FinCEN Rules Bitcoin Payment Processors, Exchanges are ...

US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin reacts to Libra and the prospect of cryptocurrency

YouTube: Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin URGENT Speech on Cryptocurrency 27:31
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin made these prepared remarks (emphasis added) and answered questions:
Last month the Libra Association, a consortium of 28 businesses including a Facebook subsidiary, announced that it is developing a cryptocurrency called the Libra. The Treasury Department has expressed very serious concerns that Libra could be misused by money launderers and terrorist financiers. Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin have been exploited to support billions of dollars of illicit activity like cyber crime, tax evasion, extortion, ransomware, illicit drugs, human trafficking... This is indeed a national security issue.
The United States has been at the forefront of regulating entities that provide cryptocurrency. We will not allow digital asset service providers to operate in the shadows, and will not tolerate the use of the cryptocurrencies in support of illicit activities. Treasury has been very clear to Facebook, bitcoin users, and other providers of digital financial services, that they must implement the same anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism (known as AML/CFT) safeguards as traditional financial institutions. Money transmitters of cryptocurrency must comply with the relevant bank secrecy act obligations (known as BSA), and register with the financial crimes enforcement network, known as FINCEN.
Many people are not familiar with FINCEN. It is a bureau of the US Department of Treasury. FINCEN's mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit use, combat money laundering, and promote national security through the dissemination of financial intelligence. Last year alone it collected over 20 million BSA reports, and has collected over 300 million in the last 11 years. FINCEN implements the bank secrecy act's regulation and has federal regulatory, supervisory, and enforcement authority over money service businesses and banks.
The rules governing money service providers apply to physical and electronic transactions alike. As money service businesses, cryptocurrency money transmitters are subject to compliance examinations just like every other US bank. To be clear, FINCEN will hold any entity that transacts in bitcoin, Libra, or any other cryptocurrency, to its highest standards.
I also recently established the Financial Stability Oversight Council's Working Group on Digital Assets. This FSOC group enables US financial regulators, such as FINCEN, the Fed, OCC, CFTSC, CFPB, SEC, and other key stakeholders to work together to combat risks posed by cryptocurrencies.
As the president has said, bitcoin is highly volatile and based on thin air. We are concerned about the speculative nature of bitcoin and will make sure that the US financial system is protected from fraud. Given the international nature of cryptocurrencies we are also going to great lengths to ensure that effective regulation does not stop here at the US border.
Last month, led by the United States, the Financial Actions Task Force, known as FATF, the global standards-setter for AML/CFT, adopted comprehensive measures on how countries must regulate and supervise activities and providers in this space. This was a major step toward harmonizing international regulations concerning cryptocurrencies. We have also had extensive work at the G20, and I will be addressing this again this week at the G7 finance ministers in France.
To be clear, the US welcomes responsible innovation, including new technologies that may improve the efficiency of the financial system and expand access to financial services. That being said, with respect to Facebook's Libra, and other developments in cryptocurrencies, our overriding goal is to *maintain the integrity of our financial system** and protect it from abuse.
Treasury takes very seriously the role of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, and will continue our efforts to protect our country and secure the US and global financial systems.
submitted by satoshiscrazyuncle to btc [link] [comments]

[Manipulation] Notes on the transparency of Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation

I would like to share some alarming signs of Bitcoin price manipulation.
Bitcoin price is about 10 times of what it was a year ago. The exchange that decisively sets Bitcoin price is Bitfinex, a secretive institution with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organization.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs0oGXQWAAAqMRZ.jpg
Bitfinex had its wire services suspended by Wells Fargo in April. To resume trading, Bitfinex enlisted the help of Tether, another company with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organisation, but based on announcements is likely under common share holder control with Bitfinex. Tether sells crypto-tokens known as USD Tethers, or USDTs, that are purportedly backed by an equal number of US dollars. In other words, each USDT is a digital good priced at USD 1.00.
Despite the promise of "100% reserve" and the vague reference to "24×7 access to your funds" on Tether’s website, there is no contractual right, either tacit or express, for one USDT to be redeemed for one US dollar. It is probably through this legal construct that Tether hopes to characterise its USDTs as digital goods and not "convertible" virtual currency covered by FinCEN regulations.
The invention of USDTs led to the proliferation of numerous crypto-currency exchanges. Examples include Bitfinex, Binance, HitBTC, KKex, Poloniex, and YoBit. Instead of providing crypto-to-fiat trading pairs, these "coin-to-coin" exchanges offer crypto-to-tether trading exclusively. Therefore, USDTs not only help these exchanges remove the need for formal banking arrangement, but also enables these exchanges to organise in lesser known jurisdictions (e.g., the Republic of Seychelles) and operate outside of the regulation and supervision of major economies. Most of these exchanges claim to screen-off visitors from the United States and other countries with laws on coin-to-coin trading, but the screen-off is often perfunctory. In almost all cases, the screen can be defeated with a simple mouse click.
It is doubtful that these exchanges perform meaningful due diligence beyond identity verification to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and corruption of politically exposes persons. Bitfinex, for example, requires no identity verification at all for most trading activities and imposes no trading amount limits on unverified accounts. The enablement of these exchanges where rampant money laundering is possible is outside of the scope of this note. Instead, I would like to bring to your attention the distinct possibility that Bitfinex, as the likely controller of Tether, is a bad actor.
Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that Bitfinex is creating USDTs out of thin air to prop up Bitcoin prices. Namely, Bitfinex is likely acting as a central bank that issues a fiat money called USDTs. The sole mandate of this central bank is to enrich itself through market manipulation.
https://i.imgur.com/b1Pdsq9.jpg
The first image (above) illustrates how mysterious amounts of USDTs were minted and injected into Bitfinex at precise moments when a crash seemed imminent.
https://i.imgur.com/jAyPlF8.jpg
The second image (above) illustrates a strong correlation (but admittedly not causation) between the total amount of USDTs in circulation and Bitcoin price.
Bitfinex released an internal memo in September to allay concerns that USDTs might have been created at will. The memo purportedly shows that Tether maintained sufficient US dollars to match all USDTs in circulation as of a day in September. The memo, however, is of no probative value. Among other strange things, the author of the memo didn’t verify with banks (names redacted) that account balances from Tethers were in fact correct, couldn’t promise that the balances weren’t overnight borrowings for purposes of producing the memo, and couldn’t promise that Tether indeed had access to those funds.
I therefore urge you to consider the possibility that the current price of Bitcoin is the result of Bitfinex’s manipulation and may collapse when regulators take action.
For example, Tether is almost certainly an administrator of virtual currency — it centrally puts into and withdraws from circulation USDTs, a virtual currency squarely intended as a substitute for real currency as admitted by Tether in the internal memo.
Tether has nominally registered as a money transmitter with FinCEN, but it is unclear if they fulfill any of the BSA filing requirements (e.g., filing SARs).2 As a company, Tether’s USDTs enables large crypto-currency exchanges (including US-based exchanges like Poloniex) to exist and powers trades thereon in the amount of millions every day. So it wouldn’t be surprising if FinCEN eventually decides to enforce its rules against Tether as it did against Liberty Reserve.
Further, CFTC approved recently various swap execution facilities, designated contract markets and derivative clearing organizations with Bitcoin flavor. And the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is expected to launch cash-settled futures on Bitcoin soon. Manipulation of Bitcoin prices referenced by these entities is prosecutable by the CFTC, an agency with broad statutory authority to prosecute manipulation of commodity prices under the Commodity Exchange Act (including Section 753 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.).
Although none of these CFTC-registered entities are currently including Bitfinex in the calculation of their Bitcoin reference rates (CME used to), it is well understood and could be easily established (partially because of the transparency of Bitcoin blockchain) that Bitfinex-initiated price movements ripple through all exchanges via manual and automated trading.3 CFTC could then have grounds to investigate Bitfinex’s possible manipulation of Bitcoin price via Tether.
If you are considering investing into Bitcoin at this time, please look closer at the exchanges involved in price discovery and give it a second thought.
submitted by Yanlii to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

[Manipulation] Notes on the transparency of Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation

I would like to share some alarming signs of Bitcoin price manipulation.
Bitcoin price is about 10 times of what it was a year ago. The exchange that decisively sets Bitcoin price is Bitfinex, a secretive institution with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organization.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs0oGXQWAAAqMRZ.jpg
Bitfinex had its wire services suspended by Wells Fargo in April. To resume trading, Bitfinex enlisted the help of Tether, another company with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organisation, but based on announcements is likely under common share holder control with Bitfinex. Tether sells crypto-tokens known as USD Tethers, or USDTs, that are purportedly backed by an equal number of US dollars. In other words, each USDT is a digital good priced at USD 1.00.
Despite the promise of "100% reserve" and the vague reference to "24×7 access to your funds" on Tether’s website, there is no contractual right, either tacit or express, for one USDT to be redeemed for one US dollar. It is probably through this legal construct that Tether hopes to characterise its USDTs as digital goods and not "convertible" virtual currency covered by FinCEN regulations.
The invention of USDTs led to the proliferation of numerous crypto-currency exchanges. Examples include Bitfinex, Binance, HitBTC, KKex, Poloniex, and YoBit. Instead of providing crypto-to-fiat trading pairs, these "coin-to-coin" exchanges offer crypto-to-tether trading exclusively. Therefore, USDTs not only help these exchanges remove the need for formal banking arrangement, but also enables these exchanges to organise in lesser known jurisdictions (e.g., the Republic of Seychelles) and operate outside of the regulation and supervision of major economies. Most of these exchanges claim to screen-off visitors from the United States and other countries with laws on coin-to-coin trading, but the screen-off is often perfunctory. In almost all cases, the screen can be defeated with a simple mouse click.
It is doubtful that these exchanges perform meaningful due diligence beyond identity verification to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and corruption of politically exposes persons. Bitfinex, for example, requires no identity verification at all for most trading activities and imposes no trading amount limits on unverified accounts. The enablement of these exchanges where rampant money laundering is possible is outside of the scope of this note. Instead, I would like to bring to your attention the distinct possibility that Bitfinex, as the likely controller of Tether, is a bad actor.
Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that Bitfinex is creating USDTs out of thin air to prop up Bitcoin prices. Namely, Bitfinex is likely acting as a central bank that issues a fiat money called USDTs. The sole mandate of this central bank is to enrich itself through market manipulation.
https://i.imgur.com/b1Pdsq9.jpg
The first image (above) illustrates how mysterious amounts of USDTs were minted and injected into Bitfinex at precise moments when a crash seemed imminent.
https://i.imgur.com/jAyPlF8.jpg
The second image (above) illustrates a strong correlation (but admittedly not causation) between the total amount of USDTs in circulation and Bitcoin price.
Bitfinex released an internal memo in September to allay concerns that USDTs might have been created at will. The memo purportedly shows that Tether maintained sufficient US dollars to match all USDTs in circulation as of a day in September. The memo, however, is of no probative value. Among other strange things, the author of the memo didn’t verify with banks (names redacted) that account balances from Tethers were in fact correct, couldn’t promise that the balances weren’t overnight borrowings for purposes of producing the memo, and couldn’t promise that Tether indeed had access to those funds.
I therefore urge you to consider the possibility that the current price of Bitcoin is the result of Bitfinex’s manipulation and may collapse when regulators take action.
For example, Tether is almost certainly an administrator of virtual currency — it centrally puts into and withdraws from circulation USDTs, a virtual currency squarely intended as a substitute for real currency as admitted by Tether in the internal memo.
Tether has nominally registered as a money transmitter with FinCEN, but it is unclear if they fulfill any of the BSA filing requirements (e.g., filing SARs).2 As a company, Tether’s USDTs enables large crypto-currency exchanges (including US-based exchanges like Poloniex) to exist and powers trades thereon in the amount of millions every day. So it wouldn’t be surprising if FinCEN eventually decides to enforce its rules against Tether as it did against Liberty Reserve.
Further, CFTC approved recently various swap execution facilities, designated contract markets and derivative clearing organizations with Bitcoin flavor. And the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is expected to launch cash-settled futures on Bitcoin soon. Manipulation of Bitcoin prices referenced by these entities is prosecutable by the CFTC, an agency with broad statutory authority to prosecute manipulation of commodity prices under the Commodity Exchange Act (including Section 753 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.).
Although none of these CFTC-registered entities are currently including Bitfinex in the calculation of their Bitcoin reference rates (CME used to), it is well understood and could be easily established (partially because of the transparency of Bitcoin blockchain) that Bitfinex-initiated price movements ripple through all exchanges via manual and automated trading.3 CFTC could then have grounds to investigate Bitfinex’s possible manipulation of Bitcoin price via Tether.
If you are considering investing into Bitcoin at this time, please look closer at the exchanges involved in price discovery and give it a second thought.
submitted by Yanlii to btc [link] [comments]

[Manipulation] Notes on the transparency of Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation

I would like to share some alarming signs of Bitcoin price manipulation.
Bitcoin price is about 10 times of what it was a year ago. The exchange that decisively sets Bitcoin price is Bitfinex, a secretive institution with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organization.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs0oGXQWAAAqMRZ.jpg
Bitfinex had its wire services suspended by Wells Fargo in April. To resume trading, Bitfinex enlisted the help of Tether, another company with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organisation, but based on announcements is likely under common share holder control with Bitfinex. Tether sells crypto-tokens known as USD Tethers, or USDTs, that are purportedly backed by an equal number of US dollars. In other words, each USDT is a digital good priced at USD 1.00.
Despite the promise of "100% reserve" and the vague reference to "24×7 access to your funds" on Tether’s website, there is no contractual right, either tacit or express, for one USDT to be redeemed for one US dollar. It is probably through this legal construct that Tether hopes to characterise its USDTs as digital goods and not "convertible" virtual currency covered by FinCEN regulations.
The invention of USDTs led to the proliferation of numerous crypto-currency exchanges. Examples include Bitfinex, Binance, HitBTC, KKex, Poloniex, and YoBit. Instead of providing crypto-to-fiat trading pairs, these "coin-to-coin" exchanges offer crypto-to-tether trading exclusively. Therefore, USDTs not only help these exchanges remove the need for formal banking arrangement, but also enables these exchanges to organise in lesser known jurisdictions (e.g., the Republic of Seychelles) and operate outside of the regulation and supervision of major economies. Most of these exchanges claim to screen-off visitors from the United States and other countries with laws on coin-to-coin trading, but the screen-off is often perfunctory. In almost all cases, the screen can be defeated with a simple mouse click.
It is doubtful that these exchanges perform meaningful due diligence beyond identity verification to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and corruption of politically exposes persons. Bitfinex, for example, requires no identity verification at all for most trading activities and imposes no trading amount limits on unverified accounts. The enablement of these exchanges where rampant money laundering is possible is outside of the scope of this note. Instead, I would like to bring to your attention the distinct possibility that Bitfinex, as the likely controller of Tether, is a bad actor.
Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that Bitfinex is creating USDTs out of thin air to prop up Bitcoin prices. Namely, Bitfinex is likely acting as a central bank that issues a fiat money called USDTs. The sole mandate of this central bank is to enrich itself through market manipulation.
https://i.imgur.com/b1Pdsq9.jpg
The first image (above) illustrates how mysterious amounts of USDTs were minted and injected into Bitfinex at precise moments when a crash seemed imminent.
https://i.imgur.com/jAyPlF8.jpg
The second image (above) illustrates a strong correlation (but admittedly not causation) between the total amount of USDTs in circulation and Bitcoin price.
Bitfinex released an internal memo in September to allay concerns that USDTs might have been created at will. The memo purportedly shows that Tether maintained sufficient US dollars to match all USDTs in circulation as of a day in September. The memo, however, is of no probative value. Among other strange things, the author of the memo didn’t verify with banks (names redacted) that account balances from Tethers were in fact correct, couldn’t promise that the balances weren’t overnight borrowings for purposes of producing the memo, and couldn’t promise that Tether indeed had access to those funds.
I therefore urge you to consider the possibility that the current price of Bitcoin is the result of Bitfinex’s manipulation and may collapse when regulators take action.
For example, Tether is almost certainly an administrator of virtual currency — it centrally puts into and withdraws from circulation USDTs, a virtual currency squarely intended as a substitute for real currency as admitted by Tether in the internal memo.
Tether has nominally registered as a money transmitter with FinCEN, but it is unclear if they fulfill any of the BSA filing requirements (e.g., filing SARs).2 As a company, Tether’s USDTs enables large crypto-currency exchanges (including US-based exchanges like Poloniex) to exist and powers trades thereon in the amount of millions every day. So it wouldn’t be surprising if FinCEN eventually decides to enforce its rules against Tether as it did against Liberty Reserve.
Further, CFTC approved recently various swap execution facilities, designated contract markets and derivative clearing organizations with Bitcoin flavor. And the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is expected to launch cash-settled futures on Bitcoin soon. Manipulation of Bitcoin prices referenced by these entities is prosecutable by the CFTC, an agency with broad statutory authority to prosecute manipulation of commodity prices under the Commodity Exchange Act (including Section 753 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.).
Although none of these CFTC-registered entities are currently including Bitfinex in the calculation of their Bitcoin reference rates (CME used to), it is well understood and could be easily established (partially because of the transparency of Bitcoin blockchain) that Bitfinex-initiated price movements ripple through all exchanges via manual and automated trading.3 CFTC could then have grounds to investigate Bitfinex’s possible manipulation of Bitcoin price via Tether.
If you are considering investing into Bitcoin at this time, please look closer at the exchanges involved in price discovery and give it a second thought.
submitted by Yanlii to Tether [link] [comments]

[Manipulation] Notes on the transparency of Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation

I would like to share some alarming signs of Bitcoin price manipulation.
Bitcoin price is about 10 times of what it was a year ago. The exchange that decisively sets Bitcoin price is Bitfinex, a secretive institution with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organization.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs0oGXQWAAAqMRZ.jpg
Bitfinex had its wire services suspended by Wells Fargo in April. To resume trading, Bitfinex enlisted the help of Tether, another company with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organisation, but based on announcements is likely under common share holder control with Bitfinex. Tether sells crypto-tokens known as USD Tethers, or USDTs, that are purportedly backed by an equal number of US dollars. In other words, each USDT is a digital good priced at USD 1.00.
Despite the promise of "100% reserve" and the vague reference to "24×7 access to your funds" on Tether’s website, there is no contractual right, either tacit or express, for one USDT to be redeemed for one US dollar. It is probably through this legal construct that Tether hopes to characterise its USDTs as digital goods and not "convertible" virtual currency covered by FinCEN regulations.
The invention of USDTs led to the proliferation of numerous crypto-currency exchanges. Examples include Bitfinex, Binance, HitBTC, KKex, Poloniex, and YoBit. Instead of providing crypto-to-fiat trading pairs, these "coin-to-coin" exchanges offer crypto-to-tether trading exclusively. Therefore, USDTs not only help these exchanges remove the need for formal banking arrangement, but also enables these exchanges to organise in lesser known jurisdictions (e.g., the Republic of Seychelles) and operate outside of the regulation and supervision of major economies. Most of these exchanges claim to screen-off visitors from the United States and other countries with laws on coin-to-coin trading, but the screen-off is often perfunctory. In almost all cases, the screen can be defeated with a simple mouse click.
It is doubtful that these exchanges perform meaningful due diligence beyond identity verification to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and corruption of politically exposes persons. Bitfinex, for example, requires no identity verification at all for most trading activities and imposes no trading amount limits on unverified accounts. The enablement of these exchanges where rampant money laundering is possible is outside of the scope of this note. Instead, I would like to bring to your attention the distinct possibility that Bitfinex, as the likely controller of Tether, is a bad actor.
Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that Bitfinex is creating USDTs out of thin air to prop up Bitcoin prices. Namely, Bitfinex is likely acting as a central bank that issues a fiat money called USDTs. The sole mandate of this central bank is to enrich itself through market manipulation.
https://i.imgur.com/b1Pdsq9.jpg
The first image (above) illustrates how mysterious amounts of USDTs were minted and injected into Bitfinex at precise moments when a crash seemed imminent.
https://i.imgur.com/jAyPlF8.jpg
The second image (above) illustrates a strong correlation (but admittedly not causation) between the total amount of USDTs in circulation and Bitcoin price.
Bitfinex released an internal memo in September to allay concerns that USDTs might have been created at will. The memo purportedly shows that Tether maintained sufficient US dollars to match all USDTs in circulation as of a day in September. The memo, however, is of no probative value. Among other strange things, the author of the memo didn’t verify with banks (names redacted) that account balances from Tethers were in fact correct, couldn’t promise that the balances weren’t overnight borrowings for purposes of producing the memo, and couldn’t promise that Tether indeed had access to those funds.
I therefore urge you to consider the possibility that the current price of Bitcoin is the result of Bitfinex’s manipulation and may collapse when regulators take action.
For example, Tether is almost certainly an administrator of virtual currency — it centrally puts into and withdraws from circulation USDTs, a virtual currency squarely intended as a substitute for real currency as admitted by Tether in the internal memo.
Tether has nominally registered as a money transmitter with FinCEN, but it is unclear if they fulfill any of the BSA filing requirements (e.g., filing SARs).2 As a company, Tether’s USDTs enables large crypto-currency exchanges (including US-based exchanges like Poloniex) to exist and powers trades thereon in the amount of millions every day. So it wouldn’t be surprising if FinCEN eventually decides to enforce its rules against Tether as it did against Liberty Reserve.
Further, CFTC approved recently various swap execution facilities, designated contract markets and derivative clearing organizations with Bitcoin flavor. And the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is expected to launch cash-settled futures on Bitcoin soon. Manipulation of Bitcoin prices referenced by these entities is prosecutable by the CFTC, an agency with broad statutory authority to prosecute manipulation of commodity prices under the Commodity Exchange Act (including Section 753 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.).
Although none of these CFTC-registered entities are currently including Bitfinex in the calculation of their Bitcoin reference rates (CME used to), it is well understood and could be easily established (partially because of the transparency of Bitcoin blockchain) that Bitfinex-initiated price movements ripple through all exchanges via manual and automated trading.3 CFTC could then have grounds to investigate Bitfinex’s possible manipulation of Bitcoin price via Tether.
If you are considering investing into Bitcoin at this time, please look closer at the exchanges involved in price discovery and give it a second thought.
submitted by Yanlii to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Adam S. Tracy Breaks Down FINCEN’s Regulation of Cryptocurrency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qbUG05jKPY
Cryptocurrency attorney Adam S. Tracy discusses FINCEN’s regulation of cryptocurrency and the impact on traders, cryptocurrency exchanges, and OTC bitcoin dealers. Email: [email protected]
— —
A former competitive rugby player, serial entrepreneur and, trader attorney, Adam S. Tracy offers over 17 years of progressive legal and compliance experience in the areas of corporate, commodities, cryptocurrency, litigation, payments and securities law. Adam’s experience ranges from commodities trader for oil giant BP, initial public offerings, M&A, to initial coin offerings, having represented both startups to NASDAQ-listed entities. As an early Bitcoin adapter, Adam has promoted growth of cryptocurrency and offers a unique approach to representing crypto-clients. Based in Chicago, IL, Adam graduated from the University of Notre Dame with dual degrees in Finance and Computer Applications and would later obtain his J.D. and M.B.A. from DePaul University. Adam lives outside Chicago with his six animals, which is illegal where he lives.
Email me: [email protected]
Primary website: http://www.tracyfirm.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/TracyFirm
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVOa...
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamtracy/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetracyfirm/
Instagram: @adamtracyattorney
Telegram: @adam_tracy
Skype: @adamtracyesq
Email me: [email protected]
TRANSCRIPTION:
Obviously, there’s a huge emphasis on compliance from a cryptocurrency standpoint with respect to the SEC and to a lesser extent to the CFTC. But the one government agency that’s really put forth the most guidance, if you will, would be FinCEN. And we’ve talked about money service business registration in past, and FinCEN is the government agency that is dealt with enacting the tenants of the Bank Secrecy Act and overseeing money service businesses. And so FinCEN has put out guidance that sort of defines the players in the cryptocurrency market. And those three players are: users, administrators, and exchangers.
And so user is someone who uses virtual currency or cryptocurrency to buy and sell goods. FinCEN has come out directly and said that a user is not a money transmitter and hence not a money service business. An exchanger is one who deals in the exchange of cryptocurrency — the buying and selling of cryptocurrency in exchange for real or other virtual currencies. And in most cases FinCEN and has found that a exchanger is a money transmitter and thus a money service business, and subject to registration as a money service business. Then finally, an administrator, which is the interesting sort element here, is a party that issues virtual currency and has the ability to redeem that virtual currency. And in most cases FinCEN has found that an administrator is, in fact, a money transmitter and thus a money service, and is required to register as a money service business. And it’s a weird implication, or important implication, for ICO companies because they are obviously issuing cryptocurrency, but the caveat or sort of the tenant where I think most ICO companies fall out of the definition of an administrator is that most ICO companies don’t have the ability to redeem their cryptocurrency, right? They issue it, but they don’t redeem it. So therefore they wouldn’t fall into that definition of a money transmitter. So, you know, it’s a very strange implication because there are some ICOs out there that, you know, have this innate ability to redeem whether through conversion or some other mechanism the cryptocurrency that they’ve issued and sold. And technically by the book, according to FinCEN, you are the money transmitter and you need to register as a money service business or face severe fines, penalties, and the like. That’s sort of point one that people, I think, overlook.
Point two is, you know, how do you, sort of, fall outside the ambit of this, if you are a speculator, right? Let’s say I’m an individual who engages in the buying and selling of cryptocurrency or the arbitrage of different cryptocurrencies for my own account. FinCEN has come out with a decision that actually exempts such activity from the definition an exchanger, which across the board is almost always a money transmitter and thus required to register as a money service business. So, you know, there’s a great emphasis on the SEC, and where the SEC is going to fall, and to some extent the CFTC. And that’s valid. That’s super valid, because ultimately that’s cryptocurrency and the large part is a function of an ICO and raising capital for businesses, right? And so the question becomes are we engaging in offerings of securities? And that’s another discussion for another time. But what is codified, what is real, what people overlook, in my opinion my humble opinion for it’s worth, is FinCEN, and their money service business registration and the money transmitter laws that are associated there with. So, it’s definitely something to consider and definitely something to check out, you know, depending on what player you are within the the ecosphere of cryptocurrency. So check me out — TracyFirm.com.
submitted by bitattorney to u/bitattorney [link] [comments]

