The Nerve-endings of Crypto regulation
Or how to parse what matters in a world of legalistic bloat.
Someone on a telegram group i frequent shared an informative article on AMLD5 and it’s importance today. Cute article but somewhat missing the philosophical density of the issue which naturally, you would expect me to point out.
Btw… hardstyle music > psytrance. Hardstyle much better footwear. Let’s continue.
I’ve been compelled by the telegram group to packet my thoughts into ‘big blocks’ and thus ameliorate spam-like verbosity. Big blocks (blog) enables me to put in more transactions (verbosity) before posting it on the blockchain (telegram feed). So that’s that.
As for the topic at hand, I assume people have read the article. And given the nature of the group (fronting legal questions) everyone pretty much knows that ALL governments, not just the wacky US, are under FATF regulation anyhow. It’s not new, it didn’t just happen. Regulation is not ‘coming’ it’s there, and it applies to crypto just as well, right?
There is some promising stuff in the AMLD5, like: ‘ clarifying that the standards require the application of a case-by-case risk-based approach, as opposed to wholesale de-risking.’
‘ with this new directive (and a fair-minded enforcement regime), the EU is signalling to financial sector businesses that crypto must be treated like all other technologies: fairly, on a case-by-case basis.’
And a keen observer in the group readily pointed out the obvious: ‘case-by-case risk-based approach samo pomeni (only means) da dajo točke in zavračajo vsakega posebej (execution in silence).
Teasing with that last parentheses. Because this post is about to get ugly. Brace yourself. (and don’t read if you are faint of ideo-motion)
Let’s postulate that i, as an assumed Anarcho-capitalist free market Austrian economics libertarian type, let’s assume i fully accept what the purpose and righteous mission of FATF is. Let’s even say, like i do, that i’m willing to step out of my resistance narrative, and am ready to ‘comply’ (the god-awful word that must also be executed sometime in the future).
More than that; i am ready to collaborate with regulators to facilitate common ground; although it is highly unlikely that a guy like me gets anything but a decentralized blog platform. Laws will happen without our consent. And this is one point of understanding which i really commend the FATF for:
De-risking can introduce further risk and opacity into the global financial system, as the termination of account relationships has the potential to force entities and persons into less regulated or unregulated channels.
Exactly. You guys have no idea the vitriol that many of us feel post 2008. Some think that ‘we’ have simply forgotten Greece, Lehman, housing bubble, fed, fractional reserve system… the whole lot of it. Just puf… ‘bread and games shall make forget’…
Well, what actually happened is, a certain character propagated Bitcoin with the genesis block header explaining what it’s all about; ‘second bank bailout’.
And us warrior types, i mean real men (and women), not the emasculated banksters wearing latex tights; The real men, we finally got a dark horse in the game; before it we were powerless. Show me any ‘freedom fighter’ prior to 2009, and i’ll show you a despondent man. But post Genesis block our spirits were aroused to take the ‘battle’ of freedom (which most will not take seriously) to it’s conclusion. We finally had a voice, a choice, a ‘sword’. (see how i quote ‘bad’ words for legal protection in the future… it’s ridiculous how language is stifled)
That is the intensity with which regulators will be dealing with. So in my potential advisory role, i want to caution regulators how to speak with ‘us’, what kind of threat letter you send me. One wrong move on the regulators part and…
Nah, fear no terrorist intent. All that happens is that regulators potentially have so much extra work and resources spent on me; manpower, threats, courts, chasing me around… and all because of a lack of communication and two-way misunderstanding of the good samaritan’s driving principles. (and there are good people in the regulation world)
I may be operating on dense principles while the regulator, not caring much, is operating on law. It’s okay though, we will resolve this handily i reckon. I have a stratagem. Just want to remind everyone that what is also happening is not a fully despondent population that will simply ‘comply’… this is wishful fancy on government’s part. A portion of us are systems builder, contingency managers and quite frankly, war-ready. But we don’t want war. We want RISC-V computers, meshnet and all the good stuff of (good) capitalism.
Let me propose what matters, then. There is a crucial part to the story of crypto regulation few are mentioning. Of course it has to do with privacy and money visibility, and fungibility. Now again, of course… all of crypto is under FATF, got it.
But the most vulnerable part of the ecosystem is the one for which the philosophers must speak. Not the businesses; of course businesses in crypto will be compliant; that is not the question at all. At all.
