Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
dimots said:
Personally I feel like bitcoin (or at least triple entry accounting) has the potential to massively improve the transparency of tax take and allocation. It’s a built in feature!
Having said that, governments don’t tax money they tax people. You can take lots of actions to increase personal responsibility and accountability - I wouldn’t mind seeing a system like that in Sweden where income tax is a matter of public record.
The same Sweden where specifically because of the public record of owned assets there's been a massive rise in targeted violent attacks on Bitcoin / crypto owners?Having said that, governments don’t tax money they tax people. You can take lots of actions to increase personal responsibility and accountability - I wouldn’t mind seeing a system like that in Sweden where income tax is a matter of public record.
Yeah, no thanks.
RichTT said:
The same Sweden where specifically because of the public record of owned assets there's been a massive rise in targeted violent attacks on Bitcoin / crypto owners?
Yeah, no thanks.
That’s an issue that has a parallel here in the UK if you don’t take precautions to protect your identity. Not through tax but through companies house data linked to home addresses. I feel bitcoin has a better solution in pseudonymous records.Yeah, no thanks.
McMoose said:
The value of my money is nothing to do with government control. It's value is based on the perception of it's ability to pay for goods and services, and more importantly the value being held by the majority of the population and the Bank of England. FWIW said value is a darn site more stable than if it were held in Bitcoin.
If money was not subject to government control, and transactions not open to government investigation where necessary my concern is the honest payment of taxes where due to enable funding for our services.
If money was not subject to government control, and transactions not open to government investigation where necessary my concern is the honest payment of taxes where due to enable funding for our services.
Edited by McMoose on Sunday 19th November 09:18
RichTT said:
The government should have no right to surveille our spending habits at all. It didn't when money was gold, it didn't when money was gold backed notes, it didn't before the advent of modern banking.
What other people do with their money is no concern of mine, just as mine should be of no concern to them. Where do you limit it? The postie not declaring the tenner I gave him at Christmas? The builder who did a weekend job for a few hundred quid and I paid in cash? I guarantee you that both of them will be spending that money and neither the government nor the banking sector will be able to take a cut at each transaction. Leaching value from something they worked hard to earn.
The only reason they feel the need to do this is because they need their cut. Because they've got greedier and greedier as spending gets higher.
Modern banking has been weaponised against private citizens and nation states. If you need permission to spend the money that you've already earned, you're in an abusive relationship. If you need permission to spend money, it's not money, it's a social credit note.
The money in your bank isn't yours, it isn't there, and it isn't even money.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."
Thomas Sowell
So to continue a little further into this society that you are envisioning. Do you propose any alternatives to the Police, NHS, Fire service, Social Services, State education provision, highways repair, refuse collection etc etc that can no longer be funded? Or do you think we are better off without it all?What other people do with their money is no concern of mine, just as mine should be of no concern to them. Where do you limit it? The postie not declaring the tenner I gave him at Christmas? The builder who did a weekend job for a few hundred quid and I paid in cash? I guarantee you that both of them will be spending that money and neither the government nor the banking sector will be able to take a cut at each transaction. Leaching value from something they worked hard to earn.
The only reason they feel the need to do this is because they need their cut. Because they've got greedier and greedier as spending gets higher.
Modern banking has been weaponised against private citizens and nation states. If you need permission to spend the money that you've already earned, you're in an abusive relationship. If you need permission to spend money, it's not money, it's a social credit note.
The money in your bank isn't yours, it isn't there, and it isn't even money.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."
Thomas Sowell
Edited by RichTT on Sunday 19th November 19:08
McMoose said:
So to continue a little further into this society that you are envisioning. Do you propose any alternatives to the Police, NHS, Fire service, Social Services, State education provision, highways repair, refuse collection etc etc that can no longer be funded? Or do you think we are better off without it all?
Those things were all privately funded once you know. The argument from Keynesians and statists would be that most of these things are 'public goods' (a term coined in 1954 by Paul Samuelson).
