Major FinCEN Guidances For Cryptocurrency Explained BitAML

FinCEN Guidance Enabled Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) to Accept Bitcoin

FinCEN Guidance Enabled Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) to Accept Bitcoin submitted by Micro_lite to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Foundation on FinCEN guidelines: "An individual or micro-business cannot be expected to create a robust AML/KYC program anytime they sell [bitcoin] on an exchange or in-person...Perhaps a little more guidance is needed."

Bitcoin Foundation on FinCEN guidelines: submitted by LoveLightMan to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Guest Post: FinCEN Guidance Validates Bitcoin Industry but Targets Satoshi

submitted by waspoza to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Have you ever mined and then sold some Bitcoin? Surprise, you may be a "money transmitter" under the FinCen guidance.

Have you ever mined and then sold some Bitcoin? Surprise, you may be a submitted by Karl-Friedrich_Lenz to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

FinCEN Director Confirms IRS To Release Bitcoin Guidance

FinCEN Director Confirms IRS To Release Bitcoin Guidance submitted by bitbybitbybitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Monetary Future: Bitcoin Foundation Reacts To FinCEN Guidance

The Monetary Future: Bitcoin Foundation Reacts To FinCEN Guidance submitted by waspoza to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Clarification regarding FinCEN's guidance on Bitcoin related businesses.

Legalese is not my native language. I mostly speak English with some HTML and CSS. I was wondering if someone here might be able to provide a little bit of clarification to the laws which apply to Bitcoin.
From what I was able to gather from FinCEN's guidance the basic rule is "if it stays in Bitcoin it's OK". How does this apply to industries which are regulated outside of Bitcoin?
Lets say gambling for instance? Do the gambling laws still apply for Bitcoin only based gambling websites? Or does it come down to the specific gambling laws themselves?
submitted by AreYouAlawyer to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What New FinCEN Guidance Means for US Bitcoin Companies

What New FinCEN Guidance Means for US Bitcoin Companies submitted by wordsmithess to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What New FinCEN Guidance Means for US Bitcoin Companies

What New FinCEN Guidance Means for US Bitcoin Companies submitted by BTCNews to BTCNews [link] [comments]

Crowdsourcing a Bitcoin FinCEN request for clarification and guidance

Greetings and salutations Bitcoin community.
With much uncertainty as to how the government will regulate Bitcoins, and as a bootstrapped Bitcoin startup concerned that potential regulatory burdens will be too large to overcome, it behooves us (all) to continue seeking clarifications and guidance as to the requirements we must meet.
Searching the Web leaves you wanting as to how best to structure a FinCEN request. There are probably plenty of Bitcoin startups who could use some clarification regarding their business plans (well, those who have business plans, that is), but might not know the best place to start outside of a high-priced lawyer. Don't know about you but, with limited funds, this startup's hard-pressed to want to spend them on lawyers writing letters to governments that apparently take about 8 months just to respond. (8 months?! Do they even realize that 8 months is a lifetime when it comes to technology?!)
FinCEN provides a process to make an administrative ruling request, titled 31 CFR Part 1010, Subpart G. But that might be risky as it could lead to the imposition of new regulations. (If you are looking for an example request for an administration ruling, you can find one here.) The first draft of valME's request to FinCEN is posted within our alpha test site (authentication: valme/makeworldbetterplace). It provides an example of how you might go about requesting clarification and guidance. (Apologies in advance if you see something that's still broken.)
The first rule of coding is to reuse. In hopes that some of you might already have been through this process and could offer advice on wording, structure, questions that aren't asked but should be, questions that are asked but shouldn't be, etc., please do chime in. It would be useful for others to start asking the questions in a more formal way.
submitted by command_line to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

/r/news [removed] FinCEN Director Confirms IRS To Release Bitcoin Guidance

/news [removed] FinCEN Director Confirms IRS To Release Bitcoin Guidance submitted by ModerationLog to ModerationLog [link] [comments]

Guest Post: FinCEN Guidance Validates Bitcoin Industry but Targets Satoshi - Bitcoin Forum - The Unofficial Bitcoin Forum

submitted by bitcoinforum to Bitcoinforum [link] [comments]

Crypto Banking Wars: Can Non-Custodial Crypto Wallets Ever Replace Banks?

Crypto Banking Wars: Can Non-Custodial Crypto Wallets Ever Replace Banks?
Can they overcome the product limitations of blockchain and deliver the world-class experience that consumers expect?
https://reddit.com/link/i8ewbx/video/ojkc6c9a1lg51/player
This is the second part of Crypto Banking Wars — a new series that examines what crypto-native company is most likely to become the bank of the future. Who is best positioned to reach mainstream adoption in consumer finance?
---
While crypto allows the world to get rid of banks, a bank will still very much be necessary for this very powerful technology to reach the masses. As we laid out in our previous series, Crypto-Powered, we believe companies that build with blockchain at their core will have the best shot at winning the broader consumer finance market. We hope it will be us at Genesis Block, but we aren’t the only game in town.
So this series explores the entire crypto landscape and tries to answer the question, which crypto company is most likely to become the bank of the future?
In our last episode, we offered an in-depth analysis of big crypto exchanges like Coinbase & Binance. Today we’re analyzing non-custodial crypto wallets. These are products where only the user can touch or move funds. Not even the company or developer who built the application can access, control, or stop funds from being moved. These apps allow users to truly become their own bank.
We’ve talked a little about this before. This group of companies is nowhere near the same level of threat as the biggest crypto exchanges. However, this group really understands DeFi and the magic it can bring. This class of products is heavily engineer-driven and at the bleeding-edge of DeFi innovation. These products are certainly worth discussing. Okay, let’s dive in.

Users & Audience

These non-custodial crypto wallets are especially popular among the most hardcore blockchain nerds and crypto cypherpunks.
“Not your keys, not your coins.”
This meme is endlessly repeated among longtime crypto hodlers. If you’re not in complete control of your crypto (i.e. using non-custodial wallets), then it’s not really your crypto. There has always been a close connection between libertarianism & cryptocurrency. This type of user wants to be in absolute control of their money and become their own bank.
In addition to the experienced crypto geeks, for some people, these products will mean the difference between life and death. Imagine a refugee family that wants to safely protect their years of hard work — their life savings — as they travel across borders. Carrying cash could put their safety or money at risk. A few years ago I spent time in Greece at refugee camps — I know first-hand this is a real use-case.

https://preview.redd.it/vigqlmgg1lg51.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a5d48a63ce7a637749bbbc03d62c51cc3f75613
Or imagine a family living under an authoritarian regime — afraid that their corrupt or oppressive government will seize their assets (or devalue their savings via hyperinflation). Citizens in these countries cannot risk putting their money in centralized banks or under their mattresses. They must become their own bank.
These are the common use-cases and users for non-custodial wallets.