US Bitcoin traders who identify as users are under siege. Do you have the same issue in your country?

As a bitcoin trader myself, I follow all the news of us trader arrests. These fall into two categories. First, the user did something otherwise unlawful such as trafficking drugs or committing money laundering and was charged with "operating an unlicensed money servicing business" and "conspiracy for agreeing to distribute controlled dangerous substances". In these types of cases I agree that the user should be punished for conspiracy to distribute drugs and money laundering. The second type of case that is becoming far more prevalent now is where the bitcoin user has simply made sales and purchases of bitcoin for his or her own account. These users are still charged with "Operating an unlicensed money services business."
This I do not agree with at all because FIN-2008-G008 declared that "When a broker or dealer in currency or other commodities accepts and transmits funds solely for the purpose of effecting a bona fide purchase or sale of currency or other commodities for or with a customer, such person is not engaged as a business in the transfer of funds, and is not acting as a money transmitter as that term is defined in our regulations.8 In such circumstances, the transmission of funds is a fundamental element of the actual transaction necessary to execute the contract for the purchase or sale of the currency or the other commodity. The transmission of funds is not a separate and discrete service provided in addition to the underlying transaction. It is a necessary and integral part of the transaction."
This determination was reiterated in subsequent guidance FIN-2013-G001 & response FIN-2014-R002. Simply put a bitcoin user who only purchases or sells bitcoin of his own account to or from a customer is not a money transmitter.
Most simple bitcoin traders operate under this guidance and are simply flabbergasted when confronted with charges for operating an "unlicensed money services business" or "operating an unlicensed bitcoin exchange". When the government makes their case the conveniently only quote the portion of the rule that states " An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in theexchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency". [FIN-2013-G001] Except that it is clearly explained in FIN-2008-G008 that "When a broker or dealer in currency or other commodities accepts and transmits funds solely for the purpose of effecting a bona fide purchase or sale of currency or other commodities for or with a customer, such person is not engaged as a business in the transfer of funds, and is not acting as a money transmitter as that term is defined in our regulations." This is carried forward and reiterated in FIN-2013-G001 where it states "In 2008, FinCEN issued guidance stating that as long as a broker or dealer in real currency or other commodities accepts and transmits funds solely for the purpose of effecting a bona fide purchase or sale of the real currency or other commodities for or with a customer, such person is not acting as a money transmitter under the regulations. However, if the broker or dealer transfers funds between a customer and a third party that is not part of the currency or commodity transaction, such transmission of funds is no longer a fundamental element of the actual transaction necessary to execute the contract for the purchase or sale of the currency or the other commodity. This scenario is, therefore, money transmission. Examples include, in part, (1) the transfer of funds between a customer and a third party by permitting a third party to fund a customer’s account; (2) the transfer of value from a customer’s currency or commodity position to the account of another customer; or (3) the closing out of a customer’s currency or commodity position, with a transfer of proceeds to a third party. Since the definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies, the same rules apply to brokers and dealers of e-currency and e-precious metals.
A simple way to think about the definition of a money transmitter is that a money transmitter typically collects funds from one customer and transmits those funds to another customer via its agents in a remote location. So A western Union agent for example collects $100 from Bob Smith in Iowa and deposits this money into its Bank of America Account. Peggy Sue in Ohio goes to a western union agent where the agent prints out a check from western union or gets an ach credit into its business checking account from Bank of America and pays out a portion of the received funds to Peggy Sue. Western Union is transmitting money by accepting it from agent A and transmitting it to agent B for further credit to Peggy Sue. So let's think about this in terms of bitcoin. Bitcoin is a centralized ledger of funds for each public key or "account". If I have 0.05 bitcoin in account 1001 and I want to pay my landlord 0.05 bitcoin rent,I send the bitcoin to account 1002. All this does is make a notation on the blockchain that account 1001 now has 0 bitcoin and account 1002 now has 0.05 bitcoin. This is simplified a bit so you programmers out there don't cringe over the details of constructing a bitcoin transaction, inputs, and outputs. Suffice it to say, that sending my landlord who is standing next to me, 0.05 bitcoin, does not make me a money transmitter any more than paying him with my VISA card. In fact in both cases we could consider VISA or bitcoin a money transmitter since they take funds from person A and transmit them to person B via their agents. In VISA's case the party's banks are the agents, while in bitcoin's example the agents could be the wallet program on each phone or computer that reads the person's wallet or account balance.
Circle back to our friendly traders under siege. No, not the criminals slinging drugs, they knowingly committed their actions. I'm speaking about the bitcoin users, only selling or purchasing bitcoins from their own account to or from a customer. These traders haven't committed an offenses at all according to fincen's directions. What does the government do? Do they engage in a public information campaign to inform these traders of their rights and responsibilities? Do they create a new MSB category for digital currency and define rules and responsibilities for a virtual currency trader? No, instead they try to mislead traders in these cases where a secondary offense such as drug trafficking hasn't been committed. "You have got to be kidding me. Right?" No, I'm really not. If you start reading into these cases you'll find literally hundreds of examples of agents encouraging traders to send bitcoin to a trader in Africa for example so that trader can disburse local currency to a friend. Agents buying bitcoin for less than $10,000 USD without ID and considering this illegal behavior in the indictment! Remember a user doesn't need to report any transaction unless it exceeds $10,000 USD if it is part of his trade or business. If an auto worker who is a casual user that only trades bitcoin 3 times a year sold his for Christmas money to a friend, he wouldn't even need to report the $15,000 sale. But most traders who trade on a daily basis or do it for a living will need to file either an IRS 8300 or a Fincen CTR. Such agents who approach these casual traders entice them with inflated rates and use such phrases as "I'm going to make you rich!'". And they often ask questions about limits and regulations that don't apply to the bitcoin user. They consider all responses as violations of the money transmitter regulations that aren't supposed to apply.
So what is a trader to do? You have two choices. You can follow the law literally as most have done and have countless agents come and test you...and then worry about being arrested on charges that don't even apply to you except when acting unlawfully when strongly encouraged or even elicited under duress in some cases by government agents. Or you can falsely claim you are a money transmitter and follow those rules.
On my own personal journey I decided in October of 2014 to register with Fincen because I saw that one of my suppliers had done so on his website. I asked him about it and he said it was a precautionary measure. I asked around and I was told by many that I had to select money transmitter and other and write in bitcoin trader because there was no selection for bitcoin trader. This in spite of not being a money transmitter. After I had registered I received a call from a man in "Internal Revenue" in Boston about my registration. He asked me about my bitcoin trading and then he said he had to consult with a supervisor. About 15 minutes later he returned my call and told me, "You are not a money transmitter, so I don't need anything from you." A couple months after that, I received a call from Key Bank's compliance office in Cleveland. They had detected my registration as a money transmitter with Fincen and wanted to ask me a few questions. After questioning me, the lady told me that she previously worked for fincen and that I was not an MSB. Key bank had me sign an affidavit that I wouldn't perform any money services businesses activities such as cashing checks for profit, transmitting money, issue money orders, or create gift cards. This compliance officer understood that I was not an exchange in any way and that I only purchased and sold bitcoin of my own account. She understood I didn't hold funds for customers to trade with each other of their own accord like Bitstamp, Kraken, or Gemini.
In the years that would follow, I would have many bank accounts shut down due to this registration as a money transmitter. Most banks simply looked and said, you are a money transmitter. After all, you registered as one. I called Ficen and asked if I could un-register. "No, you cannot". The banks wouldn't even listen to the facts and make a decision. The only other business to actually study my investment model and grant me user status was Gemini. They also agreed I was a user. I think years later they came under pressure to terminate all localbitcoins accounts because many were terminated and at the end of those, mine was too. Was it a coincidence? Or could one of my customers have sabotaged me? It is possible for a user to lie about his wallet address and give out one belonging to a site such as Alphabay. I had one customer do this to me when I was selling him coin from Alphabay. Coinbase questioned me about the transaction and I informed them that someone I was sending money give that wallet out as his own. They reinstated my account since I had years of history with them and it was only one transaction. After that I was careful not to send to customer wallets directly from coinbase. I guess my point is here, if you don't register as a money transmitter they want to harass and prosecute you; but if you do register as a money transmitter they still want to harass and shut down your business. I have recently been engaged in conversations with Fincen by email and by phone and other traders. I haven't been able to speak with many compliance people who are knowledgeable about bitcoin. When I do, for example I've spoken with BitAML on this subject, they agree with me about being a user as a trader. Other compliance people won't even answer my emails or call me back. Now I'm on the verge of either retiring or going the whole money transmitter route and even following the $3,000 ID requirement that only applies to money orders, traveler's checks, and money transfers, but not virtual currency. So my question to you is, do you have the same kinds of problems in your country? Is it better, or worse where you are? Tell me your stories. From my perspective now at least, it seems like the USA has the most malfeasance and harassment of the simple bitcoin traders, excluding those who commit crimes.
Thanks for reading
submitted by scottemick to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Manipulation] Notes on the transparency of Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation

I would like to share some alarming signs of Bitcoin price manipulation.
Bitcoin price is about 10 times of what it was a year ago. The exchange that decisively sets Bitcoin price is Bitfinex, a secretive institution with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organization.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs0oGXQWAAAqMRZ.jpg
Bitfinex had its wire services suspended by Wells Fargo in April. To resume trading, Bitfinex enlisted the help of Tether, another company with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organisation, but based on announcements is likely under common share holder control with Bitfinex. Tether sells crypto-tokens known as USD Tethers, or USDTs, that are purportedly backed by an equal number of US dollars. In other words, each USDT is a digital good priced at USD 1.00.
Despite the promise of "100% reserve" and the vague reference to "24×7 access to your funds" on Tether’s website, there is no contractual right, either tacit or express, for one USDT to be redeemed for one US dollar. It is probably through this legal construct that Tether hopes to characterise its USDTs as digital goods and not "convertible" virtual currency covered by FinCEN regulations.
The invention of USDTs led to the proliferation of numerous crypto-currency exchanges. Examples include Bitfinex, Binance, HitBTC, KKex, Poloniex, and YoBit. Instead of providing crypto-to-fiat trading pairs, these "coin-to-coin" exchanges offer crypto-to-tether trading exclusively. Therefore, USDTs not only help these exchanges remove the need for formal banking arrangement, but also enables these exchanges to organise in lesser known jurisdictions (e.g., the Republic of Seychelles) and operate outside of the regulation and supervision of major economies. Most of these exchanges claim to screen-off visitors from the United States and other countries with laws on coin-to-coin trading, but the screen-off is often perfunctory. In almost all cases, the screen can be defeated with a simple mouse click.
It is doubtful that these exchanges perform meaningful due diligence beyond identity verification to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and corruption of politically exposes persons. Bitfinex, for example, requires no identity verification at all for most trading activities and imposes no trading amount limits on unverified accounts. The enablement of these exchanges where rampant money laundering is possible is outside of the scope of this note. Instead, I would like to bring to your attention the distinct possibility that Bitfinex, as the likely controller of Tether, is a bad actor.
Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that Bitfinex is creating USDTs out of thin air to prop up Bitcoin prices. Namely, Bitfinex is likely acting as a central bank that issues a fiat money called USDTs. The sole mandate of this central bank is to enrich itself through market manipulation.
https://i.imgur.com/b1Pdsq9.jpg
The first image (above) illustrates how mysterious amounts of USDTs were minted and injected into Bitfinex at precise moments when a crash seemed imminent.
https://i.imgur.com/jAyPlF8.jpg
The second image (above) illustrates a strong correlation (but admittedly not causation) between the total amount of USDTs in circulation and Bitcoin price.
Bitfinex released an internal memo in September to allay concerns that USDTs might have been created at will. The memo purportedly shows that Tether maintained sufficient US dollars to match all USDTs in circulation as of a day in September. The memo, however, is of no probative value. Among other strange things, the author of the memo didn’t verify with banks (names redacted) that account balances from Tethers were in fact correct, couldn’t promise that the balances weren’t overnight borrowings for purposes of producing the memo, and couldn’t promise that Tether indeed had access to those funds.
I therefore urge you to consider the possibility that the current price of Bitcoin is the result of Bitfinex’s manipulation and may collapse when regulators take action.
For example, Tether is almost certainly an administrator of virtual currency — it centrally puts into and withdraws from circulation USDTs, a virtual currency squarely intended as a substitute for real currency as admitted by Tether in the internal memo.
Tether has nominally registered as a money transmitter with FinCEN, but it is unclear if they fulfill any of the BSA filing requirements (e.g., filing SARs).2 As a company, Tether’s USDTs enables large crypto-currency exchanges (including US-based exchanges like Poloniex) to exist and powers trades thereon in the amount of millions every day. So it wouldn’t be surprising if FinCEN eventually decides to enforce its rules against Tether as it did against Liberty Reserve.
Further, CFTC approved recently various swap execution facilities, designated contract markets and derivative clearing organizations with Bitcoin flavor. And the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is expected to launch cash-settled futures on Bitcoin soon. Manipulation of Bitcoin prices referenced by these entities is prosecutable by the CFTC, an agency with broad statutory authority to prosecute manipulation of commodity prices under the Commodity Exchange Act (including Section 753 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.).
Although none of these CFTC-registered entities are currently including Bitfinex in the calculation of their Bitcoin reference rates (CME used to), it is well understood and could be easily established (partially because of the transparency of Bitcoin blockchain) that Bitfinex-initiated price movements ripple through all exchanges via manual and automated trading.3 CFTC could then have grounds to investigate Bitfinex’s possible manipulation of Bitcoin price via Tether.
If you are considering investing into Bitcoin at this time, please look closer at the exchanges involved in price discovery and give it a second thought.
submitted by Yanlii to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

[Manipulation] Notes on the transparency of Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation

I would like to share some alarming signs of Bitcoin price manipulation.
Bitcoin price is about 10 times of what it was a year ago. The exchange that decisively sets Bitcoin price is Bitfinex, a secretive institution with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organization.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs0oGXQWAAAqMRZ.jpg
Bitfinex had its wire services suspended by Wells Fargo in April. To resume trading, Bitfinex enlisted the help of Tether, another company with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organisation, but based on announcements is likely under common share holder control with Bitfinex. Tether sells crypto-tokens known as USD Tethers, or USDTs, that are purportedly backed by an equal number of US dollars. In other words, each USDT is a digital good priced at USD 1.00.
Despite the promise of "100% reserve" and the vague reference to "24×7 access to your funds" on Tether’s website, there is no contractual right, either tacit or express, for one USDT to be redeemed for one US dollar. It is probably through this legal construct that Tether hopes to characterise its USDTs as digital goods and not "convertible" virtual currency covered by FinCEN regulations.
The invention of USDTs led to the proliferation of numerous crypto-currency exchanges. Examples include Bitfinex, Binance, HitBTC, KKex, Poloniex, and YoBit. Instead of providing crypto-to-fiat trading pairs, these "coin-to-coin" exchanges offer crypto-to-tether trading exclusively. Therefore, USDTs not only help these exchanges remove the need for formal banking arrangement, but also enables these exchanges to organise in lesser known jurisdictions (e.g., the Republic of Seychelles) and operate outside of the regulation and supervision of major economies. Most of these exchanges claim to screen-off visitors from the United States and other countries with laws on coin-to-coin trading, but the screen-off is often perfunctory. In almost all cases, the screen can be defeated with a simple mouse click.
It is doubtful that these exchanges perform meaningful due diligence beyond identity verification to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and corruption of politically exposes persons. Bitfinex, for example, requires no identity verification at all for most trading activities and imposes no trading amount limits on unverified accounts. The enablement of these exchanges where rampant money laundering is possible is outside of the scope of this note. Instead, I would like to bring to your attention the distinct possibility that Bitfinex, as the likely controller of Tether, is a bad actor.
Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that Bitfinex is creating USDTs out of thin air to prop up Bitcoin prices. Namely, Bitfinex is likely acting as a central bank that issues a fiat money called USDTs. The sole mandate of this central bank is to enrich itself through market manipulation.
https://i.imgur.com/b1Pdsq9.jpg
The first image (above) illustrates how mysterious amounts of USDTs were minted and injected into Bitfinex at precise moments when a crash seemed imminent.
https://i.imgur.com/jAyPlF8.jpg
The second image (above) illustrates a strong correlation (but admittedly not causation) between the total amount of USDTs in circulation and Bitcoin price.
Bitfinex released an internal memo in September to allay concerns that USDTs might have been created at will. The memo purportedly shows that Tether maintained sufficient US dollars to match all USDTs in circulation as of a day in September. The memo, however, is of no probative value. Among other strange things, the author of the memo didn’t verify with banks (names redacted) that account balances from Tethers were in fact correct, couldn’t promise that the balances weren’t overnight borrowings for purposes of producing the memo, and couldn’t promise that Tether indeed had access to those funds.
I therefore urge you to consider the possibility that the current price of Bitcoin is the result of Bitfinex’s manipulation and may collapse when regulators take action.
For example, Tether is almost certainly an administrator of virtual currency — it centrally puts into and withdraws from circulation USDTs, a virtual currency squarely intended as a substitute for real currency as admitted by Tether in the internal memo.
Tether has nominally registered as a money transmitter with FinCEN, but it is unclear if they fulfill any of the BSA filing requirements (e.g., filing SARs).2 As a company, Tether’s USDTs enables large crypto-currency exchanges (including US-based exchanges like Poloniex) to exist and powers trades thereon in the amount of millions every day. So it wouldn’t be surprising if FinCEN eventually decides to enforce its rules against Tether as it did against Liberty Reserve.
Further, CFTC approved recently various swap execution facilities, designated contract markets and derivative clearing organizations with Bitcoin flavor. And the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is expected to launch cash-settled futures on Bitcoin soon. Manipulation of Bitcoin prices referenced by these entities is prosecutable by the CFTC, an agency with broad statutory authority to prosecute manipulation of commodity prices under the Commodity Exchange Act (including Section 753 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.).
Although none of these CFTC-registered entities are currently including Bitfinex in the calculation of their Bitcoin reference rates (CME used to), it is well understood and could be easily established (partially because of the transparency of Bitcoin blockchain) that Bitfinex-initiated price movements ripple through all exchanges via manual and automated trading.3 CFTC could then have grounds to investigate Bitfinex’s possible manipulation of Bitcoin price via Tether.
If you are considering investing into Bitcoin at this time, please look closer at the exchanges involved in price discovery and give it a second thought.
submitted by Yanlii to bitfinex [link] [comments]

