Zum Inhalt der Seite gehen

Beiträge, die mit crypto getaggt sind

Suche

Beiträge, die mit crypto getaggt sind

However, there is no shortage of extremely concerning replies from banks to these questions about the banks’ own planned crypto offerings and partnerships with crypto companies, suggesting the FDIC was more than justified in making these inquiries. Just a few highlights:

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

The narrative indicates that the Bank will only do business with stablecoins that meet the Bank's internal standards; however, no standards have been developed. (pg 44)
The form's responses to principal ownership, length of time in business, and regulatory oversight of the company do not accurately reflect the entity that the bank is contracting with, the entity's organizational structure, or affiliate services. [begin highlight] The form states that [redacted] has been operating since [redacted]; however, [redacted], the entity that the bank contracts with did not exist in [redacted]. [end highlight] The form also states that the regulators
these customer expectations were generated from [redacted] and included little to no support. [begin highlight] Furthermore, those projections were likely generated when bitcoin prices were rapidly appreciating in comparison to the US Dollar and did not consider any type of range or pullback in the market. [end highlight] Management should revisit the report and consider a range of results that incorporate different levels of adoption and transaction volume.
The risk assessment is not commensurate with the potential risk exposure posed. Management approved a Bitcoin Program risk assessment prepared by [redacted] with minimal edits, which lacked independence, lacked a discussion of controls in key areas, or outlined controls/mitigants that did not exist or were inaccurate.
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

There were some conversations with banks about offering depository accounts to crypto companies, which I focused on in particular as this is the root of the industry’s claims.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

There are some portions of the FDIC documents that discuss banks merely providing depository banking services to customers in the cryptocurrency industry or associated with crypto, and that was what I was most interested in, as directives from the FDIC to deny these types of services to those customers wholesale would be something much more reasonably described as a Choke Point-style debanking campaign. In the FDIC’s most recent document release, there were a handful of types of communications that fell into this category. Some were inquiries by banks to the FDIC as to whether the FIL directive to report “activities involving or related to crypto assets” included when they merely offered depository banking services to crypto-related companies. This definitely seems like something the FIL should have been clearer about, as in one case even the FDIC employee who responded wasn’t sure of the answer and had to ask another office (although they instructed the customer to proceed under the assumption that this was not covered by the FIL).8 However, in several other letters, the FDIC clarified that no, merely offering fiat banking services (including loans) to crypto companies did not fall within the scope of the FIL — something it seems they would be unlikely to say if they were indeed trying to systematically prevent banks from serving crypto companies.910 In one case, there was some question about whether a relationship with a bank fell within scope, and the FDIC seemed to dete
Some other documents contained discussions between banks and the FDIC about banks’ crypto-related depository customers, but seemed fairly run-of-the-mill. In one FDIC memo, representatives from the bank and the regulator discussed crypto customers with high cash activity, and the need to apply more diligence to understand those cash transactions since they were high risk. The FDIC representative in that case was explicit that “we are not asking the bank to exit these relationships”, and a bank representative expressed that they believed “most of the recommendations [pertaining to digital asset customers] were really good”.12 A very similar conversation occurred between the FDIC and a bank that was providing banking services to a Bitcoin ATM operator, where a bank representative expressed concern that the FDIC “has made a determination that banking these [redacted] customers is not ok”, and an FDIC representative “reiterated that we are not requiring the bank to exit the business, but to conduct more due diligence, look at the potential red flags, and provide the bank’s board with the results. The decision whether or not to continue to bank these customers should be a business decision made by the board after review of the additional information.”13 In a few cases there were broad questions from the FDIC to banks they already knew had crypto-related depository and loan customers, for example a few days after the FTX collapse, when an FDIC case manager asked about “any trends
There were also conversations about banking relationships with cryptocurrency companies that involved not only depository accounts but “for benefit of” (FBO) accounts: where a company holds customer funds in an account with the bank for the benefit of their customers. In these cases, the FDIC asked a number of fairly standard questions pertaining to account structure, size, capital requirements, and so on.15 In several cases, banks described closing accounts belonging to crypto customers, but these seemed to me to be of the banks’ own volition and as a result of their internal risk management decisions.1016
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Broadly: despite bipartisan agreement that discriminatory debanking happens to some groups and individuals, there is no agreement about who those people are, or what to do about it.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

The good news in all of these hearings and conversations is there seems to be widespread bipartisan acknowledgment that debanking happens, and that it’s a problem. The bad news is that there’s very little agreement around who is suffering as a result of debanking, or what to do about it. When Democrats like Representative Tlaib and Senator Warren raise concerns about racial or religious minorities being disproportionately denied access to banking services, Republicans remain deafeningly quiet about racial discrimination in access to banking (with the exception of Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-NC), who likened the crypto industry’s supposed debanking to the redlining against his Black grandfather and mother, but who otherwise seemed to treat such issues as a thing of the past). When some raise concerns about denial of banking services to firearms dealers, others respond that banks should be allowed to individually decide to do or not to do business with whomever they like, and that they should be permitted to protect their banks’ reputations by not serving groups their customer base may disfavor.18a When people argue that low-income individuals need to be provided banking services, others suggest that no one should force banks to take on the risk of a client who may be more likely to bounce checks or improperly manage their finances.19b
And some even seem to disagree with themselves, taking inconsistent stances based on the victim of the debanking. For example, in September 2023, Senator Ricketts (R-NE) led opposition to the SAFER Banking Act, highlighting money laundering risk and suggesting that limiting banking access to marijuana businesses would help him further his opposition to the marijuana industry (he alleged marijuana causes “significant mental health damage to youth” and “is associated with psychosis, motor vehicle accidents, respiratory problems, and low birth weight”).20 Now, however, he brushes aside money laundering concerns when crypto is involved, and argues that “It undermines the rule of law in our country if regulators start pushing an agenda of what they want to see, what kind of businesses you do business with versus what you’re allowed to do. ... A legal business should not lose access to the banking system just because they deal in firearms or crypto or something like that because a regulator doesn’t like that. That’s just simply wrong. But that’s what we’ve seen of course out of the last two administrations: it was mentioned earlier about Operation Choke Point 1.0 under the Obama administration and firearms dealers for example that were disfavored, were prejudiced against and [regulators] tried to force out of the financial system.”21
As for what to do with it, the leaders of this crusade against supposed crypto debanking can’t even seem to agree among themselves. Some of the Republicans say it’s an issue with the regulators, others say it’s an issue with the bankers. Some want to see sweeping changes at the regulatory level, while others — including the crypto industry’s top-funded Congressperson this cycle, Bernie Moreno (R-OH) — want to just let the free market sort it out, saying “it’s competition that ultimately makes this go away” and “we need more competition in banking, that will fix us.”
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

So: is this regulatory oversight, or overreach?

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

Oversight or overreach? The crypto industry has argued that there does not need to be a plain-text directive from a regulator that “you may not provide banking services to crypto industry customers” to establish that the FDIC was pressuring banks not to serve customers from that industry. I firmly agree. And I found Representative Green’s question about whether anyone has “read some document from the Biden Administration or some regulator indicating that there is an Operation Choke Point 2.0? That said ‘2.0’?” — as though they would have to brand it that themselves in writing in order for such a pressure campaign to exist — to be ridiculous.
Indeed, some evidence presented at the hearings did raise legitimate concerns about regulatory overreach, even if it didn't specifically support claims of an anti-crypto agenda. For instance, Senator Lummis (R-WY) presented a troubling screenshot from a Federal Reserve manual instructing staff to “consider the conduct of the institution and its leadership and whether association with the institution poses undue reputational risk to the Reserve Bank” and asking whether “the institution's leadership associated with controversial commentary or activities?” Such guidance could certainly enable discriminatory treatment based on subjective judgments about what constitutes “controversial” activity, even if it wasn't specifically targeted at cryptocurrency companies, and I was just as delighted as some of those with very different political beliefs to mine when Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell promised during his regular Congressional report to ensure it was removed.17
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Meanwhile, the agency most involved in handling debanking is being dismantled, to cheers from the crypto industry. “Debanking” is a crypto rallying cry only so far as it supports their deregulatory agenda, dropped the second it might result in actual consumer protections.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