Products in Market

Let’s do a quick round-up of some of the more popular products already in the market.
Web/Desktop The most popular web wallet is MetaMask. Though it doesn’t have any specific integration with DeFi protocols yet, it has more than a million users (which is a lot in crypto land!). Web wallets that are more deeply integrated with DeFi include InstaDapp, Zerion, DeFi Saver, Zapper, and MyCrypto (disclosure: I’m an investor and a big fan of Taylor). For the mass market, mobile will be a much more important form-factor. I don’t view these web products as much of a threat to Genesis Block.
https://preview.redd.it/gbpi2ijj1lg51.png?width=1050&format=png&auto=webp&s=c039887484bf8a3d3438fb02a384d0b9ef894e1f
Mobile The more serious threats to Genesis Block are the mobile products that (A) are leveraging some of the powerful DeFi protocols and (B) abstracting away a lot of the blockchain/DeFi UX complexity. While none get close to us on (B), the products attempting this are Argent and Dharma. To the extent they can, both are trying to make interacting with blockchain technology as simple as possible.
A few of the bigger exchanges have also entered this mobile non-custodial market. Coinbase has Wallet (via Cipher Browser acquisition). Binance has Trust Wallet (also via acquisition). And speaking of acquisitions, MyCrypto acquired Ambo, which is a solid product and has brought MyCrypto into the mobile space. Others worth mentioning include Rainbow — well-designed and built by a small indy-team with strong DeFi experience (former Balance team). And ZenGo which has a cool feature around keyless security (their CEO is a friend).
There are dozens of other mobile crypto wallets that do very little beyond showing your balances. They are not serious threats.
https://preview.redd.it/6x4lxsdk1lg51.png?width=1009&format=png&auto=webp&s=fab3280491b75fe394aebc8dd69926b6962dcf5d
Hardware Wallets Holding crypto on your own hardware wallet is widely considered to be “best practice” from a security standpoint. The most popular hardware wallets are Ledger, Trezor, and KeepKey (by our friends at ShapeShift). Ledger Nano X is the only product that has Bluetooth — thus, the only one that can connect to a mobile app. While exciting and innovative, these hardware wallets are not yet integrated with any DeFi protocols.
https://preview.redd.it/yotmvtsl1lg51.png?width=1025&format=png&auto=webp&s=c8567b42839d9cec8dbc6c78d2f953b688886026

Strengths

Let’s take a look at some of the strengths with non-custodial products.
  1. Regulatory arbitrage Because these products are “non-custodial”, they are able to avoid the regulatory burdens that centralized, custodial products must deal with (KYC/AML/MTL/etc). This is a strong practical benefit for a bootstrapped startup/buildedeveloper. Though it’s unclear how long this advantage lasts as products reach wider audiences and increased scrutiny.
  2. User Privacy Because of the regulatory arbitrage mentioned above, users do not need to complete onerous KYC requirements. For example, there’s no friction around selfies, government-issued IDs, SSNs, etc. Users can preserve much of their privacy and they don’t need to worry about their sensitive information being hacked, compromised, or leaked.
  3. Absolute control & custody This is really one of the great promises of crypto — users can become their own bank. Users can be in full control of their money. And they don’t need to bury it underground or hide it under a mattress. No dependence, reliance or trust in any third parties. Only the user herself can access and unlock the money.

Weaknesses

Now let’s examine some of the weaknesses.
  1. Knowledge & Education Most non-custodial products do not abstract away any of the blockchain complexity. In fact, they often expose more of it because the most loyal users are crypto geeks. Imagine how an average, non-crypto user feels when she starts seeing words like seed phrases, public & private keys, gas limits, transaction fees, blockchain explorers, hex addresses, and confirmation times. There is a lot for a user to learn and become educated on. That’s friction. The learning curve is very high and will always be a major blocker for adoption. We’ve talked about this in our Spreading Crypto series — to reach the masses, the crypto stuff needs to be in the background.
  2. User Experience It is currently impossible to create a smooth and performant user experience in non-custodial wallets or decentralized applications. Any interaction that requires a blockchain transaction will feel sluggish and slow. We built a messaging app on Ethereum and presented it at DevCon3 in Cancun. The technical constraints of blockchain technology were crushing to the user experience. We simply couldn’t create the real-time, modern messaging experience that users have come to expect from similar apps like Slack or WhatsApp. Until blockchains are closer in speed to web servers (which will be difficult given their decentralized nature), dApps will never be able to create the smooth user experience that the masses expect.
  3. Product Limitations Most non-custodial wallets today are based on Ethereum smart contracts. That means they are severely limited with the assets that they can support (only erc-20 tokens). Unless through synthetic assets (similar to Abra), these wallets cannot support massively popular assets like Bitcoin, XRP, Cardano, Litecoin, EOS, Tezos, Stellar, Cosmos, or countless others. There are exciting projects like tBTC trying to bring Bitcoin to Ethereum — but these experiments are still very, very early. Ethereum-based smart contract wallets are missing a huge part of the crypto-asset universe.
  4. Technical Complexity While developers are able to avoid a lot of regulatory complexity (see Strengths above), they are replacing it with increased technical complexity. Most non-custodial wallets are entirely dependent on smart contract technology which is still very experimental and early in development (see Insurance section of this DeFi use-cases post). Major bugs and major hacks do happen. Even recently, it was discovered that Argent had a “high severity vulnerability.” Fortunately, Argent fixed it and their users didn’t lose funds. The tools, frameworks, and best practices around smart contract technology are all still being established. Things can still easily go wrong, and they do.
  5. Loss of Funds Risk Beyond the technical risks mentioned above, with non-custodial wallets, it’s very easy for users to make mistakes. There is no “Forgot Password.” There is no customer support agent you can ping. There is no company behind it that can make you whole if you make a mistake and lose your money. You are on your own, just as CZ suggests. One wrong move and your money is all gone. If you lose your private key, there is no way to recover your funds. There are some new developments around social recovery, but that’s all still very experimental. This just isn’t the type of customer support experience people are used to. And it’s not a risk that most are willing to take.
  6. Integration with Fiat & Traditional Finance In today’s world, it’s still very hard to use crypto for daily spending (see Payments in our DeFi use-cases post). Hopefully, that will all change someday. In the meantime, if any of these non-custodial products hope to win in the broader consumer finance market, they will undoubtedly need to integrate with the legacy financial world — they need onramps (fiat-to-crypto deposit methods) and offramps (crypto-to-fiat withdraw/spend methods). As much as crypto-fanatics hate hearing it, you can’t expect people to jump headfirst into the new world unless there is a smooth transition, unless there are bridge technologies that help them arrive. This is why these fiat integrations are so important. Examples might be allowing ACH/Wire deposits (eg. via Plaid) or launching a debit card program for spend/withdraw. These fiat integrations are essential if the aim is to become the bank of the future. Doing any of this compliantly will require strong KYC/AML. So to achieve this use-case — integrating with traditional finance —all of the Strengths we mentioned above are nullified. There are no longer regulatory benefits. There are no longer privacy benefits (users need to upload KYC documents, etc). And users are no longer in complete control of their money.

Wrap Up

One of the great powers of crypto is that we no longer depend on banks. Anyone can store their wealth and have absolute control of their money. That’s made possible with these non-custodial wallets. It’s a wonderful thing.
I believe that the most knowledgeable and experienced crypto people (including myself) will always be active users of these applications. And as mentioned in this post, there will certainly be circumstances where these apps will be essential & even life-saving.
However, I do not believe this category of product is a major threat to Genesis Block to becoming the bank of the future.
They won’t win in the broader consumer finance market — mostly because I don’t believe that’s their target audience. These applications simply cannot produce the type of product experience that the masses require, want, or expect. The Weaknesses I’ve outlined above are just too overwhelming. The friction for mass-market consumers is just too much.

https://preview.redd.it/lp8dzxeh1lg51.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=03acdce545cd032f7e82b6665b001d7a06839557
The winning bank will be focused on solving real user problems and meeting user needs. Not slowed down by rigid idealism like censorship-resistance and absolute decentralization, as it is with most non-custodial wallets. The winning bank will be a world-class product that’s smooth, performant, and accessible. Not sluggish and slow, as it is with most non-custodial wallets. The winning bank will be one where blockchain & crypto is mostly invisible to end-users. Not front-and-center as it is with non-custodial wallets. The winning bank will be one managed and run by professionals who know exactly what they’re doing. Not DIY (Do It Yourself), as it is with non-custodial wallets.
So are these non-custodial wallets a threat to Genesis Block in winning the broader consumer finance market, and becoming the bank of the future?
No. They are designed for a very different audience.
------
Other Ways to Consume Today's Episode:
Follow our social channels: https://genesisblock.com/follow/
Download the app. We're a digital bank that's powered by crypto: https://genesisblock.com/download
submitted by mickhagen to genesisblockhq [link] [comments]

So if Bitcoin is a property, and not money, I do not need a money transmitter license to sell bitcoins?

Is it one way or the other? or is it both in a way that we get fucked the most?
submitted by erikwithaknotac to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Certain Business Models Involving Convertible Virtual Currencies

https://www.systems.cs.cornell.edu/docs/fincen-cvc-guidance-final.pdf
FinCEN Guidance report may have implications for mixing protocols/services for Bitcoin (such as Wasabi wallet).
4.5.1. Providers of anonymizing services for CVCs Providers of anonymizing services, commonly referred to as “mixers” or “tumblers,” are either persons that accept CVCs and retransmit them in a manner designed to prevent others from tracing the transmission back to its source (anonymizing services provider), or suppliers of software a transmittor would use for the same purpose (anonymizing software provider).
4.5.1(a) Anonymizing services provider An anonymizing services provider is a money transmitter under FinCEN regulations. The added feature of concealing the source of the transaction does not change that person’s status under the BSA.
Relevant to Monero because the providers (or users) of the opt-in tumble/mixing services for Bitcoin may run into some legal trouble if this report is anything to go by. Would further solidify Monero's necessary existence.
Also
4.5.2. Providers of anonymity-enhanced CVCs [convertible virtual currencies]. A person that creates or sells anonymity-enhanced CVCs designed to prevent their tracing through publicly visible ledgers would be a money transmitter under FinCEN regulations depending on the type of payment system and the person’s activity.62 For example:
(a) a person operating as the administrator of a centralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter the moment that person issues anonymity enhanced CVC against the receipt of another type of value
(b) a person that uses anonymity-enhanced CVCs to pay for goods or services on his or her own behalf would not be a money transmitter under the BSA. However, if the person uses the CVC to accept and transmit value from one person to another person or location, the person will fall under the definition of money transmitter, if not otherwise exempted.
(c) a person that develops a decentralized CVC payment system will become a money transmitter if that person also engages as a business in the acceptance and transmission of value denominated in the CVC it developed (even if the CVC value was mined at an earlier date). The person would not be a money transmitter if that person uses the CVC it mined to pay for goods and services on his or her own behalf.
submitted by Galwoa to Monero [link] [comments]

Playing with fire with FinCen and SEC, Binance may face a hefty penalty again after already losing 50 percent of its trading business