The difficulty with public goods is that the owners have a hard time preventing free riding. For example road and services infrastructure, freely broadcasted media, defense forces, emergency services etc. The idea being that if people don't pay, the companies will underperform and end up going bust. Therefore it is in the states best interest to collect taxes and provide the good directly. But this is a fallacy. The idea that a private company cannot provide a public good is in direct contradiction with the fact that it is mostly private companies that provide / create / build these public goods for the Government anyway. It's just that the Government acts as the middle man between us and the good, whilst creating costly inefficiency along the way.
"historical evidence shows us that all of the so-called public goods that states now provide have at some time in the past actually been provided by private entrepreneurs or even today are so provided in one country or another. For example, the postal service was once private almost everywhere; streets were privately financed and still are sometimes; even the beloved lighthouses were originally the result of private enterprise; private police forces, detectives, and arbitrators exist; and help for the sick, the poor, the elderly, orphans, and widows has been a traditional concern of private charity organizations."
https://mises.org/library/fallacies-public-goods-t...
So, whilst our infrastructure is more complex, there is nothing technically barring the private sector from assuming responsibility over maintenance other than the government monopoly. By creating a monopoly you exclude competitiveness in pricing. Every additional level of government bureaucracy introduces inefficiency and waste. This almost always returns poor value for money given the taxes we pay.
Now the argument against having "public goods" run by private companies is twofold. One is that we almost always end up with no competition, and no accountability within these private companies. Because they are not serving the public as customers primarily, they are serving themselves, the shareholders.
But this ends in a discussion about morals, the ethics of money and wealth, personal choice, personal responsibility, the evils of an inflationary monetary system that encourages and enables it, and why a deflationary currency is better for everyone.
Oops: "Binance chief pleads guilty to money laundering"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67492753
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67492753
silentbrown said:
Oops: "Binance chief pleads guilty to money laundering"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67492753
It's Crypto, nobody cares. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67492753
silentbrown said:
Oops: "Binance chief pleads guilty to money laundering"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67492753
The BBC can report it however they choose; but he plead guilty to one count of failure to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67492753
Binance was open to the US when there was little regulatory clarity. They took a gamble. There’s still little regulatory clarity, so you can see their conundrum!
The only question is, did they make more than 4 billion profit from their gamble
dimots said:
The only question is, did they make more than 4 billion profit from their gamble
Nope, Le Chiffre gambled badly and now the warlords will be wanting to take their investment out but the piggy bank is empty, well it's not empty it's just stuffed full of worthless BUSD crypto coins.Who's next?
dimots said:
The BBC can report it however they choose; but he plead guilty to one count of failure to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme.
Binance was open to the US when there was little regulatory clarity. They took a gamble. There’s still little regulatory clarity, so you can see their conundrum!
The only question is, did they make more than 4 billion profit from their gamble
DOJ statement: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/binance-and-ceo-ple...Binance was open to the US when there was little regulatory clarity. They took a gamble. There’s still little regulatory clarity, so you can see their conundrum!
The only question is, did they make more than 4 billion profit from their gamble
DOJ said:
As part of the plea agreement, Binance has agreed to forfeit $2,510,650,588 and to pay a criminal fine of $1,805,475,575 for a total financial penalty of $4,316,126,163. Binance has also agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years and remediate and enhance their anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance programs. Binance separately has also reached agreements with the CFTC, FinCEN, and OFAC, and the Department will credit approximately $1.8 billion toward those resolutions
CZ tweet this morning - highlighted the interesting bit. https://x.com/cz_binance/status/172706350312576636...
Today, I stepped down as CEO of Binance. Admittedly, it was not easy to let go emotionally. But I know it is the right thing to do. I made mistakes, and I must take responsibility. This is best for our community, for Binance, and for myself.