Meanwhile, the one agency most involved in handling debanking complaints has been forced to pause work and is currently being dismantled.22 At the most recent Senate hearing, Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren came prepared with analysis of thousands of complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by customers who had lost access to their bank accounts without any explanation or opportunity for appeal.23 Several other Democratic Congresspeople raised the alarm during these hearings about the shutdown of the CFPB and its impact on people who are being shafted by banks, financial services companies, and fintechs, to be met with silence from Republicans on the other side who apparently are not concerned with that kind of debanking — or at least not concerned enough about it to stick their neck out against shadow President Elon Musk — and are only concerned about the alleged debanking of their crypto benefactors.
The crypto industry’s co-opting of legitimate debanking concerns represents a particularly cynical form of regulatory theater. Companies like Coinbase claim to be champions fighting discriminatory banking practices while simultaneously celebrating the shutdown of the CFPB — the very agency most equipped to tackle systemic debanking. When Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong took to Twitter to celebrate Musk’s attempt to shutdown the CFPB as “100% the right call”, describing the Bureau as “unconstitutional” (it isn’t24) and “an activist organization that has done enormous harm to this country”, he revealed the industry’s true priorities.25 Debanking is suddenly less of concern when the same group that is most equipped to tackle it has proposed consumer protections for crypto customers [I73] that could cause Coinbase to have to reimburse some of the $300 million or so stolen from its customers over the past year alone [I74]. “Debanking” is a crypto rallying cry only to the extent that it supports their deregulatory agenda, to be dropped the second that addressing debanking might result in consumer protection requirements forcing companies like his to treat customers properly.
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Sadly, the Congressional majority appears far more eager to spend its political capital making bold statements about debanking only when it applies to crypto billionaires, while dismantling the very agencies best positioned to help debanking victims.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

This disconnect between rhetoric and reality matters because it threatens to derail meaningful progress on debanking. Real victims of discriminatory banking practices — racial and religious minorities, low-income individuals, legal but controversial businesses — need systemic solutions and stronger consumer protections. Glimmers of bipartisan agreement emerged during the hearings — with various Congresspeople and witnesses describing potential changes to improve transparency or appeals processes when banks deny services to prospective customers. However, in the end, the Congressional majority appears far more eager to spend its political capital making bold statements about debanking only when it applies to crypto billionaires, while dismantling the very agencies best positioned to help debanking victims. The path forward requires separating legitimate concerns about discriminatory debanking from the crypto industry's self-serving narrative. It requires acknowledging that proper oversight of high-risk industries isn't the same as improper targeting of vulnerable groups. Most importantly, it requires maintaining and strengthening — not dismantling — the regulatory frameworks that protect consumers from both discriminatory banking practices and predatory financial schemes.
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

We are in a situation where reasonable people can look at the same set of documents and some will conclude that the regulators are simply doing their jobs, while others conclude that regulators are improperly pressuring banks to not provide services to those customers at all.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

