Jump to content

TiffanyHayden

Bronze Contributor
  • Content count

    824
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  1. Are you unaware of the regulations that are already in place? Digital currency businesses have to comply with the Treasury Department's federal Bank Secrecy Act. The BitLicense unnecessarily duplicates KYC record keeping and activity reporting requirements. Why not leave AML enforcement to the federal government and focus on something crazy like consumer protection?
  2. It's harmful because it limits who can participate. You end up with the biggest, wealthiest, and most well-connected companies... who can do no wrong. Why do we have to keep making the same mistakes?
  3. Being required to pay a fine out of ill-gotten gains is practically a green light to continue. Ben Lawsky had the ability to revoke bank licenses in New York. If providing the Sudanese regime the means to evade U.S. Sanctions (while also enabling and profiting from genocide) wasn't enough for him to take action, what would be? Bitcoin? He seems pretty concerned about it...
  4. Think about why this would be so catastrophic. Because regulations are so restrictive that only the biggest, wealthiest, and most well-connected companies can operate. Therefore, they can get away with murder, literally. Do you not see the loop?
  5. Yes. That's entirely point. Executives flagrantly and knowingly chose to violate sanctions and assist the Sudanese regime because it was extremely profitable. And the worse case scenario for BNP was getting caught and having to pay a fine out of those profits.
  6. If assisting and profiting from genocide isn't enough to lose a banking license, what is?
  7. I see nothing but harm coming from the BitLicense. It doesn't offer the public any protection or guarantees, but it limits who can compete.
  8. He could have revoked BNP's bank license, but he didn't. Even after knowing that BNP was assisting the Sudanese regime and profiting from genocide, he allowed BNP to continue to operate in the state. Seriously. Let that sink in.
  9. Ripple CEO defends hijacking Sibos with blockchain event

    What is this in reference to? I've seen peanut butter mentioned before but I have no idea what everyone is talking about. I think that hosting SWELL as a response to getting the shaft from SWIFT was maybe one of the coolest things Ripple has ever done.
  10. @JoelKatz, I know that you understand all of this very well and it's why I hate that you're not on the board.
  11. It doesn't mean we should be complacent. Why do we have regulations in the first place? If we see that they did nothing to stop a worse case scenario then we should be extra cautious about using them to limit who can compete.
  12. BNP is like a worse-case scenario for what could happen without intrusive, over-reaching regulation, but... Instead it shows what horrible things happen in spite of regulation, with full knowledge from authorities. Rules shouldn't be so restrictive that only the biggest, wealthiest, and most well-connected companies can operate. And they shouldn't be made single-handedly by people who can later setup shop to profit from the burden they created.
  13. They were investigated before it happened. BNP was allowed to assist the Sudanese regime in spite of "the rules."
  14. Instead of speculating, focus on what we know. BNP enabled the Sudanese regime to trade oil and finance itself. BNP profited from genocide. BNP was allowed to continue to operate in the state. If crimes against humanity don't bother you, does anything?
  15. And bringing it back to crony capitalism... This enabling happened AFTER U.S. authorities discovered that BNP wasn't complying with money laundering & sanction laws. The rules don't apply to everybody under crony capitalism. BNP had to sign a memorandum of understanding and promise to be better just a few years prior.
×