On 14 June, Binance announced that it “constantly reviews user accounts to improve (their) platform security and to comply with global compliance requirements”, mentioning that “Binance is unable to provide services to any U.S. person” in the latest “Binance Terms of Use” attached within the announcement.
According to the data from a third-party traffic statistics website, Alexa, users in the U.S. form the biggest user group of Binance, accounting for about 25% of the total visitor traffic.
In the forecast of Binance’s user scale compiled by The Block, the largest traffic is dominated by users in the U.S., surpassing the total of the ones from the second place to the fifth place.
Also, considering that the scale of digital asset trading for the users in the U.S. far exceeds that of the users of many other countries, it could mean that Binance may have already lost 50 % of the business income by losing users in the U.S. Apparently, such an announcement by Binance to stop providing services to users in the U.S. means Binance has no other alternative but “seek to live on.”
So, what are the specific requirements of the U.S. for digital asset exchanges and which of the regulatory red lines of the U.S. did Binance cross?
Compliance issues relating to operation permission of digital asset exchanges
In the U.S., the entry barrier for obtaining a business license to operate a digital asset exchange is not high. Apart from the special licencing requirements of individual states such as New York, most of the states generally grant licences to digital asset exchanges through the issuance of a “Money Transmitter License” (MTL).
Each state has different requirements for MTL applications. Some of the main common requirements are:
Filling out the application form, including business address, tax identification number, social security number and statement of net assets of the owneproprietor Paying the relevant fees for the licence application Meeting the minimum net assets requirements stipulated by the state Completing a background check Providing a form of guarantee, such as security bonds
It is worth noting that not all states are explicitly using MTL to handle the issues around operation permission of digital asset exchanges. For instance, New Hampshire passed a new law on 12 March 2017, announcing that trading parties of digital assets in that state would not be bound by MTL. Also, Montana has not yet set up MTL, keeping an open attitude towards the currency trading business.
On top of obtaining the MTL in each state, enterprises are also required to complete the registration of “Money Services Business” (MSB) on the federal level FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Treasury Department) issued the “Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies” on 18 March 2013. On the federal level, the guideline requires any enterprise involved in virtual currency services to complete the MSB registration and perform the corresponding compliance responsibilities. The main responsibility of a registered enterprise is to establish anti-money laundering procedures and reporting systems.
However, California is an exception. Enterprises in California would only need to complete the MSB registration on the federal level and they do not need to apply for the MTL in California.
Any enterprise operating in New York must obtain a virtual currency business license, Bitlicense, issued in New York
Early in July 2014, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS) has specially designed and launched the BitLicense, stipulating that any institutions participating in a business relevant to virtual currency (virtual currency transfer, virtual currency trust, provision of virtual currency trading services, issuance or management of virtual currencies) must obtain a BitLicense.
To date, the NYSDFS has issued 19 Bitlicenses. Among them includes exchanges such as Coinbase (January 2017), BitFlyer (July 2017), Genesis Global Trading (May 2018) and Bitstamp (April 2019).
Solely from the perspective of operation permission, Binance has yet to complete the MSB registration of FinCEN (its partner, BAM Trading, has completed the MSB registration). This means that Binance is not eligible to operate a digital asset exchange in the U.S. FinCEN has the rights to prosecute Binance based on its failure to fulfil the relevant ‘anti-money laundering’ regulatory requirements.
Compliance issues relating to online assets
With the further development of the digital asset market, ICO has released loads of “digital assets” that have characteristics of a “security” into the trading markets. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed more comprehensive compliance requirements for digital asset exchanges. The core of the requirements is reflected in the restrictions of offering digital assets trading service.
In the last two years, the SEC has reiterated on many occasions that digital assets that have characteristics of a security should not be traded on a digital asset exchange
In August 2017, when the development of ICO was at its peak, the SEC issued an investor bulletin “Investor Bulletin: Initial Coin Offerings” on its website and published an investigation report of the DAO. It determined that the DAO tokens were considered ‘marketable securities’, stressing that all digital assets considered ‘marketable securities’ would be incorporated into the SEC regulatory system, bound by the U.S. federal securities law. Soon after, the SEC also declared and stressed that “(if) a platform offers trading of digital assets that are securities and operates as an “exchange,” as defined by the federal securities laws, then the platform must register with the SEC as a national securities exchange or be exempt from registration.”
On 16 November 2018, the SEC issued a “Statement on Digital Asset Securities Issuance and Trading,” in which the SEC used five real case studies to conduct exemplary penalty rulings on the initial offers and sales of digital asset securities, including those issued in ICOs, relevant cryptocurrency exchanges, investment management tools, ICO platforms and so on. The statement further reiterates that exchanges cannot provide trading services for digital assets that have characteristics of a security.
On 3 April 2019, the SEC issued the “Framework for ‘Investment Contract’ Analysis of Digital Assets” to further elucidate the evaluation criteria for determining whether a digital asset is a security and providing guiding opinions on the compliance of the issuance, sales, holding procedures of digital assets.
As of now, only a small number of digital assets, such as BTC, ETH, etc. meet the SEC’s requirement of “non-securities assets.” The potentially “compliant” digital assets are less than 20.
Early in March 2014, the Inland Revenue Service (IRS) has stated that Bitcoin will be treated as a legal property and will be subject to taxes. In September 2015, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) stated that Bitcoin is a commodity and will be treated as a “property” by the IRS for tax purposes.
On 15 June 2018, William Hinman, Director of the Corporate Finance Division of the SEC, said at the Cryptocurrency Summit held in San Francisco that BTC and ETH are not securities. Nevertheless, many ICO tokens fall under the securities category.
So far, only BTC and ETH have received approval and recognition of the U.S. regulatory authority as a “non-securities asset.”
Since July 2018, the SEC has investigated more than ten types of digital assets, one after another, and ruled that they were securities and had to be incorporated into the SEC regulatory system. It prosecuted and punished those who had contravened the issuance and trading requirements of the securities laws.
Although there are still many digital assets that have yet to be characterised as “securities”, it is extremely difficult to be characterised as a “non-securities asset” based on the evaluation criteria announced by the SEC. As the SEC’s spokesperson has reiterated many times, they believe the majority of ICO tokens are securities.
Under the stipulated requirements of the SEC, Coinbase, a leading U.S. exchange, has withdrawn a batch of digital assets. The assets withdrawn included digital assets that had been characterised as “securities” as well as those that have high risks of being characterised as “securities.” However, it is worth noting that although the risk to be characterised as “securities” for more than ten types of digital assets, which have not been explicitly required by SEC to be withdrawn, is relatively small, they are not entirely safe. With the further escalation of the SEC’s investigations, they could still be characterised as securities and be held accountable for violating their responsibilities. However, this requires further guidance from the SEC.
*Coinbase’s 14 types of digital assets that have yet to be requested for withdrawal
Poloniex announced on 16 May that it would stop providing services for nine digital assets, including Ardor (ARDR), Bytecoin (BCN), etc. under the compliance guidelines of the SEC. On 7 June, Bittrex also announced that it would stop providing trading services to U.S. users for 32 digital assets. The action of the SEC on its regulatory guidance was further reinforced apparently.
In fact, it is not the first time that these two exchanges have withdrawn digital assets under regulatory requirements. Since the rapid development of digital assets driven by ICO in 2017, Poloniex and Bittrex were once leading exchanges for ICO tokens, providing comprehensive trading services for digital assets. However, after the SEC reiterated its compliance requirements, Poloniex and Bittrex have withdrawn a considerable amount of assets in the past year to meet the compliance requirements.
In conclusion, the takeaways that we have got are as follows: Under the existing U.S. regulatory requirements of digital assets, after obtaining the basic entry licences (MSB, MTL), exchanges could either choose the “compliant asset” solution of Coinbase and only list a small number of digital assets that do not have apparent characteristics of a security, and at all times prepare to withdraw any asset later characterised as “securities” by the SECs; or choose to be like OKEx and Huobi and make it clear they would “not provide services to any U.S. users” at the start.
Binance has been providing a large number of digital assets that have characteristics of a security to U.S users without a U.S. securities exchange licence, so it has already contravened the SEC regulatory requirements.
On top of that, it is also worth noting that the rapid development of Binance has been achieved precisely through the behaviours of “contrary to regulations” and “committing crimes.” Amid the blocking of several pioneering exchanges, such as OKCoin, Huobi, etc. providing services to Chinese users in the Chinese market under new laws from the regulatory authorities, Binance leapfrogged the competition and began to dominate the Chinese market. Similarly, Binance’s rapid growth in the U.S. market is mainly due to its domination of the traffic of digital assets withdrawn by Poloniex and Bittrex. One can say that Binance not only has weak awareness of compliance issues, but it is also indeed “playing with fire” with the U.S. regulators.
In April 2018, the New York State Office of Attorney General (OAG) requested 13 digital asset exchanges, including Binance, to prepare for investigations, indicating it would initiate an investigation in relations to company ownership, leadership, operating conditions, service terms, trading volume, relationships with financial institutions, etc. Many exchanges, including Gemini, Bittrex, Poloniex, BitFlyer, Bitfinex, and so on, proactively acknowledged and replied in the first instance upon receipt of the investigation notice. However, Binance had hardly any action.
Binance has been illegally operating in the U.S. for almost two years. It has not yet fulfilled the FinCEN and MSB registration requirements. Moreover, it has also neglected the SEC announcements and OAG investigation summons on several occasions. The ultimate announcement of exiting the U.S. market may be due to the tremendous pressure imposed by the U.S. regulators.
In fact, the SEC executives have recently stressed that “exchanges of IEO in the U.S. market are facing legal risks and the SEC would soon crack down on these illegal activities” on numerous occasions. These were clear indications of imposing pressure on Binance.
Regarding the SEC’s rulings on illegal digital asset exchanges, EtherDelta and investment management platform, Crypto Asset Management, it may not be easy for Binance to “fully exit” from the U.S. market. It may be faced with a hefty penalty. Once there are any compensation claims by the U.S. users for losses incurred in the trading of assets at Binance, it would be dragged into a difficult compensation dilemma. It would undoubtedly be a double blow for Binance that has just been held accountable for the losses incurred in a theft of 7,000 BTC.
Coincidentally, Binance was tossed out of Japan because of compliance issues. In March 2018, the Financial Services Agency of Japan officially issued a stern warning to Binance, which was boldly providing services to Japanese users without registering for a digital asset exchange licence in Japan. Binance was forced to relocate to Malta instead. Binance may have to bear hefty penalties arising from challenging the compliance requirements after it had lost important markets due to consecutive compliance issues.
The rise of Binance was attributed to its bold and valiant style, grasping the opportunity created in the vacuum period of government regulation, breaking compliance requirements and rapidly dominating the market to obtain user traffic. For a while, it gained considerable advantages in the early, barbaric growth stage of the industry. Nonetheless, under the increasingly comprehensive regulatory compliance system for global digital asset markets, Binance, which has constantly been “evading regulation” and “resisting supervision” would undoubtedly face enormous survival challenges, notwithstanding that it would lose far more than 50 per cent of the market share.
https://www.asiacryptotoday.com/playing-with-fire-with-fincen-and-sec-binance-may-face-a-hefty-penalty-again-after-already-losing-50-percent-of-its-trading-business/
submitted by Fun_Judgment to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