I also think that we are in a world where banking and other financial regulators have been burned by the past collapses of the cryptocurrency industry, which has very much proven itself to be a high-risk industry, and have determined that they need to apply additional scrutiny. Where Representative Green did have a reasonable point was when he stated, “I wouldn't want to be a regulator. It's a tough job because if a bank fails then you didn't do enough and then if it somehow doesn't give you the kind of regulation that you want it's too much.” (Indeed, Representative Hill (R-AR) demonstrated this dichotomy as applied to crypto companies when he opened the hearing by blasting the SEC, stating “one of our witnesses today, Coinbase, an American company registered as a public company with the SEC, was treated poorly and FTX, a criminal organization, wasn't even investigated.”) Simultaneously, we are in a world where the cryptocurrency industry has proven itself to be violently allergic to any and all regulation — including legitimate regulatory enforcement — and has spent years portraying that regulation as not only unwanted but as improper and even illegal. We are in a world where Congresspeople have campaigned on this very subject. And we’re in a world where crypto companies are hell-bent on establishing that they were victimized by regulators so as to obtain ammunition for their attacks against those regulators, as well as attacks against laws that would limit them from doing
And so in this world, it is not surprising that we are in a situation where different people can look at the same set of documents and some will conclude that the regulators are simply doing their jobs by ensuring banks are doing adequate risk management with high-risk customers, while others conclude that regulators are improperly pressuring banks to not provide services to those customers at all. This is particularly the case because the documents are partially redacted, leaving some sentences and even entire communications open to very different interpretations depending on how the reader’s brain tries to fill in the blanks.
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

But the industry’s bold claims that “Operation Choke Point 2.0 is real” are hyperbole intended to mislead. Perhaps they need more time to acquire the proof they claim exists. Perhaps they will just continue to claim it exists, and hope no one notices they haven’t produced it.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

However, the crypto industry’s suggestions that these FDIC document releases contain incontrovertible, smoking-gun proof of some Biden administration or regulator directive are hyperbole aimed at misleading those who don’t have the time or interest to read several hundreds of pages of documents (our Congresspeople among them, I suspect). The same types of attempts to mislead are also evident in their treatment of recent comments by FDIC Acting Chair Travis Hill, who had previously served as Vice Chairman of the FDIC since January 2023 and has worked at the agency since 2018. When Hill acknowledged shortly after being installed as Acting Chair that “Over the past few years, there have been various accounts of individuals and businesses associated with the crypto industry losing access to bank accounts without explanation” — a simple statement of fact about complaints that have been made — the industry treated it as confirmation that improper debanking occurred. If they truly believed Hill was confirming improper debanking pressure was being applied by the FDIC, their calls for his resignation should be deafening — after all, he would have held a powerful role in overseeing the very activities he condemns, and he himself stated later in that speech “there is no place at the FDIC for anyone who has pushed — explicitly or implicitly — banks to stop serving law-abiding customers”.
This pattern of selective interpretation and opportunistic outrage is not limited to their treatment of Hill's comments, however. Their attacks on those who have not claimed that crypto companies have been denied bank accounts, and who have not claimed that it’s impossible that there was government pressure to debank crypto companies, but who have simply pointed out that the supposedly firm evidence of a governmental anti-crypto debanking campaign is anything but, demonstrate that their goal is not to uncover the truth about debanking, but to advance their dubious narratives in service of their policy agendas [I74]. It’s also worth noting that the crypto industry's claims of a government-led debanking campaign are essentially unfalsifiable, given the lack of public access to private government documents and correspondence. Yet, despite now having a Republican-controlled House, Senate, and Presidency, with pro-crypto appointees installed throughout regulatory agencies and Elon Musk and his team of interns rooting around in every government database they can get their hands on, and a new FDIC chair apparently willing to order the release of considerably more documents than his predecessor, the industry has still failed to produce any strong evidence to support its claims. This lack of proof, even with the deck stacked in their favor, is telling. Perhaps they will say they just need more time, but if the evidence of a coordinated debanking campaign were as clear-cut as the
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

$130 million in Congressional spending by the crypto industry helped put their claims of systemic debanking by the Biden administration and financial regulators at the top of the to-do lists for both the House and the Senate, who held hearings last week on the topic.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

As I’ve discussed before [I71, 73, 74, 76], powerful figures in and outside of the crypto industry have been broadly claiming that the FDIC and other financial regulators have been engaged in a nefarious pressure campaign to force banks not to offer services to crypto companies or people associated with crypto. Aided by over $130 million in crypto industry spending on Congressional races this cycle, these claims have made their way to the top of some Congresspeople’s lists of concerns. The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on February 5 titled “Investigating the Real Impacts of Debanking in America”, and the House Financial Services Committee held one the following day, rather more pointedly dubbed “Operation Choke Point 2.0: The Biden Administration’s Efforts to Put Crypto in the Crosshairs”. On the morning of the Senate hearing, the FDIC also released a nearly 800-page document containing 175 records of correspondence between the FDIC and banks and other financial institutions pertaining to crypto.
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

