like Amazon or Ebay or Uber or Lyft will immediately freeze the user's account if a dispute is initiated, barring the user from using the service.
In most cases, shady vendors are a one-off concern. If I'm charging back, I'm probably not buying from them again.
I find it hilarious when crypto nerds argue from a position of being godlike oracle beings who are just so smart they never make mistakes ever (TM) and as such, brush away concerns of fraud etc.
Fraud is very real, but let me count the reasons why chargebacks rarely matter:
1. They don't matter for unapproved charges and renewals because crypto doesn't allow charges at all.
2. They don't matter for buying from large sites like Amazon, Ebay, Google, etc. because these large sites will quickly freeze a user's account completely if a chargeback is introduced. Most orders these days go through the large sites.
3. Chargebacks filed with Visa/MC (not Amex) require substantial evidence and follow-up for them to succeed. They are not easy. The time spent on retrieving the money back is hardly worth it for someone with a full-time job.
2. Yes and thanks to modern trad-fi law, it’s incredibly easy to get refunds and returns on basically all retail websites.
3. Not true, trivially disproved by having gone through the process multiple times with various providers myself with minimal effort and documentation. I suggest you DYOR once too.
I appreciate when someone is well informed and shares their knowledge, but:
1. Regarding malicious smart contracts, they can steal only from incompetently written smart contracts.
2. Regarding refunds by large vendors, that's the ideal, but not the reality. I have had Uber reject a refund for unfair reasons when the driver was wasting time and didn't show up for over 15 minutes past the estimated time. I have also had Google provide me no refund for a large transaction on a scam app that fooled me.
1. Please don’t repeat the No True Scotsman train of argument again and hand wave away the problem by blaming it on “incompetence” - it removes the explicit malice those contracts were coded with.
2. I am struggling to see how this is/would/could ever be solved by crypto.
2. It's not solved by crypto, but then crypto doesn't charge a 3% commission for money transfer. The cost of a stablecoin transfer is a couple of pennies.
The credit card is associated with a checking account. Fraudulent transactions on checking accounts and debit cards do happen, with or without an ATM. They do occasionally get reported in the news, and the bank will not protect or refund you for them, especially if it's large.
"The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E apply to an electronic fund transfer that authorizes a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer's account. 12 CFR 1005.3(a). The term account means a demand deposit (checking), savings, or other consumer asset account (other than an occasional or incidental credit balance in a credit plan) held directly or indirectly by a financial institution and established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(1). It includes a prepaid account, as defined by Regulation E. 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(3)."
"Unauthorized EFTs include transfers initiated by a person who obtained a consumer’s access device through fraud or robbery and consumer transfers at an ATM that were induced by force."
"If your debit card or personal pin identification number (PIN) was lost or stolen, you must notify the bank within two business days after learning of the loss or theft. The bank cannot hold you responsible for more than the amount of any unauthorized transactions or $50, whichever is less. However, if you notify the bank after two business days, you could be responsible for up to $500 in unauthorized transactions."
Perhaps this is a little illuminating as to why your anti-fiat arguments fall on apparently deaf ears.
This is provably untrue. I’ve disputed charges on Visa/Mastercard numerous times and had refunds and fraud claims honored every single time with minimal effort.
There must be a reason why those fees exist, otherwise there would be a business opportunity for another greedy company to demand lower fees and take all the profit.
I strongly suspect the reason is the regulations themselves. KYC implementations cost money, and so do fraud disputes. Traditional crypto provides neither, so the fees ther are much lower.
Fraud disputes are literally the only reason the fees were historically justified. These days however, various large companies strictly prohibit a user from engaging in any dispute, causing the user's account to be frozen if a dispute is initiated. This means there rarely any fraud dispute anymore, so paying a premium for it is typically a waste.
I mean, this whole Forex fee horse has been beaten to death by crypto evangelists for the past decade, and yet, it seems “unsolvable”?
Wise used to be almost completely free (excl spread), but they also introduced small % based fees over 1-2 yrs ago. They have had and continue to have many competitors, all of whom are experimenting with pricing models all the time.
If crypto could solve this, or if a trad-fi competitor could disrupt this, they would have. But that is not a very satisfying story, so here we are…
Your comment shows how little you know about stablecoins, the legislation that passed this year, and what's coming with the planned introduction of stablecoins by major retailers. Your extreme ignorance does not give you the right to preach nonsense.
Your response would be well served with a link to an article/blog that explains why I am so obviously wrong about forex fee disruption? Maybe even a short summary of how exactly the hand waving you’re doing correlates to the opinion I posted?
The simplest way in which crypto solves forex, at least in a narrow sense, is by the vendor accepting payment in a stablecoin, such as in one that matches the price of USD or EUR 1:1. Examples are USDT and DEUR. The transaction fees are very low, and there are no pumps and dumps. Swap fees between different stablecoins also are a lot lower than what a bank would charge as a forex fee.
One is of course always free to use real cryptocurrency too, e.g. BTC and XMR, although they are subject to pumps and dumps, although the price rises over time.
It’s very unclear to me if you actually understood the discussion about forex fees.
One does not “solve” forex by trading in a common shared currency, that is already possible without stablecoins - it’s just that vendors often want their local currency and therein lies the problem.
Even if everyone moved to stable coins or Monopoly money, once you need to cash out in IRL, you encounter forex fees.
A sort-of example is Trump’s insistence on oil being traded purely in USD for the USA’s hegemonic benefit - but other nations are waking up and opposing this status quo actively.
Cashing out crypto is a nightmare from a taxation pov. It's better to just spend it directly, and this is increasingly possible on online stores that accept it. I understand that this limits its use, but I project that these limits will keep diminishing as time passes.
Ah yes. A "blockchain" that checks notes isn't a blockchain (uses their own implementation of a DAG) and checks notes is running on a single product by a single company.
The actual disruptor here is Google Spanner which actually handles all the ACID required.
> If crypto destroys the fx money changer companies that charge egregious fees and makes it such that I can send money to friends and family without delay and fees I’d be all for that
Strange how this amazing ripe-for-the-taking idea has been said about crypto for 20 years now. And somehow it's always "too early, it's coming in the future"
"Tens of trillions of dollars worth of value are transferred across outdated financial systems daily — and Keeta Network has proven it has the speed, scale, and security to be the foundation for a new, interconnected ecosystem."
"Google Cloud was also instrumental in helping to prepare and execute Keeta’s stress test, providing world-class infrastructure and technical guidance that helped validate the network’s real-world performance"
Interesting article from Google. Keeta seems to have a legitimate differentiator in their architecture.
I've been DYOR and I suspect that once a few companies start using their network, Keeta will quickly become indispensable because of their speed and low usage cost.
Also wonder if those companies who sell over Keeta will pass the savings on to consumers. hmmm :)
