By FinCEN's logic banks should also be outlawed since most money laundering activity takes place through the legitimate banking system. Also, with regards to their "responsible third parties" comment, responsible for what? And accountable to whom? Certainly doesn't seem to be to the plebs in their jurisdictions.
reply
P2P coinjoins instead of centralized coordinators is our way
reply
Perhaps just as important, not on coins purchased through traditional KYC exchanges. Those entire histories will have to surveilled be reported.
reply
Non KYC > Mixer
reply
For onchain you should use both non-KYC exchange of BTC vs fiat as well as coinjoins anyway. Each protects you against different advisories.
reply
Exactly
Non-KYC + CoinJoin
reply
This seems all to coincidental and convenient.
reply
It does. At the moment, they are referring to mixing, but it is easy to interpret their words as any onchain address:
Creating and using single-use wallets, addresses, or accounts and sending “CVC” through these wallets, addresses, or accounts in a series of transactions.
That’s Bitcoin, basically 😂
reply
This is precisely how exchanges send funds to the users! They hop through "one time use addresses"
reply
This is why it’s laughable.
Only possible way to avoid this, use ETFs, but avoid custody🧐
reply
FinCEN Proposes New Regulation to Enhance Transparency in Convertible Virtual Currency Mixing and Combat “Terrorist Financing”
This increased transparency is also consistent with longstanding Treasury Department efforts to counter the efforts of terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, that engage in violence against innocent civilians; the efforts of ransomware criminals targeting critical infrastructure; and the efforts by state actors and their supporters to evade U.S. and global sanctions.
Interesting choice of words given recent developments.
In support of these important goals, the NPRM would require covered financial institutions to report information about a transaction when they know, suspect, or have reason to suspect it involves CVC mixing within or involving jurisdictions outside the United States.
More reporting.
New rules would classify “using programmatic or algorithmic code to … manipulate the structure of a transaction” and “creating and using single use… addresses” as mixing.
Pretty broad definitions, by design. Is this how BlackRock benefits, as one of the few ‘legalised’ custodians?
reply
The full document of interest is here. The title of this post is perhaps a little disingenuous, as for now they are asking for reporting of each single transaction under these definitions. But the direction is clear....

"The critical challenge is that Convertible Virtual Currency (CVC) mixing services rarely, if ever, provide to regulators or law enforcement the resulting transactional chain or information collected as part of the transaction.
Mixing does not, however, wholly rely on the use of CVC mixers. There are certain methods that CVC users—and CVC mixers—often employ in an effort to obfuscate their transactions. These methods include:"
A. Pooling or aggregating CVC from multiple persons, wallets, addresses, or accounts: This method involves combining CVC from two or more persons into a single wallet or smart contract and, by pooling or aggregating that CVC, obfuscating the identity of both parties to the transaction by decreasing the probability of determining both intended persons for each unique transaction.
B. Splitting CVC for transmittal and transmitting the CVC through a series of independent transactions: This method involves splitting a single transaction from sender to receiver into multiple, smaller transactions, in a manner similar to structuring, to make transactions blend in with other, unrelated transactions on the blockchain occurring at the same time so as to not stand out, thereby decreasing the probability of determining both intended persons for each unique transaction.
C. Using programmatic or algorithmic code to coordinate, manage, or manipulate the structure of a transaction: This method involves the use of software that coordinates two or more persons’ transactions together in order to obfuscate the individual unique transactions by providing multiple potential outputs from a coordinated input, decreasing the probability of determining both intended persons for each unique transaction.
D. Creating and using single-use wallets, addresses, or accounts and sending CVC through these wallets, addresses, or accounts in a series of transactions: This method involves the use of single-use wallets, addresses, or accounts—colloquially known as a “peel chain”—in a series of unnatural transactions that have the purpose or effect of obfuscating the source and destination of funds by volumetrically increasing the number of involved transactions, thereby decreasing the probability of determining both intended persons for each unique transaction.
E. Exchanging between types of CVC, or other digital assets: This method involves exchanges between two or more types of CVC or other digital assets—colloquially referred to as “chain hopping”—to facilitate transaction obfuscation by converting one CVC into a different CVC at least once before moving the funds to another service or platform thereby decreasing the probability of determining both intended persons for each unique transaction.
F. Facilitating user-initiated delays in transactional activity: This method involves the use of software, programs, or other technology that programmatically carry out predetermined timed-delay of transactions by delaying the output of a transaction in order to make that transaction appear to be unrelated to transactional input, thereby decreasing the probability of determining both intended persons for each unique transaction.
Their 'logic' for enhanced reporting is here:
"FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that transactions involving CVC mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States are a class of transactions that is of primary money laundering concern."
"FinCEN is concerned that CVC mixing makes CVC flows untraceable by law enforcement and makes potentially suspicious transactions unreportable by responsible financial institutions—thereby fostering illicit activity as described elsewhere in this document."
"Furthermore, FinCEN assesses that the percentage of mixing activity attributed to illicit activity is increasing."
"FinCEN recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why responsible actors might want to conduct financial transactions in a secure and private manner given the amount of information available on public blockchains."
"FinCEN also recognizes that, in addition to illicit purposes, CVC mixing may be used for legitimate purposes, such as privacy enhancement for those who live under repressive regimes or wish to conduct licit transactions anonymously. Still, CVC mixing presents an acute money laundering risk because it shields information from responsible third parties, such as financial institutions and law enforcement"
reply
I'll have to think on this for awhile. I think this rule will only apply, at least for now, to exchanges etc... in the KYC world.
reply
Here's the thing about money and Finance, most people have and desire no clue. So, this kind of shit will happen.
But for us... stack sats, stay humble.
reply
Ready to fight!
"It's not about death, but life" - Mortal Kombat
reply
yeah good luck with that.
reply