On the face of it, there seemed to be bipartisan agreement that debanking is a real issue that needs to be addressed. But scratch the surface, and the two sides were discussing radically different issues.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

Last week, Congress held two hearings about Americans losing access to banking services. In theory, everyone agreed this was a serious problem requiring urgent attention. In practice, they weren't even discussing the same issue. Democrats described Muslim Americans broadly reporting denial of banking services, immigrants locked out of the banking system for wiring money overseas or participating in traditional community lending practices, and low-income individuals being forced to pay high fees simply because they didn’t carry a balance in their bank accounts. Republicans and their crypto-friendly Democratic allies were instead laser-focused on a different claimed victim: the cryptocurrency industry, which alleged it was being systematically cut off from banking services through a shadowy government pressure campaign dubbed “Operation Choke Point 2.0”.
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

When it comes to claims of “Operation Choke Point 2.0”, a supposed government campaign to improperly pressure banks to not provide services to the cryptocurrency industry wholesale, little has emerged in the way of proof of such a campaign (despite the industry’s claims).

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

Representative Al Green (D-TX) was blunt in his opening statement, describing “Operation Choke Point 2.0” as “a fake program never initiated by the Biden Administration” and arguing that regulators asking banks to “exercise caution” and “consider the risk associated with the cryptocurrency industry does not amount to debanking”. Representative Tlaib (D-MI) also echoed this point: “I’d like to discuss facts motivating today’s hearing and Coinbase’s and its consultants’ complaint against the FDIC. The claim that ‘starting’ — you’re probably familiar with this — ‘starting in 2022, federal financial regulators have taken concerted steps designed to debank the digital asset industry.’ But what’s interesting about this timeline, and maybe Ranking Member you’d find this interesting, what actually happened around 2022? Folks are forgetting. I mean they were going to play dumb but we’re not — we know what happened. Investors lost $2 trillion during what we call ‘crypto winter’, and a whole host of crypto and digital asset companies went belly up including FTX and Celsius. And in early 2023 we saw Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and Silvergate fail, with crypto playing a huge role in it.”
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Even Republicans and their invited witnesses — to Senator Kennedy’s apparent surprise — disagree as to whether denial of banking services is some sort of nefarious government campaign or just banks making their own decisions.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Newsletter: Dubbing it “Operation Choke Point 2.0”, cryptocurrency companies have co-opted legitimate concerns about banking discrimination to fight regulation — and Congress is buying it.

citationneeded.news/crypto-ind…

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol


The crypto industry’s debanking smokescreen

Cryptocurrency companies have co-opted legitimate concerns about banking discrimination to fight regulation — and Congress is buying it
Molly White (Citation Needed)
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Representative GT Thompson boasted at a digital assets press conference that crypto legislation will be “tripartisan” because it will be set by the crypto industry.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