$HUTN EF Hutton Sponsors ACEx A New Cryptocurrency Exchange

https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/HUTN/news/EF-Hutton-Sponsors-ACEx-A-New-Cryptocurrency-Exchange?id=203444

Arizona Providing Support Through Regulatory Relief and Economic Incentives
Goal is Over 2 Million Customer Accounts from ACEx Members by Opening Bell
PHOENIX, ARIZONA, Sept. 12, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- via NEWMEDIAWIRE -- EF Hutton Inc. (“EF Hutton”), a unit of HUTN Inc., (OTC: HUTN) is leading a group of financial service firms to establish the American Cryptocurrency Exchange (“ACEx”), a first of its kind membership exchange in North America at acex.us. The ACEx is expected to commence trading of digital assets based on blockchain technology, such as tokens and virtual currencies similar to Bitcoin by January 2019.
The market for digital assets, including coins and tokens, has grown substantially. Trading volume in crypto currencies is more than 12 times higher than it was in 2016. Over $13 billion was raised through initial coin offerings (“ICO”s) globally in the first half of 2018, according to PriceWaterHouse, with the largest amount raised equal to $4 billion and an average raise amount of $25.5 million. The capital raised in ICOs in the first half was more than 40% of the entire amount raised by companies through traditional common stock IPOs and more than 30% of the capital raised from venture capital, according to Forbes Magazine. The United States has lost crypto market share offshore marketplaces and ACEx is designed to attract customers who want security of dealing with a trusted financial provider.
Only 2% of investors in the U.S. currently hold Bitcoin, the most widely-held a digital asset in their portfolio, according to a recent Bloomberg survey. Investors seek security and better understanding before committing. ACEx is designed to alleviate concerns and, thereby, expand the market. All members must be registered financial services companies, brokers and/or advisors.
ACEx is sponsored by EF Hutton, a financial firm with an iconic brand and a 114 year legacy, and is extensively engaged in Fintech initiatives, including products and services utilizing blockchain technology. EF Hutton recently launched specialty research on Digital Assets including Coins and Tokens that is available to the public via subscription, see efhutton.com/crypto-research
ACEx is unique in that it provides up to $5 million of equity in ACEx, LLC to each of the first 250 members that join the exchange. Issuance to members is to be exempt from registration under Rule 506(c). The ACEx is expected to have significant value when it commences trading. For reference, an exchange was funded last year by private equity investors at an $800 million valuation. Membership is open to any broker-dealer or investment advisor registered to do business in the United States. Existing Cryptocurrency exchanges seek to cut-out brokers and advisors. Small and midsized brokers . ACEx will be the only exchange that seeks to incorporate regulated firms as members and provide them with a share of the exchange economics. Dozens of firms are in the process of becoming members of ACEx. ACEx is accepting membership applications at acex.us/membership-registe.
ACEx will be issuing 80 million ACE Tokens (“ACEs”) that members can distribute to their clients. Each Token will give a 20% discount on their trades executed on ACEx. Tokens will expire in three years. Clients will be able to buy or sell ACEs on ACEx. ACE Tokens will never expire. By January 2019, over 2 million investors are to be linked to ACEx through 250 brokers and advisors that are expected to be Members by the opening bell. We anticipate that ACEx Members will, in aggregate, have over 1,000 offices located throughout the U.S. and many foreign countries and their client accounts will amount to over $45 billion. The Member client orderflow is expected to be a significant source of proprietary liquidity.
ACEx’s headquarters will be located north of Scottsdale at Paradise Valley in Arizona. It is expected that more than ninety people will be directly employed by ACEx by 2020 and thousands of professionals could be employed in exchange-related activities by all its exchange members by 2022. EF Hutton is also establishing an office near the exchange. Arizona Commerce, a State agency, is providing a multi-million dollar economic incentives for ACEx sponsor and the State has revised regulations that are crucial to ACEx operation, such as relief from registration as a money transmitter.
EF Hutton CEO, Christopher Daniels commented, “We are building a unique fintech infrastructure in Arizona that encompasses a large number of brokers and advisors. ACEx membership structure benefits every Member firm – all of whom benefit directly from the growth of ACEx.” EF Hutton’s CEO, a fintech leader, will be a featured speaker at Block World in Silicon Valley on September 14. Block World is the largest conference in the world focused on blockchain technology and its applications.
ACEx intends to become the preferred digital asset marketplace for U.S. retail and institutional investors. ACEx exchange will use a combination of software developed internally and externally. The software is state of the art and will provide a highly-secured platform that is the technology backbone with a processing capacity of nearly one million transactions per second. Furthermore, the technology will enable each ACEx member’s customers to use a mobile App that will be co-branded with ACEx and the member’s name.
At the start, ACEx expects traders will be able to trade a total of ten coin pairs - Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), Ethereum (ETH), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Bitcoin Gold (BTG), Ethereum classic (ETC), OmiseGo (OMG), EOS (EOS), DASH (DASH), Tron (TRX), Monero (XMR), VeChain (VEN), IOTA (MIOTA), ZCash (ZEC), and stable-coin TrueUSD (TUSD), with plans to add Neo (NEO), Cardano (ADA), and more pairs in the coming months. Additionally, ACEx will offer access to all ten coins listed in the Bloomberg Galaxy Crypto Index (BGCI).
ACEx will offer:
About Arizona
Arizona is focused on the future. The State is the sixth largest and the 14th most populous of the 50 states with a population of nearly seven million. Arizona’s government seeks to promote good quality business, including technologies and related services. Arizona was recently ranked among the best in the nation for entrepreneurship and job growth by US News & World Report.
About ACEx
ACEx is an Arizona based digital currency marketplace operated by a team consisting of experienced financial professionals from across the securities industry. ACEx seeks to revolutionize the digital asset space while incorporating best practices from the broader financial industry. ACEx is registering with FINCEN and is taking initial steps towards compliance and plans to become a registered, fully regulated and compliant operation under the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulatory agencies, as applicable. For more information, please visit acex.us or email us at [email protected].
About EF Hutton
EF Hutton is a legendary financial services brand with a 114 year legacy of innovation. The firm is independent and there is no longer any connection with American Express or Citigroup – two companies that once operated subsidiaries under the EF Hutton name.
About HUTN, Inc.
HUTN, Inc. is a holding company whose subsidiaries provide B2C internet services. HUTN Group Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of HUTN, Inc. is the parent company of: (i) EF Hutton, Inc., a provider of digital finance and investment services, and a legendary brand that has been known for innovation for over 113 years; (ii) Vibrant Mobility, Inc., a mobile communications services provider; and, (iii) Megga, Inc., an integrated social network and online services provider. HUTN, Inc.'s subsidiaries offer innovative financial products designed to work for everyday people. HUTN, Inc. stock is traded under the symbol HUTN. Learn more at www.efhutton.com. EF Hutton, Inc., Vibrant Mobility, Inc., and Megga, Inc. are subsidiaries of HUTN, Inc.
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements. Certain statements contained in this press release that are not historical facts may constitute "forward-looking statements" as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are intended to be covered by the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. EF Hutton, Inc., Vibrant Mobility, Inc., and Megga, Inc. are subsidiaries of HUTN, Inc.
📷
Christopher Daniels 212-920-9258 [email protected]
submitted by louied91 to pennystocks [link] [comments]

Money Service Business Registration Explained

https://youtu.be/-I26zU8XPqI

Cryptocurrency and payments attorney Adam S. Tracy explains money service business registrations and the requirements of FINCEN money service businesses.

---
A former competitive rugby player, serial entrepreneur and, trader attorney, Adam S. Tracy offers over 17 years of progressive legal and compliance experience in the areas of corporate, commodities, cryptocurrency, litigation, payments and securities law. Adam's experience ranges from commodities trader for oil giant BP, initial public offerings, M&A, to initial coin offerings, having represented both startups to NASDAQ-listed entities. As an early Bitcoin adapter, Adam has promoted growth of cryptocurrency and offers a unique approach to representing crypto-clients. Based in Chicago, IL, Adam graduated from the University of Notre Dame with dual degrees in Finance and Computer Applications and would later obtain his J.D. and M.B.A. from DePaul University. Adam lives outside Chicago with his six animals, which is illegal where he lives.
Bitcoin website: http://www.bitcoin-lawyer.org
Primary website: http://www.tracyfirm.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/TracyFirm
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVOa8Iy_RIkmRPwuQliPKfw
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamtracy/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetracyfirm/
Instagram: @adamtracyattorney
Telegram: @adam_tracy
Skype: @adamtracyesq
Email me: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

TRANSCRIPTION:

Hey am I a money service business? I get that question about like three or four times a week. Okay. So let's read this, all right? Money transmitter includes any person who engages as a business in accepting currency or funds denominated in currency, and transmits the currency or funds or the value of the currency or funds by any means through financial agency institution, or any other person engaged as a business in the transfer of funds. So right off the bat, okay, your money transmitters, right, which are your exchanges are money service businesses, right? And that includes Bittrex. Okay a lot of questions - well, if I don't accept Fiat, do I have to get a license. Bittrex has all their licenses. Just because they don't accept USD, doesn't mean that they don't need the license because they're engaged in the transfer of funds denominated in currency, right? So they denominate things in Bitcoin and they denominated as a like a quotient of $1.00. Right? So, you know, out of an abundance of caution, and you can make the arguments that Bittrex started out not having the license - you can make the argument that you don't need the license, but out of an abundance of caution, like poorly-dressed lawyers and bad tweet suits will tell you like when you're writing a will or something like that, you need the license. You need the license, and that's not me trying to help the, you know, community of lawyers with fees. It's just the best route to go, especially in this environment. And, I think clearly the money service business aspect of it denominates that you are money service business, and if you sort of look at it transitively then you are, in fact, acting as a money transmitter and we need the state level license.

Now, if you're providing some sort of service with respect to going in and out of a particular coin, that may be a different dog altogether. So, let's say you develop tokens for your platform, and people can go in and out of that token for purposes of utilizing that platform like, think of a ICO utility token, that wouldn't be a money service business, right? That wouldn't be money service business, because you're not engaged in the transfer those funds - that's just an antecedent to what you're trying to do with your particular platform, right, whether it's a mobile app or software game or whatever it is. You're actively engaged, right, when those transfer from Fiat to token and back are antecedent or connected with the transferred money between individuals, right, even if you're using just the token as a medium of exchange, then you are a money service business. You may not be a money transmitter because you may not be charging a fee for it, right? You may not be actively engaged in that, but if you're providing that service where people are able to effectively transfer money through you, right, and whether you're using token or using USD to do it, then I believe you are a money service business, and the process for registering as money service business isn't inherently complex. Right? It's a registration. It's not necessarily an application, right? Your money transmitter applications, if you wanted to get in all 50 states, may cost you about $85,000 right? There's 48 jurisdictions, when you include the District of Columbia, that have some sort of money transmitter sale of checks type license, right? And so you need to be wary of that cost.

