The supervisory authorities are approaching. Separating the market’s functions into its parts – warehousing, collectors and master intermediary – is one thing to satisfy the corporate compliance departments. There is another one that will please the organizers.
From the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, which continues to drive travel compliance for the ever-evolving European cryptocurrency markets, and the somewhat embarrassing US infrastructure bill, regulators are gradually tightening their grip, I fear this is the beginning of multilateral politicians. general look. With the advent of the decentralized financial market (DeFi).
On the topic: DeFi: Who regulates what and how in a boundless code-driven world?
Can a digital identity help?
Whenever I’ve been asked what a killer Bitcoin (BTC) app has been like over the past 10 years, I’ve always answered with “digital identity”.
The world today is at a crossroads. The change has continually increased privacy monitoring, now that money is finally tracking information on the internet. Take a different path as personal information is returned to the hands of individuals and from huge databases that process artificial intelligence controlled by a few companies and governments.
That may have been anathema to early bitcoin holders, but reality bites, and as we add to the mix the growing debate over digital passports for COVID-19, we see clouds of the perfect storm on the horizon that will likely be a major story. for the coming years.
With central banks everywhere rejecting cryptocurrencies as little more than chips at the roulette table in favor of their own “digital” digital currencies, the good news is that they realize they can now do both monetary policy and oversight.
Unfortunately, the cryptocurrency markets have already fallen prey to its success, which prompted regulators to get started. And the higher the “market capitalization” numbers (which reached $2 trillion earlier this year), the more alarmed regulators will be. The Chinese have just taken a heavy-handed approach and banned everything (except for the recently launched CBD, of course), while in the West (at best) they take a stealth approach or bicker with each other over who should be exposed.
Related: Authorities want to bridge the gap in non-hosted portfolios
With most crypto-economic activity going on through major cryptocurrency exchanges and over-the-counter counters, the FATF could enforce travel requirements for Virtual Real Estate Providers (VASPs) to keep genius in the bottle for a while while they’re on/off. The slopes are still easy to spot. But what happens if or when a self-sustaining crypto economy emerges, with the majority going beyond guesswork and instead getting into “in” and staying “in”?
Or if DeFi is beyond its large but specialized field?
The possibility of cutting, transparency and “polluting” the currency
Having spent the past 10 years or more getting anonymous “physical money” out of the system, which requires reporting transactions worth over a few hundred dollars, can you imagine the fuss if Satoshi’s original vision of an “anonymous money system” was really published Plot?
If you want to know the answer to this question, just take a look at what happened when Mark Zuckerberg had time to voice that view with Project Diem (formerly known as Libra), which could end up in the hands of three billion users overnight. Overnight – and Dimly Digital Identity (which should be the regulator’s dream) is protocol-encoded from the start!
Related: Stablecoins Pose New Dilemmas for Regulators as Mass Adoption Awakens
Sometimes these guys don’t see the forest for the trees.
In recent years, there has already been an endless debate about mushrooms associated with Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies), considering how they could get “infected” if or when they are tracked down for fraudulent use. The transparency block has proven to be a useful tool not otherwise available to law enforcement, while hackers generally find it difficult to convert a swag back into a “usable” legal command as blacklists exchange paths for their visible wallet addresses.
But “money” by itself cannot be “clean” or “dirty”, “good” or “bad”? Is it just a stupid object (or database, or “block” record)? Can only a model’s personality (albeit subjective) be considered good or bad? Ostensibly, this does not mean a new controversy. You can go back to the British process in the eighteenth century and find that everything was proven (and corrected) a long time ago.
Regardless of Tsuk’s true intentions regarding Dima, fortunately, I’m not alone in my long career.