Crypto press conference America’s new “AI and Crypto Czar” David Sacks headed up a crypto-focused press conference on Tuesday, in concert with the Senate Banking Committee and several Representatives.10 The crypto world reacted with some disappointment to those they were only recently so excited about, seeming unimpressed that these politicians were merely announcing future announcements rather than unveiling anything that would immediately pump their bags. “This [crypto-focused presidential working committee] might need to be DOGE’d as well”, remarked one popular crypto Twitter account (and frequent retweetee of Elon Musk).11 For all of the crypto industry money that poured into installing crypto-friendly Congresspeople this time around, the speakers at the press conference mostly described their plans to push forward crypto-related market structure and stablecoins bills that will look a lot like what was on the table during the last administration. FIT21 is back [I58, 59], although the complaints from last summer from some of the crypto industry that their regulatory windfall was not friendly enough [I60] will likely resurface in front of this new, obsequious group. Speakers at the press conference made no secret of the degree to which they intend to let the cryptocurrency industry write the rules, with Congressman GT Thompson (R-PA) boasting that they would continue to work in a “tripartisan way” with Republicans, Democrats, and the crypto industry.
Senators Hagerty (R-TN), Scott (R-SC), Gillibrand (D-NY), and Lummis (R-WY) have put forward a stablecoin bill, also announced Tuesday, called the “GENIUS Act”, short for “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins”. I guess “Stable Genius Act” was already taken. It’s pretty similar to the stablecoin bill introduced last Congress by Lummis and Gillibrand, and similarly has very little in it that would safeguard consumers or address risks of financial contagion. This is treated as a selling point — the press release from the Senate Banking Committee promotes its “light-touch, tailored regulatory standards”.12
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Musk is “exploring blockchain technology” for use at DOGE and the Treasury, and crypto bigwigs are groveling for spots on the upcoming crypto advisory council — which will, from the sounds of it, be filled exclusively with crypto executives and industry megadonors.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

Musk is reportedly “exploring blockchain technology” for use in both his Department of Government Efficiency and at the Treasury,29 because what could contribute more to government efficiency than securing lucrative contracts for your crypto donors to implement inefficient technology that is uniquely suited to solving problems you don’t have? The crypto advisory council, led by Bo Hines [I72, 74], will presumably take shape soon. According one hopeful quoted by the New York Post, “everyone and their mother is begging” for a spot. Those rumored to be on the shortlist include crypto megadonor Brian Armstrong of Coinbase, as well as executives from other crypto exchanges and crypto-related companies.30 I’m sure the list of consumer protection advocates and more crypto-skeptical voices also being considered for the council will drop any day now...
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Robinhood seems to be taking a lesson from the crypto world. “Sports bets” are now “event contracts”, and “gambling” is now “an emerging asset class”. Perhaps the next pickpocket to be caught by police should try informing the officer that they’re merely democratizing finance!

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

Robinhood, Crypto.com, and Kalshi might be in hot water with the CFTC after announcing they intend to launch “event contracts” pertaining to the outcomes of the Super Bowl on their “derivatives markets”. “With an emerging asset class like event contracts, we recognize an opportunity to better serve our customers,” said Robinhood in a statement announcing the launch — which was followed a day later by another announcement that they would be suspending the offering at the CFTC’s request.89 Personally, I’m impressed at the branding exercise happening here. “Sports bets” are now “event contracts”, and “gambling” is now “an emerging asset class”. They seem to be taking lessons from the cryptocurrency industry, who have termed “ignoring financial regulations” as “economic innovation”. Perhaps the next pickpocket to be caught by police should try informing the officer that they’re merely democratizing finance!
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

France is probing money laundering and tax fraud issues at Binance, and KuCoin just paid $300 million in fines and withdrew from the US for failing to abide by anti-money laundering laws.

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol

France has opened a probe into the Binance cryptocurrency exchange to examine money laundering, tax fraud, and other charges. Much like the criminal case in the United States, which examined Binance’s early years of operation, French investigators are looking as far back as 2019 to review Binance’s activities. Unlike the US case, which looked at illicit activity up until mid-2022, French investigators are reportedly reviewing much more recent potential infractions dating up to 2024. That hasn’t stopped Binance from waving off the investigation as “several years old”, and Binance has denied all dethe allegations.1 Stemming from charges filed back in March 2024 [I54], KuCoin has pleaded guilty to violating US anti-money laundering laws. They will pay a $300 million fine and withdraw from the US for two years. Two co-founders of the company who were personally charged have reached deferred prosecution agreements, which include them leaving the company and paying $2.7 million in fines apiece [W3IGG]. This is only the most recent development in KuCoin’s history of legal woes. The case filed by the CFTC alongside the DOJ’s criminal charges still remains ongoing. Prior to that, the company had paid a $22 million fine in a case brought by the New York Attorney General in 2023 [W3IGG], and $2 million in a case brought by Canadian securities regulators in Ontario in 2022 [W3IGG].
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Newsletter: Crypto exchanges face legal troubles, and Trump’s crypto empire grows as regulations are slashed and enforcement is sidelined.