But, you know, when it comes to registering as a money service business, the process itself isn't terribly difficult. You don't necessarily need assistance to even do it, you know, through an attorney - you can probably do it yourself. What the key implication is, obviously, then you have to embrace and develop a pretty robust AML/KYC program for who you're dealing with, which, you know, there's a lot of misconception amongst regulators as to whether that's possible in crypto. Of course it is possible, right? If you know anything about crypto, it's very possible to do KYC/AML, and there's a lot of good third parties, myself included, that do that service and provide that service to third parties.

So, as it relates to money service businesses, obviously, if you're an exchange accepting fiat currency, absolutely, you are money service business. If you're adopting the Bittrex license, and you're still doing dollar-denominated business, then I believe you're still a money service business. If you are, you know, a singular token or a de facto currency and you're allowing for transmission, then I think, you know, you start to look like a money service business, and I think you have to consider the implication of not being a money service business, which can be criminal. And you see that example in all the cases brought against users of local bitcoins, right? So, something to definitely consider. Check me out Bitcoin lawyer (bitcoin-lawyer.org) if you have any questions. I'll talk to you later. Thanks.
submitted by bitattorney to u/bitattorney [link] [comments]

FinCEN logic effectively shuts down all Internet commerce. Heck, Doesn't it shut everyone down!?!

But, clearly, that’s not how the federal government sees things. If he doesn’t verify or have a way of knowing whether the owner of the bitcoins is the same person he’s sending the coins to, that’s a problem, says Faisal Islam, the director of compliance advisory services with Centra Payments Solutions, a company that advises corporations on financial compliance.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/12/casascius/
Combine this with:
Any person, whether or not licensed or required to be licensed, who engages as a business in accepting currency, or funds denominated in currency, and transmits the currency or funds, or the value of the currency or funds, by any means through a financial agency or institution, a Federal Reserve Bank or other facility of one or more Federal Reserve Banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or both, or an electronic funds transfer network
31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A) http://www.law.cornell.edu/cftext/31/1010.100
Now the reasoning here is that someone buying a Casascius bitcoin and having it shipped to some address may put Mike Caldwell in the position of "Transmitting value" from one person to another. After all, how can you prove the person paying is exactly the same as the person that ends up receiving the coin through the mail?
Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director of FinCEN said in her testimony several times that FinCEN doesn't need to know if Bitcoin is a currency or a commodity or something else. That the fact that it has value is enough for them to regulate Bitcoin.
So if we are going to use their logic consistently, eBay without question must register as a Money Transmitting service. They clearly and unambiguously act as a facilitating third party in the exchange "value" between individuals and/or entities.
Do they comply with all Know Your Customer (KYC) processes? Does Amazon? Does NewEgg?
What about Walmart? When someone pays for a product at even the brick and mortar store, how can Walmart be sure that the person carrying out the product was exactly the same person that paid?
How can anyone exchange anything of "value" without complying fully by registering as Money Transmitters and collecting and filing full KYC reports with the government?
In this Christmas season, Financial crime and the transmission of value between parties without full KYC reports is literally out of control... Surely the government can jail everyone, and stop all Internet commerce, and all catalog sales, and put a stop to all of this facilitation of value between parties!
submitted by alanX to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Manipulation] Notes on the transparency of Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation

I would like to share some alarming signs of Bitcoin price manipulation.
Bitcoin price is about 10 times of what it was a year ago. The exchange that decisively sets Bitcoin price is Bitfinex, a secretive institution with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organization.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs0oGXQWAAAqMRZ.jpg
Bitfinex had its wire services suspended by Wells Fargo in April. To resume trading, Bitfinex enlisted the help of Tether, another company with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organisation, but based on announcements is likely under common share holder control with Bitfinex. Tether sells crypto-tokens known as USD Tethers, or USDTs, that are purportedly backed by an equal number of US dollars. In other words, each USDT is a digital good priced at USD 1.00.
Despite the promise of "100% reserve" and the vague reference to "24×7 access to your funds" on Tether’s website, there is no contractual right, either tacit or express, for one USDT to be redeemed for one US dollar. It is probably through this legal construct that Tether hopes to characterise its USDTs as digital goods and not "convertible" virtual currency covered by FinCEN regulations.
The invention of USDTs led to the proliferation of numerous crypto-currency exchanges. Examples include Bitfinex, Binance, HitBTC, KKex, Poloniex, and YoBit. Instead of providing crypto-to-fiat trading pairs, these "coin-to-coin" exchanges offer crypto-to-tether trading exclusively. Therefore, USDTs not only help these exchanges remove the need for formal banking arrangement, but also enables these exchanges to organise in lesser known jurisdictions (e.g., the Republic of Seychelles) and operate outside of the regulation and supervision of major economies. Most of these exchanges claim to screen-off visitors from the United States and other countries with laws on coin-to-coin trading, but the screen-off is often perfunctory. In almost all cases, the screen can be defeated with a simple mouse click.
It is doubtful that these exchanges perform meaningful due diligence beyond identity verification to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and corruption of politically exposes persons. Bitfinex, for example, requires no identity verification at all for most trading activities and imposes no trading amount limits on unverified accounts. The enablement of these exchanges where rampant money laundering is possible is outside of the scope of this note. Instead, I would like to bring to your attention the distinct possibility that Bitfinex, as the likely controller of Tether, is a bad actor.
Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that Bitfinex is creating USDTs out of thin air to prop up Bitcoin prices. Namely, Bitfinex is likely acting as a central bank that issues a fiat money called USDTs. The sole mandate of this central bank is to enrich itself through market manipulation.
https://i.imgur.com/b1Pdsq9.jpg
The first image (above) illustrates how mysterious amounts of USDTs were minted and injected into Bitfinex at precise moments when a crash seemed imminent.
https://i.imgur.com/jAyPlF8.jpg
The second image (above) illustrates a strong correlation (but admittedly not causation) between the total amount of USDTs in circulation and Bitcoin price.
Bitfinex released an internal memo in September to allay concerns that USDTs might have been created at will. The memo purportedly shows that Tether maintained sufficient US dollars to match all USDTs in circulation as of a day in September. The memo, however, is of no probative value. Among other strange things, the author of the memo didn’t verify with banks (names redacted) that account balances from Tethers were in fact correct, couldn’t promise that the balances weren’t overnight borrowings for purposes of producing the memo, and couldn’t promise that Tether indeed had access to those funds.
I therefore urge you to consider the possibility that the current price of Bitcoin is the result of Bitfinex’s manipulation and may collapse when regulators take action.
For example, Tether is almost certainly an administrator of virtual currency — it centrally puts into and withdraws from circulation USDTs, a virtual currency squarely intended as a substitute for real currency as admitted by Tether in the internal memo.
Tether has nominally registered as a money transmitter with FinCEN, but it is unclear if they fulfill any of the BSA filing requirements (e.g., filing SARs).2 As a company, Tether’s USDTs enables large crypto-currency exchanges (including US-based exchanges like Poloniex) to exist and powers trades thereon in the amount of millions every day. So it wouldn’t be surprising if FinCEN eventually decides to enforce its rules against Tether as it did against Liberty Reserve.
Further, CFTC approved recently various swap execution facilities, designated contract markets and derivative clearing organizations with Bitcoin flavor. And the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is expected to launch cash-settled futures on Bitcoin soon. Manipulation of Bitcoin prices referenced by these entities is prosecutable by the CFTC, an agency with broad statutory authority to prosecute manipulation of commodity prices under the Commodity Exchange Act (including Section 753 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.).
Although none of these CFTC-registered entities are currently including Bitfinex in the calculation of their Bitcoin reference rates (CME used to), it is well understood and could be easily established (partially because of the transparency of Bitcoin blockchain) that Bitfinex-initiated price movements ripple through all exchanges via manual and automated trading.3 CFTC could then have grounds to investigate Bitfinex’s possible manipulation of Bitcoin price via Tether.
If you are considering investing into Bitcoin at this time, please look closer at the exchanges involved in price discovery and give it a second thought.
submitted by Yanlii to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Manipulation] Notes on the transparency of Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation

I would like to share some alarming signs of Bitcoin price manipulation.
Bitcoin price is about 10 times of what it was a year ago. The exchange that decisively sets Bitcoin price is Bitfinex, a secretive institution with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organization.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs0oGXQWAAAqMRZ.jpg
Bitfinex had its wire services suspended by Wells Fargo in April. To resume trading, Bitfinex enlisted the help of Tether, another company with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organisation, but based on announcements is likely under common share holder control with Bitfinex. Tether sells crypto-tokens known as USD Tethers, or USDTs, that are purportedly backed by an equal number of US dollars. In other words, each USDT is a digital good priced at USD 1.00.
Despite the promise of "100% reserve" and the vague reference to "24×7 access to your funds" on Tether’s website, there is no contractual right, either tacit or express, for one USDT to be redeemed for one US dollar. It is probably through this legal construct that Tether hopes to characterise its USDTs as digital goods and not "convertible" virtual currency covered by FinCEN regulations.
The invention of USDTs led to the proliferation of numerous crypto-currency exchanges. Examples include Bitfinex, Binance, HitBTC, KKex, Poloniex, and YoBit. Instead of providing crypto-to-fiat trading pairs, these "coin-to-coin" exchanges offer crypto-to-tether trading exclusively. Therefore, USDTs not only help these exchanges remove the need for formal banking arrangement, but also enables these exchanges to organise in lesser known jurisdictions (e.g., the Republic of Seychelles) and operate outside of the regulation and supervision of major economies. Most of these exchanges claim to screen-off visitors from the United States and other countries with laws on coin-to-coin trading, but the screen-off is often perfunctory. In almost all cases, the screen can be defeated with a simple mouse click.
It is doubtful that these exchanges perform meaningful due diligence beyond identity verification to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and corruption of politically exposes persons. Bitfinex, for example, requires no identity verification at all for most trading activities and imposes no trading amount limits on unverified accounts. The enablement of these exchanges where rampant money laundering is possible is outside of the scope of this note. Instead, I would like to bring to your attention the distinct possibility that Bitfinex, as the likely controller of Tether, is a bad actor.
Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that Bitfinex is creating USDTs out of thin air to prop up Bitcoin prices. Namely, Bitfinex is likely acting as a central bank that issues a fiat money called USDTs. The sole mandate of this central bank is to enrich itself through market manipulation.
https://i.imgur.com/b1Pdsq9.jpg
The first image (above) illustrates how mysterious amounts of USDTs were minted and injected into Bitfinex at precise moments when a crash seemed imminent.
https://i.imgur.com/jAyPlF8.jpg
The second image (above) illustrates a strong correlation (but admittedly not causation) between the total amount of USDTs in circulation and Bitcoin price.
Bitfinex released an internal memo in September to allay concerns that USDTs might have been created at will. The memo purportedly shows that Tether maintained sufficient US dollars to match all USDTs in circulation as of a day in September. The memo, however, is of no probative value. Among other strange things, the author of the memo didn’t verify with banks (names redacted) that account balances from Tethers were in fact correct, couldn’t promise that the balances weren’t overnight borrowings for purposes of producing the memo, and couldn’t promise that Tether indeed had access to those funds.
I therefore urge you to consider the possibility that the current price of Bitcoin is the result of Bitfinex’s manipulation and may collapse when regulators take action.
For example, Tether is almost certainly an administrator of virtual currency — it centrally puts into and withdraws from circulation USDTs, a virtual currency squarely intended as a substitute for real currency as admitted by Tether in the internal memo.
Tether has nominally registered as a money transmitter with FinCEN, but it is unclear if they fulfill any of the BSA filing requirements (e.g., filing SARs).2 As a company, Tether’s USDTs enables large crypto-currency exchanges (including US-based exchanges like Poloniex) to exist and powers trades thereon in the amount of millions every day. So it wouldn’t be surprising if FinCEN eventually decides to enforce its rules against Tether as it did against Liberty Reserve.
Further, CFTC approved recently various swap execution facilities, designated contract markets and derivative clearing organizations with Bitcoin flavor. And the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is expected to launch cash-settled futures on Bitcoin soon. Manipulation of Bitcoin prices referenced by these entities is prosecutable by the CFTC, an agency with broad statutory authority to prosecute manipulation of commodity prices under the Commodity Exchange Act (including Section 753 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.).
Although none of these CFTC-registered entities are currently including Bitfinex in the calculation of their Bitcoin reference rates (CME used to), it is well understood and could be easily established (partially because of the transparency of Bitcoin blockchain) that Bitfinex-initiated price movements ripple through all exchanges via manual and automated trading.3 CFTC could then have grounds to investigate Bitfinex’s possible manipulation of Bitcoin price via Tether.
If you are considering investing into Bitcoin at this time, please look closer at the exchanges involved in price discovery and give it a second thought.
submitted by Yanlii to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Time to stop using coinbase