Bitcoin ATM by Bitcoin Solutions: San Fran

Hey Reddit World!
Bitcoin Solutions has another ATM set to arrive in the next few weeks and we have our sights set on San Francisco, CA! While we have done our research we feel it is important to get the input from the locals! So if anyone in the area has/knows/thinks they know a good place to host an ATM can you put them in touch? [email protected] is a good place to contact the team!
Thanks a bunch, Reddit World! We hope to be hearing from you shortly!
Bitcoin Solutions @EDMbtcsolutions http://btcsolutions.ca
submitted by edmbtcsolutions to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Lightning Network Will Likely Fail Due To Several Possible Reasons

ECONOMIC CASE IS ABSENT FOR MANY TRANSACTIONS
The median Bitcoin (BTC) fee is $14.41 currently. This has gone parabolic in the past few days. So, let’s use a number before this parabolic rise, which was $3.80. Using this number, opening and closing a Lightning Network (LN) channel means that you will pay $7.60 in fees. Most likely, the fee will be much higher for two reasons:
  1. BTC fees have been trending higher all year and will be higher by the time LN is ready
  2. When you are in the shoe store or restaurant, you will likely pay a higher fee so that you are not waiting there for one or more hours for confirmation.
Let’s say hypothetically that Visa or Paypal charges $1 per transaction. This means that Alice and Carol would need to do 8 or more LN transactions, otherwise it would be cheaper to use Visa or Paypal.
But it gets worse. Visa doesn’t charge the customer. To you, Visa and Cash are free. You would have no economic incentive to use BTC and LN.
Also, Visa does not charge $1 per transaction. They charge 3%, which is 60 cents on a $20 widget. Let’s say that merchants discount their widgets by 60 cents for non-Visa purchases, to pass the savings onto the customer. Nevertheless, no one is going to use BTC and LN to buy the widget unless 2 things happen:
  1. they buy more than 13 widgets from the same store ($7.60 divided by 60 cents)
  2. they know ahead of time that they will do this with that same store
This means that if you’re traveling, or want to tip content producers on the internet, you will likely not use BTC and LN. If you and your spouse want to try out a new restaurant, you will not use BTC and LN. If you buy shoes, you will not use BTC and LN.
ROAD BLOCKS FROM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
Some argue that you do not need to open a channel to everyone, if there’s a route to that merchant. This article explains that if LN is a like a distributed mesh network, then another problem exists:
"third party needs to possess the necessary capital to process the transaction. If Alice and Bob do not have an open channel, and Alice wants to send Bob .5 BTC, they'll both need to be connected to a third party (or a series of 3rd parties). Say if Charles (the third party) only possesses .4 BTC in his respective payment channels with the other users, the transaction will not be able to go through that route. The longer the route, the more likely that a third party does not possess the requisite amount of BTC, thereby making it a useless connection.”
CENTRALIZATION
According to this visualization of LN on testnet, LN will be centralized around major hubs. It might be even more centralized than this visualization if the following are true:
  1. Users will want to connect to large hubs to minimize the number of times they need to open/close channels, which incur fees
  2. LN’s security and usability relies on 100% uptime of relaying parties
  3. Only large hubs with a lot of liquidity will be able to make money
  4. Hubs or intermediary nodes will need to be licensed as money transmitters, centralizing LN to exchanges and banks as large hubs
What will the impact be on censorship-resistance, trust-less and permission-less?
NEED TO BE LICENSED AS MONEY TRANSMITTER
Advocates for LN seem to talk a lot about the technology, but ignore the legalities.
FinCEN defines money transmitters. LN hubs and intermediary nodes seem to satisfy this definition.
Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies
“…applicability of the regulations … to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.”
“…an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN's regulations, specifically, a money transmitter…”
"An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations…”
"FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.””
"The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies.”
FinCEN’s regulations for IVTS:
"An “informal value transfer system” refers to any system, mechanism, or network of people that receives money for the purpose of making the funds or an equivalent value payable to a third party in another geographic location, whether or not in the same form.”
“…IVTS… must comply with all BSA registration, recordkeeping, reporting and AML program requirements.
“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are transferred on behalf of the public by any and all means including, but not limited to, transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…regulations require all money transmitting businesses…to register with FinCEN."
Mike Caldwell used to accept and mail bitcoins. Customers sent him bitcoins and he mailed physical bitcoins back or to a designated recipient. There is no exchange from one type of currency to another. FinCEN told him that he needed to be licensed as money transmitter, after which Caldwell stopped mailing out bitcoins.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST NEED FOR LICENSING
Some have argued that LN does not transfer BTC until the channel is closed on the blockchain. This is not a defence, since channels will close on the blockchain.
Some have argued that LN nodes do not take ownership of funds. Is this really true? Is this argument based on a technicality or hoping for a loophole? It seems intuitive that a good prosecutor can easily defeat this argument. Even if this loophole exists, can we count on the government to never close this loophole?
So, will LN hubs and intermediary nodes need to be licensed as money transmitters? If so, then Bob, who is the intermediary between Alice and Carol, will need a license. But Bob won’t have the money nor qualifications. Money transmitters need to pay $25,000 to $1 million, maintain capital levels and are subject to KYC/AML regulations1. In which case, LN will have mainly large hubs, run by financial firms, such as banks and exchanges.
Will the banks want this? Likely. Will they lobby the government to get it? Likely.
Some may be wondering about miners. FinCEN has declared that miners are not money transmitters:
https://coincenter.org/entry/aml-kyc-tokens :
"Subsequent administrative rulings clarified several remaining ambiguities: miners are not money transmitters…"
FinCEN Declares Bitcoin Miners, Investors Aren't Money Transmitters
Some argue that LN nodes will go through Tor and be anonymous. For this to work, will all of the nodes connecting to it, need to run Tor? If so, then how likely will this happen and will all of these people need to run Tor on every device (laptop, phone and tablet)? Furthermore, everyone of these people will be need to be sufficiently tech savvy to download, install and set up Tor. Will the common person be able to do this? Also, will law-abiding nodes, such as retailers or banks, risk their own livelihood by connecting to an illegal node? What is the likelihood of this?
