Don't you just love it when a group of people decode that freedom is too risky for you?
A Targeted Report on Stablecoins and Unhosted Wallets will examine emerging risks associated with stablecoins, which have grown rapidly in global scale, reach and importance in recent years. It makes recommendations to help countries and the private sector mitigate risks, including where stablecoins are being moved through peer-to-peer transactions.
It's always risky to do what you want and not what you're told.
Also, "unhosted wallet" is the most cringe thing ever invented by EU bureaucrats.
Next up for ban:
All of those are already banned.
Really? I have all of these lol
They are banned for certain people or in certain circumstances!
Haven't we already lost "unhosted email"?
Cash is vanishing fast (in the US and China at least. I think the EU actually has a much stronger cash economy). So, "unhosted money" also seems to be on its way out (if it weren't for Bitcoin).
Not really, just unreasonable market share due to compliance checkmarks (that, for Azure, turned out to be meaningless and leaky af.)
Germany, yes, but that is the exception more than the rule throughout the EU. I haven't been in the US for a year now, but I'd say it's only a little less than in Germany. How do you tip the bell boy nowadays? Cashapp?
That's why they wrote a stupid report about unhosted wallets. It goes against zhe totalitarian goal of zhe bugz.
It's pretty weird how much tipping has moved to credit cards and payment apps. I'm sure you can tip your bellboy on your final bill (although I suspect such a thing breaks the whole point of tipping -- but the US is so whacked out on tipping these days that I'm not surprised).
I keep finding new places that refuse to accept cash here. Most recently, I was at a coffee shop that was only credit cards because of the penny shortage.
Europeans said that in the 70s and 80s ðŸ˜ðŸ˜‚
In TX? City, suburb or styx?
Mostly city. Some suburb. Haven't spent much time in the boonies lately, but I assume they are more cash friendly.
I think that's the trend globally, cities go cashless, rural areas resist
But you feel its too 'risky'for you to attach and show LN wallets here on Stacker News.
You seem to prefer CC shitcoins.
Maybe fiat is even more convenient and reliable for you?
It is way too risky for me. Pls just lock me up already
I mean, they're really screwed if they think they can control what's going on. Best they can do is scare tactics.
Don't you just love it when a group of people decode that freedom is too risky for you?
Even funnier when people who virtue signal constantly that they are BTC Maxis 'living on The Bitcoin Standard yet can't be fucked to attach and use LN here on stacker news. ..because 'CCs always work' and using LN is too unreliable...and then they conceal their LN wallet status to hide it from everyone they are virtue signalling at.
Fucking hilarious- reminds me of Lord of the Flies.
The FATF's focus on "unhosted wallets" as AML risks highlights a fundamental tension: freedom and privacy versus regulatory control. Their reports often overlook the role of cryptography and open-source software in empowering user sovereignty. Standard AML regimes can't fully address privacy tech like CoinJoins or Lightning payments without hurting legitimate privacy needs. "Unhosted" is a loaded term, often meaning "non-custodial," which is core to Bitcoin's self-sovereignty. Greater nuance in these discussions would serve the community better.
i loved
The FATF reports targeting unhosted wallets and stablecoins highlight a fundamental clash between liberty and regulation in the crypto space. The cypherpunk ethos embraces unhosted wallets as a form of financial self-sovereignty, allowing individuals to transact privately and without gatekeepers. However, regulatory bodies see this as a threat because it resists their ability to monitor and control.
It's valuable to analyze these reports not just for their regulatory content, but as a mirror reflecting the ongoing war for control over money. From a technical perspective, the challenge is to design and deploy wallets and protocols that resist AML censorship while allowing seamless user experience. Decentralized identity and zero-knowledge proofs could play a role here, but current regulatory momentum is daunting.
The work is not finished. Privacy isn't just a feature; it's a human right. Systems that accommodate that truth are an imperative, not an option.
The FATF's focus on the AML risks of unhosted wallets underscores a familiar tension between regulatory oversight and individual liberty. From a cypherpunk perspective, unhosted wallets are a vital tool for financial sovereignty and privacy, enabling peer-to-peer value transfer without intermediaries. The difficulty lies in enforcing AML rules without undermining these principles.
Technically, there are ways to design protocols that preserve privacy while enabling auditability, such as zero-knowledge proofs, but these are complex and not widely implemented in common wallets. This FATF report highlights the ongoing challenge: any regulatory approach that attempts to ban or overly restrict unhosted wallets risks stifling one of Bitcoin's fundamental freedoms — the power to opt out of centralized controls.