Everyday I read about another instance where coinbase is preventing customers who they have full information on from sending their coins to where they want without more information about destination, not allowing Tor users, canceling trades that are high risk yet they are just trades that are large volume and finally sending letters to active buyers and sellers requiring the customer to demonstrate that they are not acting as money transmitters - their are people who say coinbase is just enforcing fincen laws - the latter view is inaccurate - they are enforcing their highly conservatives interpretation of the laws - they hsve not even committed on NYS potential bitcoin liscense - whereas all other firms from circle to coinsetter hsve - in truth coinbase wants to be the chase of bitcoin - I say don't use them !
submitted by bitcoinman15 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/BitcoinMarkets] [Manipulation] Notes on the transparency of Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation

The following post by Yanlii is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ BitcoinMarkets/comments/7bvxo5
The original post's content was as follows:
I would like to share some alarming signs of Bitcoin price manipulation.
Bitcoin price is about 10 times of what it was a year ago. The exchange that decisively sets Bitcoin price is Bitfinex, a secretive institution with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organization.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs0oGXQWAAAqMRZ.jpg
Bitfinex had its wire services suspended by Wells Fargo in April. To resume trading, Bitfinex enlisted the help of Tether, another company with unknown beneficiary structure and place of organisation, but based on announcements is likely under common share holder control with Bitfinex. Tether sells crypto-tokens known as USD Tethers, or USDTs, that are purportedly backed by an equal number of US dollars. In other words, each USDT is a digital good priced at USD 1.00.
Despite the promise of "100% reserve" and the vague reference to "24×7 access to your funds" on Tether’s website, there is no contractual right, either tacit or express, for one USDT to be redeemed for one US dollar. It is probably through this legal construct that Tether hopes to characterise its USDTs as digital goods and not "convertible" virtual currency covered by FinCEN regulations.
The invention of USDTs led to the proliferation of numerous crypto-currency exchanges. Examples include Bitfinex, Binance, HitBTC, KKex, Poloniex, and YoBit. Instead of providing crypto-to-fiat trading pairs, these "coin-to-coin" exchanges offer crypto-to-tether trading exclusively. Therefore, USDTs not only help these exchanges remove the need for formal banking arrangement, but also enables these exchanges to organise in lesser known jurisdictions (e.g., the Republic of Seychelles) and operate outside of the regulation and supervision of major economies. Most of these exchanges claim to screen-off visitors from the United States and other countries with laws on coin-to-coin trading, but the screen-off is often perfunctory. In almost all cases, the screen can be defeated with a simple mouse click.
It is doubtful that these exchanges perform meaningful due diligence beyond identity verification to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism, and corruption of politically exposes persons. Bitfinex, for example, requires no identity verification at all for most trading activities and imposes no trading amount limits on unverified accounts. The enablement of these exchanges where rampant money laundering is possible is outside of the scope of this note. Instead, I would like to bring to your attention the distinct possibility that Bitfinex, as the likely controller of Tether, is a bad actor.
Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that Bitfinex is creating USDTs out of thin air to prop up Bitcoin prices. Namely, Bitfinex is likely acting as a central bank that issues a fiat money called USDTs. The sole mandate of this central bank is to enrich itself through market manipulation.
https://i.imgur.com/b1Pdsq9.jpg
The first image (above) illustrates how mysterious amounts of USDTs were minted and injected into Bitfinex at precise moments when a crash seemed imminent.
https://i.imgur.com/jAyPlF8.jpg
The second image (above) illustrates a strong correlation (but admittedly not causation) between the total amount of USDTs in circulation and Bitcoin price.
Bitfinex released an internal memo in September to allay concerns that USDTs might have been created at will. The memo purportedly shows that Tether maintained sufficient US dollars to match all USDTs in circulation as of a day in September. The memo, however, is of no probative value. Among other strange things, the author of the memo didn’t verify with banks (names redacted) that account balances from Tethers were in fact correct, couldn’t promise that the balances weren’t overnight borrowings for purposes of producing the memo, and couldn’t promise that Tether indeed had access to those funds.
I therefore urge you to consider the possibility that the current price of Bitcoin is the result of Bitfinex’s manipulation and may collapse when regulators take action.
For example, Tether is almost certainly an administrator of virtual currency — it centrally puts into and withdraws from circulation USDTs, a virtual currency squarely intended as a substitute for real currency as admitted by Tether in the internal memo.
Tether has nominally registered as a money transmitter with FinCEN, but it is unclear if they fulfill any of the BSA filing requirements (e.g., filing SARs).2 As a company, Tether’s USDTs enables large crypto-currency exchanges (including US-based exchanges like Poloniex) to exist and powers trades thereon in the amount of millions every day. So it wouldn’t be surprising if FinCEN eventually decides to enforce its rules against Tether as it did against Liberty Reserve.
Further, CFTC approved recently various swap execution facilities, designated contract markets and derivative clearing organizations with Bitcoin flavor. And the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is expected to launch cash-settled futures on Bitcoin soon. Manipulation of Bitcoin prices referenced by these entities is prosecutable by the CFTC, an agency with broad statutory authority to prosecute manipulation of commodity prices under the Commodity Exchange Act (including Section 753 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.).
Although none of these CFTC-registered entities are currently including Bitfinex in the calculation of their Bitcoin reference rates (CME used to), it is well understood and could be easily established (partially because of the transparency of Bitcoin blockchain) that Bitfinex-initiated price movements ripple through all exchanges via manual and automated trading.3 CFTC could then have grounds to investigate Bitfinex’s possible manipulation of Bitcoin price via Tether.
If you are considering investing into Bitcoin at this time, please look closer at the exchanges involved in price discovery and give it a second thought.
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

What about Bitcoin ATM Operators that fund the ATM's with their own coin? Money Transmitters?

I have read several articles as well as the FinCen Regulation of BitCoin and Virtual Currency, all of which are subject to interpretation. I am of the opinion that ATM owners are considered money transmitters if the ATM uses a connection to an exchange to instantly make a purchase to fund each ATM transaction. Mainly because in that scenario you ARE acting as the "middle man", purchasing Bitcoin to sell to another. That is money transmitting.
However, what about ATM's that allow you to stock the ATM with your own supply of bitcoin. The Lamassu ATM has this ability. In this scenario you are not purchasing from one to sell to another, but selling your own personal bitcoins. 2 parties instead of 3. I don't see this as any different than being a Localbitcoins seller, for which most opinions are that LBC sellers are NOT considered money transmitters.
Curious of others thoughts...
submitted by dvsbyknight to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Effects of regulation and some observations (warning: long)