Some argue that unlicensed LN hubs can run in foreign countries. Not true. According to FinCEN: "“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are…transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…” Also, foreign companies are not immune from the laws of other countries which have extradition agreements. The U.S. government has sued European banks over the LIBOR scandal. The U.S. government has charged foreign banks for money laundering and two of those banks pleaded guilty. Furthermore, most countries have similar laws. It is no coincidence that European exchanges comply with KYC/AML.
Will licensed, regulated LN hubs connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. Will Amazon or eBay connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. If you want to buy from Amazon, you’ll likely need to register yourself at a licensed, regulated LN hub, which means you’ll need to provide your identification photo.
Say goodbye to a censorship-resistant, trust-less and permission-less coin.
For a preview of what LN will probably look like, look at Coinbase or other large exchanges. It’s a centralized, regulated and censored hub. Coinbase allows users to send to each other off-chain. Coinbase provides user data to the IRS and disallows users from certain countries to sell BTC. You need to trust that no rogue employee in the exchange will steal your funds, or that a bank will not confiscate your funds as banks did in Cyprus. What if the government provides a list of users, who are late with their tax returns, to Coinbase and tells Coinbase to block those users from making transactions? You need Coinbase’s permission.
This would be the antithesis of why Satoshi created Bitcoin.
NEED TO REPORT TO IRS
The IRS has a definition for “third party settlement organization” and these need to report transactions to the IRS.
Though we do not know for sure yet, it can be argued that LN hubs satisfies this definition. If this is the case, who will be willing to be LN hubs, other than banks and exchanges?
To read about the discussion, go to:
Lightning Hubs Will Need To Report To IRS
COMPLEXITY
All cryptocurrencies are complicated for the common person. You may be tech savvy enough to find a secure wallet and use cryptocurrencies, but the masses are not as tech savvy as you.
LN adds a very complicated and convoluted layer to cryptocurrencies. It is bound to have bugs for years to come and it’s complicated to use. This article provides a good explanation of the complexity. Just from the screenshot of the app, the user now needs to learn additional terms and commands:
“On Chain”
“In Channels”
“In Limbo”
“Your Channel”
“Create Channel”
“CID”
“OPENING”
“PENDING-OPEN”
“Available to Receive”
“PENDING-FORCE-CLOSE”
There are also other things to learn, such as how funds need to be allocated to channels and time locks. Compare this to using your current wallet.
Recently, LN became even more complicated and convoluted. It needs a 3rd layer as well:
Scaling Bitcoin Might Require A Whole 'Nother Layer
How many additional steps does a user need to learn?
ALL COINS PLANNING OFF-CHAIN SCALING ARE AT RISK
Bitcoin Segwit, Litecoin, Vertcoin and possibly others (including Bitcoin Cash) are planning to implement LN or layer 2 scaling. Ethereum is planning to use Raiden Network, which is very similar to LN. If the above is true about LN, then the scaling roadmap for these coins is questionable at best, nullified at worst.
BLOCKSTREAM'S GAME PLAN IS ON TRACK
Blockstream employs several of the lead Bitcoin Core developers. Blockstream has said repeatedly that they want high fees. Quotes and source links can be found here.
Why is Blockstream so adamant on small blocks, high fees and off-chain scaling?
Small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations create demand for off-chain solutions, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. LN will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This will be the main way that Blockstream will generate revenue for its investors, who invested $76 million. Otherwise, they can go bankrupt and die.
One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by bankers and politicians (former prime ministers and nation leaders). According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” LN helps Bilderberg Group get one step closer to its goal.
Luke-Jr is one of the lead BTC developers in Core/Blockstream. Regulation of BTC is in-line with his beliefs. He is a big believer in the government, as he believes that the government should tax you and the “State has authority from God”. In fact, he has other radical beliefs as well:
So, having only large, regulated LN hubs is not a failure for Blockstream/Bilderberg. It’s a success. The title of this article should be changed to: "Lightning Will Fail Or Succeed, Depending On Whether You Are Satoshi Or Blockstream/Bilderberg".
SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENTS WITH ON-CHAIN SCALING
Meanwhile, some coins such as Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash are pushing ahead with on-chain scaling. Both are looking at Sharding.
Visa handles 2,000 transactions per second on average. Blockstream said that on-chain scaling will not work. The development teams for Bitcoin Cash have shown significant on-chain scaling:
1 GB block running on testnet demonstrates over 10,000 transactions per second:
"we are not going from 1MB to 1GB tomorrow — The purpose of going so high is to prove that it can be done — no second layer is necessary”
"Preliminary Findings Demonstrate Over 10,000 Transactions Per Second"
"Gigablock testnet initiative will likely be implemented first on Bitcoin Cash”
Peter Rizun, Andrew Stone -- 1 GB Block Tests -- Scaling Bitcoin Stanford At 13:55 in this video, Rizun said that he thinks that Visa level can be achieved with a 4-core/16GB machine with better implementations (modifying the code to take advantage of parallelization.)
Bitcoin Cash plans to fix malleability and enable layer 2 solutions:
The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet:
"fixing malleability and enabling Layer 2 solutions will happen”
However, it is questionable if layer 2 will work or is needed.
GOING FORWARD
The four year scaling debate and in-fighting is what caused small blockers (Blockstream) to fork Bitcoin by adding Segwit and big blockers to fork Bitcoin into Bitcoin Cash. Read:
Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained
It will be interesting to see how they scale going forward.
Scaling will be instrumental in getting network effect and to be widely adopted as a currency. Whichever Coin Has The Most Network Effect Will Take All (Or Most) (BTC has little network effect, and it's shrinking.)
The ability to scale will be key to the long term success of any coin.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Can someone please explain to me the legality of using localbitcoins.com in the US? Are buyers and sellers a money service business?

