Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'fincen'.
Found 5 results
Minimum search term is 4 characters long. Can't find what you want? Click here for the custom google search instead.
..interesting post from February... if our accounts earn more than $10,000... we have to report it to FinCEN on IRS form 8300 ? https://www.fincen.gov/ https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8300.pdf How many in here knew about this !??
Hello friends, I've been lurking XRPChat for nearly a year now - my first exposure to XRP was around April/May of last year, when the massive, spontaneous growth of the cryptosphere took place. I had known about Bitcoin since 2009, and until discovering the shear volume of alt-coins that have spawned in its wake, I thought it was all a gimmick, a ponzi scheme for the digital age meant to prey upon those interested in technology but with little understanding of it. But I was the one with little understanding. I was wrong, however I do not regret my myopia. I realize just how naive I was in regards to cryptography and peer-to-peer networks when I try to explain the real-world disruptive fundamentals of blockchain protocols, no matter how thoroughly (for a layman), to my peers. Their instinctive, knee-jerk FUD reminds me of myself not long ago. They can't muster the courage to trust a system engineered to operate without trust, and without that leap of faith, most of them never come to the realization that faith and trust in an immutable, distributed ledger is unnecessary and even nonsensical. I've finally created a profile here today because, as obsessive as I have been since discovering XRP, the xPool trademark is news to me, as I am sure it is for many others. I only found out about it yesterday after multiple questions regarding xPool were thrown at David in his AMA. This trademark and the air of mystery around it excites me. As far as I understand (and please correct me ASAP if I am wrong) the exchange restrictions placed on Ripple Labs by FinCEN in 2015 expire in May of this year. Now, I wasn't around back then, but I am sure plenty of you are familiar with Ripple Trade and the FinCEN suit. Long story short, Ripple was caught in what amounted to a 15 year old driving without a license and was subsequently barred from even asking permission to drive for three years. They were not supposed to operate their own exchange without proper licensing to do so. While looking at the trademark filed for xPool, I decided to check out their other TMs. I found that Ripple Trade is still an active TM, but even more curious is the "Notice of Suit" notification for that trademark, filed two days ago. See for yourselves: https://trademarks.justia.com/862/30/ripple-86230662.html I would not expect any activity regarding Ripple Trade, especially what I can only assume is a lawsuit 3 years after its closure. I don't know what to make of this, but I have a growing feeling that xPool is Ripple Trade 2.0, back with a vengeance. This is obviously not why I think xPool is a new in-house exchange; I thought that the moment I saw the word xPool; I've been looking forward to May 2018 since I found out about the FinCEN suit too. I'm at work so I can't go too deep right now, but I just wanted to get this out there to see what others think. May is coming sooner than we think. Ripple might blow the wires away. There is no greater liquidity pool than a proprietary exchange of the same name: xPool. I'll discuss more later when I'm on my own time. Time is money, friends!
Do the terms of the FinCen fine and subsequent agreement allow Ripple to create and provide a client for the general public to use to access the xrp ledger? I've read the official agreement, and summaries, and commentary, and it's not clear to me whether not Ripple will be able to provide a consumer client at any point in the future. Here is a link to a post that contains links to some of the relevant documents, and some commentary on the matter. The best I can tell is that after certain periods of time Ripple will be reevaluated for their compliance on certain issues outlined in the fine, but it's not clear to me if that reevaluation includes the possibility that certain restrictions on Ripple's behavior could be removed.
It has been implied here that Ripple has been limited in marketing and facilitating XRP and related products for end users because of the the FinCEN enforcement action against Ripple in 2015. While it was originally believed that RippleTrade was shut down because Ripple was pivoting (I believe SnapSwap's announcement to stop XRP/BTC support involved some wording like this), it has been implied here, and I have recently assumed, that the FinCEN agreement required Ripple to shut down RippleTrade and discontinue support of products/services targeting end users. With a quick google search you'll find this page which summarizes the whole ordeal. Linked on that page is the actual settle agreement signed by Ripple and FinCEN (here). To my surprise the settlement agreement in no way seems to directly limit Ripple's ability to provide products and services to end users. Take this statement on the twelfth page of the settlement agreement for example. "Within 30 days of the date of this agreement, Ripple Labs and XRP II will move its service known as Ripple Trade... and any such functional equivalent, to a money services business that is registered with FinCEN" In no way does this sound like Ripple had to shut down Ripple trade (end user focused products), in fact, the continuation of this product/service is implied. While Ripple no doubt was required to comply with stricter oversight because of this agreement, it seems that they are still subject to this stricter oversight due to the fact that XRP II is still selling XRP and therefore functioning as a MSB. For a TLDR version of Ripple's requirements, read the twelfth page of the settlement agreement which lists the "Remedial Framework" Ripple agrees to comply with. If I am understanding the settlement correctly, it seems Ripple decided to stop supporting end users because of the additional AML compliance risk such support would require. Since this decision was optional, it seems there are two immediate and important implications: Ripple doesn't need to wait until May 2018 to provide products and services to end users. Ripple can market XRP and RCL without restrictions related to this agreement If I am incorrect in my understanding, I would like to know why. If I am correct, I'd like to see Ripple continue more and more to publicly support XRP/RCL.
Guest posted a topic in Regulationhttps://bol.bna.com/hogan-lovells-partner-on-digital-currency/ + more about law/regulations around digital currencies