The stiff regulatory headwind which manifestated itself in the SEC investigation letters and FinCEN guidelines FIN-2013-G001 (published in March 2013) followed by this weeks Rulings FIN-2014-R011 and FIN-2014-R012 make it obvious that Bitcoin is fundamentally incompatible with the current financial system at large. It is clear now that FinCEN regards any business which engages in Bitcoin as a money services business (MSB), which means that such business will have to implement an elaborate anti-money laundering program and comply with recordkeeping, reporting and transaction monitoring requirements as set forth by FinCEN[1].
In and of itself, these rulings cannot come as a surprise as it is extending existing legislation to the Bitcoin domain and treats bitcoin as just another asset which can be used to transfer value between entities. In the narrow view of the FinCEN, any value transferred has to use the closed circuit of the current financial system and must play by its rules, and Bitcoin can be no exception.
For Bitcoin to remain viable as a payment option, Bitcoin payment processors such as Bitpay and Vaurum have now started to spend money on compliance - money that will have to be recouped by only small margins on processed bitcoin payments. Current volumes in bitcoin payments likely don't justify these costs, so investing money in compliance therefore speculates on the viability and growth of Bitcoin as a payments system within the USA in the future.
Bitcoin is by design able to operate outside of the current financial system as a fully automated, frictionless and efficient payment system. The FinCEN rulings state that companies engaging in Bitcoin are unsurprisingly subject to existing regulations - and compliance incurs cost and removes at least some of the efficiencies which Bitcoin enjoyed over traditional payment systems. Bitcoin is no longer frictionless - processing bitcoin payments now incurs significant upfront and ongoing costs. Needless to say, this will hurt - perhaps even reverse - its adoption.
Let's speculate a bit on what this might mean for the near and long-term future. It is save to say that a lot will depend on whether payment processors and exchanges will have the resources to survive, comply to MSB regulations and recoup the investments. If so, Bitcoin will likely continue to be gradually adopted by more and more businesses. If not, and if for instance BitPay and other payment processors throw the towel, this would largely reverse merchant adoption and pushes Bitcoin outside the existing closed, legal financial circuit. The third option would be "neither of the above" - new legislation might create exemptions for Bitcoin, for instance.
The cost of compliance clearly acts as a giant hurdle for Bitcoin processors and exchanges. FinCEN regulations seemingly seek to create a closed circuit in which money circulates, and in which every transfer can be tracked. That this has failed miserably has been illustrated by the recent money laundering scandals as well as the fact that criminals continue to use of plain old cash. The effectiveness of anti-money laundering regulations is increasingly questioned. Considering the questionable effectiveness of these regulations, the net effect of these regulations comes down to protecting the established finance industry and make life hard for new contenders such as BitPay, that have nowhere near the resources as for instance a giant such as VISA, for which the cost of compliance can be much smaller because of economies of scale. There is no level playing field and the regulations are benefitting the establishment, while hurting new entrants.
The bigger picture
Financial scandals, crises, as well as perceived terrorist threats fan ever more stringent rules and regulations that have questionable effectiveness but do increase cost, hurt privacy and diminish autonomy over ones own funds. Recent civil asset forfeitures by the IRS under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 are a manifestation of the latter. Cash amounts of over $10,000 are suspicious by default and have to be reported using form 8300 - the justification might be that the pervasive presence of banking does not require the use of large sums of cash, which are therefore suspicious by default. Obviously, this discourages the use of cash and makes it very difficult to do large transactions outside of the closed financial circuit.
The presumptions here are:
It needs no arguing here that each of these presumptions are false.
For the first time in history, Bitcoin offers a way to store value privately, anonymously (if done properly) and such that it is impossible to confiscate. Now this is something new, and it profound. On the shallow practical side, doing a transaction valued more than $10,000 is trivial. Money stored as bitcoin can be accessed anywhere and at all times. Although rules and regulations apply, the ability to fully anonymously access and transfer value (if the proper precautions are taken) make them unenforceable.
The resistance against confiscation gives Bitcoin additional utility. For this to work, Bitcoin must offer a way to be used completely anonymously. Because if a government knows you own bitcoin which they cannot seize, they can seize your car, house or ultimately you yourself instead (as in, put you in jail), until you give up your bitcoin. Full anonymity is therefore not a nice-to-have, it is essential in offering protection against confiscation of wealth.
Another well known avenue to confiscate wealth of an entire nation is by monetary inflation. Simply printing or creating money enriches those close to where the money surfaces first - at the expense of those who receive the money last. In quantitative easing, banks sold illiquid bonds to the Fed, and receive cash in return which they used to prop up their balances or to buy assets. Since bank lending has not much improved, the overall effect on the economy has been low. However, bank stocks are doing great - clearly showing banks gained most from QE, outperforming the Dow Jones industrial average as well as the S&P500 by a margin, a rebound that kicked off in earnest a mere 4 months after the start of QE in November 2008. Since wealth can not be created by the QE magic wand, left or right this gain has been at the expense of everyone else owning dollars.
More extremely, history is full of countries defaulting on their debt - often rendering their currency worthless with obviously devastating effects on most of the population. Another profoundly new property of Bitcoin is the predictability of the rate in which it is created, and the hard limit which is set at 24 million bitcoins ever to be created. This offers owners of bitcoin the peace of mind that the value of bitcoin can not be stolen insidiously by means of inflation - as it can and is done today with fiat.
Clearly, in its design, Bitcoin offers resistance against inflation and confiscation, two privileges misused by governments all over the world and throughout history. This can be one of the reasons why Bitcoin appeals to many as a way to store value safely - the irony here being of course the many Bitcoin related scams and people losing their coins through theft. Nevertheless, Bitcoin is still immature technology but rapidly improving - it is only a matter of time before stolen coins are mostly a thing of the past. No regulation required.
In the mean time, there although economic improvement is reported, this growth is not experienced by consumers. Burdensome regulations, combined with the uncharted territory of QE as well as USA debt being higher than ever except during WW2 will make some people reason to be skeptical towards the current economical and political state of affairs, and this may be an additional factor in the attraction towards bitcoin as an alternative store of value.
So far the focus was on the USA, where Bitcoin adoption is the largest. However the world is a big place and the global nature of Bitcoin as well as the regulatory harassment in the USA might well mean that Bitcoin will prosper elsewhere first. The global nature of Bitcoin and the fact that anyone without a bank account or credit card can now also participate in global commerce was previously impossible and very exciting in itself. Who knows what derivatives built on top of Bitcoin may hold in the future.
In the long term, Bitcoin will just not go away, it will prevail, and grow. Either gradually, or in the event of a new economic crisis or a period of high (USD or EUR) price-inflation, perhaps in a big way.
Note [1] Quoting FIN-2014-R011: When engaging in convertible virtual currency transactions as an exchanger, a person must register with FinCEN as a money transmitter, assess the money laundering risk involved in its non-exempt transactions, and implement an anti-money laundering program to mitigate such risk. In addition, the Company must comply with the recordkeeping, reporting, and transaction monitoring requirements under FinCEN regulations. Examples of such requirements include the filing of Currency Transaction Reports (31 CFR § 1022.310) and Suspicious Activity Reports (31 CFR § 1022.320), whenever applicable, general recordkeeping maintenance (31 CFR § 1010.410), and recordkeeping related to the sale of negotiable instruments (31 CFR § 1010.415). Furthermore, to the extent that any of the Company’s transactions constitute a “transmittal of funds” (31 CFR § 1010.100(ddd)) under FinCEN’s regulations, then the Company must also comply with the “Funds Transfer Rule” (31 CFR § 1010.410(e)) and the “Funds Travel Rule” (31 CFR § 1010.410(f)).
submitted by trilli0nn to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network - New Regulations for BTC Exchanges

I thought this belonged here. Copied and Pasted from Wikipedia. This could be the easiest way for regulators to begin to crack the anonymity.
March 18, 2013 TL:DR - In summary, FinCEN's decision would require Bitcoin exchanges where bitcoins are traded for traditional currencies to disclose large transactions and suspicious activity, comply with money laundering regulations, and collect information about their customers as traditional financial institutions are required to do.[45][46]
-Actual Wikipedia Article-
On 18 March 2013, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (or FinCEN), a bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury, issued a report regarding centralized and decentralized "virtual currencies" and their legal status within "money services business" (MSB) and Bank Secrecy Act regulations.[36] It classified digital currencies and other digital payment systems such as bitcoin as "virtual currencies" because they are not legal tender under any sovereign jurisdiction. FinCEN cleared American users of bitcoin of legal obligations by saying, "A user of virtual currency is not an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations and therefore is not subject to MSB registration, reporting, and recordkeeping regulations." However, it held that American entities who generate "virtual currency" such as bitcoins are money transmitters or MSBs if they sell their generated currency for national currency: "...a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter." This specifically extends to "miners" of the bitcoin network who may have to register as an MSB and abide by the respective requirements of being a money transmitter if they sell their generated bitcoins for national currency and are within the United States.[34]
Additionally, FinCEN claimed regulation over American entities that manage bitcoins in a payment processor setting or as an exchanger: "In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency."[35][36]
In summary, FinCEN's decision would require Bitcoin exchanges where bitcoins are traded for traditional currencies to disclose large transactions and suspicious activity, comply with money laundering regulations, and collect information about their customers as traditional financial institutions are required to do.[45][46]
Patrick Murck of the Bitcoin Foundation criticized FinCEN's testament as an "overreach" and claimed that FinCEN "cannot rely on this guidance in any enforcement action".[47]
submitted by Throwawaytoday660 to SilkRoad [link] [comments]

Advice on buying bitcoin and following fincen regulation

So i was basically wondering if i would be violating any regulations if i bought bitcoins on local bitcoin and then sold it via my coinbase account and profiting from the price difference. I was looking into doing this with the different exchanges but the time it takes to fund accounts is just to complicated and takes to long and i have worries about withdrawals. apparently doing this between exchanges is legal called arbitrage. my only worry is if i would be liable for the facilitation of money laundering when i bought bitcoins from people on localbitcoins, however it seems to me that the burden of responsibility would fall on them because they are the ones selling the bitcoins so then they are the ones acting as a money transmitter or money services business. these definitions seem ambiguous. But it seems to me that most regulatory issues stem from the sale of bitcoins rather than the purchase of them. Im going to call the Fincen hotline tomorrow and see if i can get any guidance, id rather not break the law, especially if id be accused of money laundering.
submitted by Buyitwithbitcoins to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

New Hampshire changes their money transmitter rules to include bitcoin businesses

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 77%.
Erik Voorhees' Satoshi Dice, the largest source of bitcoin traffic for many years, was there before it got shut down in the US. Unfortunately, New Hampshire statute 399-G:1, "Licensing of Money Transmitters," was recently changed to add "Virtual" currencies, commencing on January 1, 2016.
The old statute defined "Monetary value" simply as "a medium of exchange, whether or not redeemable in money." The new version adds "Convertible virtual currency" to the definition of monetary value, which makes a lot of difference for those that use it in a business setting.
New Hampshire General Court statute 399-G:1. The new rules define the term "Convertible virtual currency" as digital representation of value, that fulfills four criteria; It can be a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value; It has an equivalent value in real currency or acts as a substitute for real currency; It may be centralized or decentralized, and it can be exchanged for currency or other convertible virtual currency.
FinCEN finalized its rules on the money transmission of virtual currency in 2013, although there have been little enforcement.
An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency.
An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem such virtual currency.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: currency#1 state#2 Virtual#3 bitcoin#4 Money#5
Post found in /CryptoCurrency, /bitcoin_uncensored, /Libertarian, /Anarcho_Capitalism, /Buttcoin, /bitcoinxt, /freetalklive, /BitcoinAll, /Bitcoin, /btc, /newhampshire, /Agorism and /FreeStateProject.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic only. Do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

Who Regulates Money Transmitters? Bitcoin Q&A: Are Lightning node operators Money Transmitters? FinCEN Registration & Money Transmitter Licenses Money Transmitter Basics 01 4/30/14 - Bitcoin on Bloomberg, FinCEN, Dark Wallet ...

Whats a Money Transmitter? Why Every Cryptocurrency User Should Know Mario Costanz 2018-04-10T06:21:40+00:00 Cryptocurrency Federal and state laws require people to be licensed as money transmitters if they transmit funds from one person to another. Over the past few years, a number of individuals and businesses hav FinCEN defines a money transmitter as someone that acts as an intermediary between two parties that send or exchange money for another currency. To operate as a money transmitter, a business is legally required to be registered on a federal level and licensed in the states that it operates in. By federal law 18 USC § 1960, U.S. businesses whose activities fall under the state definitions of a ... Whether a person is a money transmitter under FinCEN’s regulations is a matter of facts and circumstances. 4. 4. 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(ii). Within the context of this guidance, “business model” refers to the subset of key facts and circumstances relevant to FinCEN’s determination of (a) whether the specific person meets the definition of a particular type of financial institution ... FinCEN previously issued a finding under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act that identified Liberty Reserve as a financial institution of primary money laundering concern. BTC-e has conducted over $296 million in transactions of bitcoin alone and tens of thousands of transactions in other convertible virtual currencies. The United States Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) published two new administrative rulings announcing that Bitcoin miners and investors aren’t considered money transmitters. A document released this Thursday (30) includes the two rulings. The first one states “that, to the extent a user creates or ‘mines’ a convertible virtual currency solely for a user’s ownRead More

[index] [9967] [14226] [48954] [40642] [33543] [21409] [17523] [25839] [13275] [25956]

Who Regulates Money Transmitters?

FinCen Regulation - https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/1126516792510361602 Get the Ledger Nano X to Safely store your Crypto - https://www.ledgerwallet.co... Are Lightning nodes money transmitter businesses? Will they be subject to Anti Money Laundering laws? Will operators be subject to legal action as mixing service operators have? This question is ... FinCEN released Guidance on March 18, 2013 regarding BSA Regulations to Virtual Currencies. The Bitcoin Foundation issued guidance on March 19, 2013 to the B... The money transmitters themselves have a separate association, the National Money Transmitters Association (NMTA) to have a voice in shaping and developing this industry. A related international ... Everything You Need To Know About Money Transmitter Licensing - Duration: 1:06:22. Around The Coin 2,730 ... Bitcoin Foundation is Wrong! BitcoinLaw - "FinCEN and BitCoin Miners" - Duration: 31 ...

#