In what scenarios are you violating financial laws?
http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/definitions/msb.html
submitted by OperativeProvocateur to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Legal limits in Minnesota

My first child was born recently and I need to sell some bitcoin to cover the expenses. I plan to sell on localbitcoins.com but am having difficulty finding any legal information on how to avoid running afoul of the money transmitter laws in MN. My primary question is how much can I sell each day and remain legal but I welcome any links to helpful resources as well. Thanks.
submitted by mnbitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Remarks of Jennifer Shasky Calvery Directory of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (June 13th)

submitted by MaxSan to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I am a tax attorney, here are my answers to the most common questions about the taxation of bitcoins

Edit: On March 25, 2014 the IRS released Notice 2014-21 addressing the taxation of bitcoins. This post was updated on March 26, 2014 to reflect the IRS's positions contained in the Notice.
Last Edit: June 2017
Introduction
I've noticed a significant amount of uncertainty around here about the taxation of bitcoins. In effort to provide some guidance , I've compiled some of the most common questions I've seen and tried to provide straight-forward, easy to understand answers. I am a tax attorney, but there is so much uncertainty surrounding bitcoins that I expect some people to disagree with one or more of my conclusions. If you have a contradictory opinion, please share it. We would all benefit from an educated discussion of this issue.
Keep in mind this post is intended for a layman audience. If you are a tax professional or want a detailed examination of this topic, you find this post lacking. Please don't nit pick this post with technicalities or narrow exceptions, I purposely excluded such nuances for the sake of readability.
I should note that this post does not address aggressive tax planning strategies. Such strategies are a lot of fun to discuss, but they do not belong in this type of post. If you are interested in such strategies, perhaps we can make a follow-up post on another day.
Legal Disclaimer
This post was created for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute legal advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific advice from a tax professional. No representation or warranty (expressed or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this post, and I do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this post or for any decision based on it.
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, I inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
THE AUTHOR Tyson P. Cross is a tax attorney licensed in California and Nevada. He represents individuals and businesses with tax issues related to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, including tax return preparation, tax planning, and FinCEN compliance. He can be reached at Tel: +1 775-376-5690 or by visiting www.BitcoinTaxSolutions.com.
Topic 1: Realization
#1: Are gains on Bitcoins taxable? Yes. This is one of the only unequivocal answers you'll find in this post. All income is taxable, regardless of source or form, unless the Internal Revenue Code specifically states otherwise. Bitcoins present a lot of interesting tax questions, but whether gains are taxable is not one of them.
#2: When do my gains become taxable?*
Gains are taxable in the year they are realized. Realization occurs when you exchange bitcoins for any type of other property; such as cash, merchandise, or services. This includes everything from haircuts to yachts. Essentially, any transaction involving Bitcoin is a realization event and triggers taxable gain. Note: IRS Notice 2014-21 expressly confirms this treatment.
Because I've seen a lot of misinformation on this point, I want to make myself perfectly clear. If you own bitcoins that have appreciated in value, you cannot use them to purchase goods or services without realizing gain. Such a purchase is an accession to wealth. It puts you in the same position as if you had first sold the bitcoins for cash and then used the proceeds to purchase the goods or services directly. Yet, one would be a taxable transaction while the other would not? The IRS would never tolerate such a blatant loophole, and neither would the courts. In fact, this exact argument has already been rejected for other types of assets. The outcome for bitcoins will be the same.
Unfortunately, this has some serious implications for the future of bitcoin. I have to question the effectiveness of bitcoin as a medium of exchange when the user has to calculate his or her tax liability on every single transaction. As the saying goes, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and this is no exception.
Note: There is a code section that might provide some relief here, but only if bitcoins are categorized as a foreign currency. Under this code section, the use of bitcoin to buy goods and services would be tax free as long as the transaction was personal (i.e. not for business or investment) and did not generate more than $200 of gain. Unfortunately, the IRS ruled in Notice 2014-21 that bitcoin is not a currency for tax purposes. So, this code section is inapplicable unless the IRS changes its position sometime in the future.
#3: What if I sell my bitcoins but do not withdraw the proceeds from the exchange?
It doesn't matter, your gains were realized the moment you sold them. It is irrelevant whether the proceeds from the sale are kept in your bank account or your exchange account, you still have a realized gain for tax purposes.
#4: What if I exchange my bitcoins for altcoins? Is this a like-kind exchange?
This is a fair question and implicates what is known as a "like-kind exchange." Under Section 1031 of the tax code, exchanges of like-kind property do not trigger recognition of capital gains, and therefore are tax-free. Whether or not bitcoins/altoins are like-kind is uncertain to say the least. As intangible property, bitcoins/altcoins would qualify as like-kind only if they have the same rights, characteristics, and obligations. This is a very difficult test to apply to virtual currency.
Additionally, if characterized as a foreign currency, bitcoins would be automatically barred from like-kind treatment anyways. Thus, there are two significant legal hurdles that must be overcome before bitcoin and altcoins can qualify as for like-kind status. Although nothing is for certain when it comes to bitcoins, I'm fairly confident that the IRS would not agree with like-kind treatment and you run the risk of having the unrecognized gains added to your tax return (with penalties and interest added). Thus, I would not suggest that you try to qualify such a transaction as a like kind exchange until further guidance on this issue is given by the IRS or you obtain a tax opinion letter from an attorney concluding that your treatment of bitcoins/altcoins as like-kind appropriate.
Lastly, keep in mind that like-kind exchanges must still be reported on your tax return (using Form 8824).
edit: IRS Notice 2014-21 concluded that bitcoins are not a foreign currency, therefore it is possible that bitcoin can qualify for like-kind treatment if the "rights and characteristics" test is met.
#5: So how can I avoid realizing gains on my bitcoins?
The only way to avoid realization is to hold your bitcoins without selling or exchanging them. If you were hoping for a different answer, I'm sorry. Whether you decide to actually report you realized gains is of course a different matter, but as far as the law is concerned, you have realized gains upon any sale or exchange of your bitcoins.
#6: How does the IRS know about my gains? *
The IRS only knows what it is told. This means that it has no knowledge of your bitcoin transactions unless someone tells them. Here are four way that can happen (others may exist).
First, your bitcoin exchange or payment processor may report your transactions to the IRS. This would be done with a Form 1099, which you’ve probably encountered at one time or another in a different context. However, it does not appear that bitcoin transactions are currently subject to the 1099 reporting requirements (although that will probably change). Thus, unless they voluntarily file a 1099 against you, it is unlikely that the IRS will receive a report of your bitcoin transactions. Note that they would need your social security number to file a 1099 in your name. Edit: IRS Notice 2014-21 clarifies that "payment settlors" who convert bitcoin payments to cash for merchants will have to file 1099s. IF you are not a merchant, than this does not impact you.
Second, your bank or bitcoin exchange might file a Suspicious Activity Report ("SAR"). US banks and bitcoin exchanges are required to file SARs for wire transfers that are “suspicious” and larger than $5,000 ($2,000 in the case of bitcoin exchanges). The meaning of “suspicious” is very vague and highly discretionary. Out of an abundance of caution, many banks automatically treat all international transfer as “suspicious.” So, if you’ve sent or received a wire transfer of more than $5,000 to/from an international bitcoin exchange like Mt. Gox or BTC-e, you can be pretty sure that your bank has already filed a SAR against you (although they are prohibited from telling you if they did, so you'll never know for sure). The larger and/or more frequent you SAR filings, the more likely they will become a legitimate red flag and trigger an investigation. Although FinCEN is generally concerned with money laundering activities, the IRS does have access to FinCEN filings and it is common for IRS special agents to participate in FinCEN investigations.
Third, someone can rat you out to the IRS, which happens far more often than you might think. The simple fact is that people get jealous, and if they've heard that you've made lots of tax free money with bitcoin, they might get tempted to make sure justice is served. There's also that nice reward the IRS will pay them for snitching.
Fourth, you voluntarily and accurately report your gains on your tax return. That might sound ridiculous to some people given the inherent anonymity of bitcoin, but there are some very rich people in prison right now who used to think the same thing about their Swiss bank accounts. The fact is that penalties for failing to report income are significant. This includes the possibility of criminal prosecution. You can also add to this the additional penalties for failing to report foreign financial accounts (discussed below), which can be even more severe.
At the end of the day, you have a decision to make. You can comply with the law and pay taxes just like everyone else, which is admittedly unpleasant. Alternatively, you can violate the law and hope that you don't get caught. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. If you are caught, though, the amount of money you'll be forced to pay in penalties and interest will drastically exceed the amount you saved. That's not to mention the possibility of a felony criminal conviction and a prolonged stay at Club Fed. Personally, I have seen the havoc wreaked on people's lives by tax crimes and I would never want to be in their shoes. Neither should you.
TL; DR: Gains on bitcoins are taxable income. They become taxable when you sell bitcoins for cash or exchange them for goods or services. The IRS does not receive any direct information regarding your bitcoin transactions, but it has other ways of finding out. The monetary and criminal penalties for failing to report gains are not worth the taxes you'd save.
Continued Below Edit: This post has been edited since it was first posted. An asterisk was placed next to the questions that underwent more than just grammatical changes. Additionally, questions related to losses were inadvertently omitted from the first post, but have since been added back.
submitted by dblcross121 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