citationneeded.news/issue-76/

#crypto #cryptocurrency #USpolitics #USpol


Issue 76 – Tripartisan legislation

Molly White (Citation Needed)
#crypto #cryptocurrency #uspol #uspolitics

Where are the socially useful application scenarios for #Bitcoins / #Crypto?


I can only think of 3 and they are rather undesirable:

1) To #pay at illegal marketplaces like #SilkRoad on the #Darknet.
2) On #terror financing.
3) To pay the #ransom for #encryption Trojans.

For everything else, the high transaction costs are not worth it at all.

#finance #question #society #money #crime #cybercrime #transaction #software #problem #economy #finance #scam #btc #bitcoin #cryptocurrency

#crypto #cryptocurrency #bitcoin #scam #software #problem #darknet #terror #question #encryption #money #society #economy #finance #crime #silkroad #Bitcoins #pay #ransom #cybercrime #transaction #btc

So, altogether, Ripps owes:

$6,983,432.62 for Yuga's fees
$1,375,362.92 disgorgement
$317,295.04 for Yuga's costs
$200,000 damages
$120,000 for Yuga fees awarded earlier
$??? for expert witness costs
$??? for special master report

= $8,996,090.58 and counting

#YugaLabs #crypto #cryptocurrency #RyderRipps

#crypto #cryptocurrency #yugalabs #ryderripps

Background on the fee dispute: hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/11144…

#YugaLabs #crypto #cryptocurrency

#crypto #cryptocurrency #yugalabs

In the Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps lawsuit, Ripps was ordered to pay attorneys fees on top of the ~$1.6M in disgorgement & damages. Yuga said Ripps owed $7.9M in fees. Ripps said ~$455K would be reasonable.

A special master was appointed, who's just said he'll need to pay $7M. Oof.

#YugaLabs #crypto #cryptocurrency

CONCLUSION The special master recommends that the court order defendants to pay • $6,983,432.62 in fees; • $317,295.04 in costs; • The cost for each of Yuga Labs’ three experts to travel to and sit for deposition and to review and correct their deposition transcripts; and • 100% of the cost of preparing this report and recommendation
#crypto #cryptocurrency #yugalabs

Just noticed my work was cited in SEC Commissioner Crenshaw's dissenting statement regarding the bitcoin ETF approval 😳

sec.gov/news/statement/crensha…

#bitcoin #SEC #crypto #cryptocurrency

[16] See Molly White, Grayscale Bitcoin Trust: The Free Money Machine that Went into Reverse (Jan. 29, 2023), available at https://citationneeded.news/grayscale-bitcoin-trust-the-free/. (Highlighting that individual investor outcomes may be determined by the specific caprice of a small group of industry insiders).

SEC.gov | Statement Dissenting from Approval of Proposed Rule Changes to List and Trade Spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Products

Statement Dissenting from Approval of Proposed Rule Changes to List and Trade Spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Products Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw January 10, 2024
sec.gov
#crypto #cryptocurrency #bitcoin #sec

Fake #HyperVerse CEO was assured by his agent that "many people do this in the business. This is perfectly normal"

theguardian.com/technology/202…

#crypto #StevenReeceLewis


‘I do feel bad about this’: Englishman who posed as HyperVerse CEO says sorry to investors who lost millions

Exclusive: Stephen Harrison says he was paid to play role of chief executive of the crypto investment scheme, but denies having ‘pocketed’ any of the money lost
Sarah Martin (The Guardian)
#crypto #hyperverse #stevenreecelewis

Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies. Durch die weitere Benutzung der Webseite stimmst du dieser Verwendung zu. https://inne.city/tos

⇧