Law and philosophy, to me exists if not ONLY to include the farthest outlier in any group. Let me explain this in a way needlessly inflammatory;
Free speech does NOT exist just to permit heated debate. It does not exist merely to say things that are controversial. First amendment is not even there to protect ‘hate speech.’
Free speech must need include, the ability of the MOST hated, most detested faction of society, to also have a platform under protection of law. Do you know what this means? Because i don’t think most do. This means, in today’s social terms, that free speech exists, if not SOLELY to provide a platform for Neo-Nazis. Do you get it? I doubt you will get it.
In Cryptoland perhaps; free speech is there to enable someone as universally despised as Craig Wright to speak. Show me a man who wants to censor Craig Wright and i’ll show you a man two steps away from becoming a red army executioner. Free market of ideas lets ideas battle it out, and not hating on people from camp SV, because it’s ‘the niggers of crypto world’. Pause and reflect before you call others ‘shitcoiners’… you merely demonstrate how you are not ready for leadership. Alas, minds are immature, not crypto. It is just a tool. Let us delve into AML regulation then.
I don’t care at all how big business, exchanges, defi handles regulation. That much is obvious. The question is, who are the MOST marginalized members of society that the full force and brunt of AML will punish into a digital gulag? Who are they?
Might they be the people whose good intentions drove them to militant-level privacy adherence, and hiding from the government? The one using linux on principle, and mining monero with a trail visible on the ISP providers logs? The guy taking all his FIAT out of the bank, never spending anything visibly?
The individual, in short, is the party at most risk. So let us talk about the individual more, and not so much crypto business. Crypto Business is perhaps two years from full regulatory compliance. But the individual is at (potential) regulatory risk, with no one to protect them from their ‘unwise’ anarchic choices.
The resisting individual who is ‘not in compliance’ is therefore, the only point of concern (to a philosopher at least). The future ‘niggers’ of the cashless society. The people with something to hide. The ones who reject the social project that would bring about utopia, if only, the damn ‘darks’ would ‘get on with the program’. That’s the dystopian narrative at least. You can call me conspiratorial, and i can call you someone who has not understood 20th century history at all.
I am Slavic European; the brunt of government oppression is inscribed on our warring adolescence. It is not like Australians, who, with Bitcoin SV, claim how full compliance with government = moon, and society without crime.
I think Craig Wright is wrong, to be perfectly clear. In that, you cannot root out crime by making the world fully transparent; cashless, open. You can however create the new niggerious class of ‘others’ that way.
And in cryptoland all this heavily implicates Monero. The hated ‘case by case’ project that might become evermore rooted out in an escalating surveillance capitalism. And by extension other privacy coins, and lighting network. And people who use them. Let’s just cut to the chase and ask the FATF about Monero then, shall we? Because what is all this discussion about AML without mentioning Monero, really? It’s trivia.
Not all is dark though. I just need to paint the dystopian image in some part to make a point. In reality, where us freedom folk would have been pessimistic pre-Bitcoin, we are highly optimistic post-Bitcoin.
I commend all regulators for taking it easy and not commencing ‘wholesale de-risking’. The fact is also that something like Monero cannot be stopped. (The recent randoX algorithm cemented that fact.) And fact is, digital cash (anonymous by definition of ‘cash’) will exist.
Thus i feel it my part to bring about a peaceful resolution for the use of digital cash inside a regulated framework. I am not a lawyer at all. My very poetic syllables disgust trained lawmakers. And yet,
Time is coming to either make an enemy of a subset of freedom loving folk under the guise and whip of AML/CFT, or to open dialogue and recognize the grievances of crypto-anarchists who have seen their freedoms continually infringed upon by surveillance capitalism, merkantilism and flawed central planning. What will it be? I guess, what we can discuss upon.
The nerve-endings of crypto regulation are thus the detested, ‘guilt-worthy’ subjects under regulation. Crypto companies are already safe, while the divergent, deviant individuals are ripe to become insignificant totems of centralized power to be made an example of. Never underestimate the malice of man.
Nothing new, nor terrible. Those of us wishing to live ‘fully decentralized’ can now live outside the reach of the legal aparatus, for the first time in decades. Courtesy of blockchain, the biggest innovation since Internet.
And those of us ready for dialogue and compromise can let our precious nodes be seen by big brother, if only the regulators proceed with caution and avarice as they have thus far. If they err and push us over the edge, then as they already deduced, they will spur another grey economy into existence and rebellion.
My proposals upcoming.