This week in Bitcoin- 9-25-2020- Cities mining BTC, 100K ... FinCEN Director Notes Improved Oversight of Cryptocurrency Industry Bitcoin Foundation is Wrong! BitcoinLaw - BITCOIN OVER $20,000 Says Novogratz - FinCen & Liechtenstein Crypto Regulation - Medici Bank Crypto Adam S. Tracy Breaks Down FinCEN's Regulation of Cryptocurrency

The First FinCEN Guidance (2013) In 2013, the first FinCEN guidance on crypto was issued. It was the beginning of crypto AML and cryptocurrency compliance concerns. The guidance was very broad, but it basically said that if you’re exchanging cryptocurrency, you’re considered a money transmitter and subject to rules affecting them. A user of crypto is not a money services business (MSB ... FinCEN published guidance for all those involved with cryptocurrency on May 9th of 2019. We’ve encapsulated some of the main points of this 30-page statement while also offering a little food for thought as we move forward within the US regulatory environment. The guidance considers the use of virtual currencies from the perspective of several categories within FinCEN's definition of MSBs. FinCEN's mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit use and combat money laundering and promote national security through the collection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence and strategic use of financial authorities. In 2013, FinCEN issued the 2013 VC Guidance which described what CVC is (it’s everything under the blockchain umbrella). That guidance initiated the terms “exchanger” (for example, when you turn fiat currency into bitcoin through Coinbase ) , “administrator” (any token created and put into circulation — when the administrator has the power to withdraw it from circulation. Please visit our COVID-19 page for all FinCEN guidance related to COVID-19. 10/16/2020 FinCEN Clarifies FBAR Extensions Agencies Invite Comment on Proposed Rule under Bank Secrecy Act. October 23, 2020. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Federal Reserve Board today invited comment on a proposed rule that would amend the recordkeeping and travel rule regulations under the ...

[index] [16032] [44393] [23471] [22921] [50853] [12030] [19328] [3100] [40962] [35091]

This week in Bitcoin- 9-25-2020- Cities mining BTC, 100K ...

Cryptocurrency attorney Adam S. Tracy discusses FinCEN's regulation of cryptocurrency and the impact on traders, cryptocurrency exchanges, and OTC bitcoin dealers. --- A former competitive rugby ... Baltimore, MD- Not many people are talking about cities mining Bitcoin, but we are! The US government is down with Stable coins? What does it mean to have 10... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue The US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) said it has assessed a USD 60m civil money penalty against Larry Dean Harmon, the founder, administrator... FinCEN released Guidance on March 18, 2013 regarding BSA Regulations to Virtual Currencies. The Bitcoin Foundation issued guidance on March 19, 2013 to the Bitcoin community in s response to ...

#