Binance is no longer a baby. It is time for me to let it walk and run. I know Binance will continue to grow and excel with the deep bench it has.
I’m pleased to announce that
@_RichardTeng
, our now former Global Head of Regional Markets, has been named the new CEO of Binance today.
Richard is a highly qualified leader and, with over three decades of financial services and regulatory experience, he will navigate the company through its next period of growth. He will ensure Binance delivers on our next phase of security, transparency, compliance, and growth.
Prior to joining Binance, Richard was CEO of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority at Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM); Chief Regulatory Officer of the Singapore Exchange (SGX); and Director of Corporate Finance in the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
With Richard and the entire team, I’m confident that the best days for
@Binance
and the crypto industry lay ahead.
As a shareholder and former CEO with historical knowledge of our company, I will remain available to the team to consult as needed, consistent with the framework set out in our U.S. agency resolutions.
What’s next for me?
I will take a break first. I have not had a single day of real (phone off) break for the last 6 and half years.
After that, my current thinking is I will probably do some passive investing, being a minority token/shareholder in startups in areas of blockchain/Web3/DeFi, AI and biotech. I am happy that I will finally have more time to spend looking at DeFi.
I can’t see myself being a CEO driving a startup again. I am content being an one-shot (lucky) entrepreneur. Should there be listeners, I may be open to being a coach/mentor to a small number of upcoming entrepreneurs, privately. If for nothing else, I can at least tell them what not to do.
On that note, I am proud to point out that in our resolutions with the U.S. agencies they:
[b]- do not allege that Binance misappropriated any user funds, and
- do not allege that Binance engaged in any market manipulation.[/b]
Funds are SAFU!
With that, I look forward to seeing the new leadership take the reins. Please join me in congratulating Richard on his well-deserved promotion.
Onwards!
CZ
Anyone know WTF is going on with Kraken? Trying to sell a chunk of my USDT to GBP and the fees are through the fecking roof. $31950 to GBP is showing a fee of £373. WTF. Usually when I sell $1500 or so each month the fee is about £2-3 so surely it should be much much lower ? Have I missed a memo?
The interface has changed since I last used it too. Had to choose either Kraken or Pro before it would let me in. I chose the normal one.
The interface has changed since I last used it too. Had to choose either Kraken or Pro before it would let me in. I chose the normal one.
Edited by r3g on Wednesday 22 November 07:01
r3g said:
Anyone know WTF is going on with Kraken? Trying to sell a chunk of my USDT to GBP and the fees are through the fecking roof. $31950 to GBP is showing a fee of £373. WTF. Usually when I sell $1500 or so each month the fee is about £2-3 so surely it should be much much lower ? Have I missed a memo?
The interface has changed since I last used it too. Had to choose either Kraken or Pro before it would let me in. I chose the normal one.
It's an FX pair so all depends on your trading volume etc. 373 for 31950 would be 1.16% fee?The interface has changed since I last used it too. Had to choose either Kraken or Pro before it would let me in. I chose the normal one.
It’s quite a big fine for a relatively minor offence in comparison to the goings on at HSBC and BNP Paribas years back.
But would you consider $4 billion to be a fair cost of doing business as the worlds biggest crypto currency exchange processing 50% of trades for ten years?
I probably would. Growth over compliance every time!
But would you consider $4 billion to be a fair cost of doing business as the worlds biggest crypto currency exchange processing 50% of trades for ten years?
I probably would. Growth over compliance every time!
dimots said:
It’s quite a big fine for a relatively minor offence in comparison to the goings on at HSBC and BNP Paribas years back.
But would you consider $4 billion to be a fair cost of doing business as the worlds biggest crypto currency exchange processing 50% of trades for ten years?
I probably would. Growth over compliance every time!
Didn't SBF basically say the same thing? But would you consider $4 billion to be a fair cost of doing business as the worlds biggest crypto currency exchange processing 50% of trades for ten years?
I probably would. Growth over compliance every time!
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff