439 sats \ 12 replies \ @davidw 15 Dec 2023 \ on: [important] foreign asset control compliance meta
Could not be any more responsible or transparent given the circumstances. I’m sure you hate that this is a thing.
Does this mean that each time someone zaps from one of those countries, they will create an invoice to pay via their own wallet? i.e. they can still go about using the site and without any other disruption? Do they also though lose access to rewards?
Does this mean that each time someone zaps from one of those countries, they will create an invoice to pay via their own wallet?
We aren't sure what the limitations are yet, but we're hoping they might be able to still use the site non-custodially at least.
Do they also though lose access to rewards?
Also not sure. In general, it seems like we'll need a polyglot solution for compliance even for US customers (eg new york makes it nearly impossible to get a money transmitter license). Non-custodial peer matchmaking services are presumably compliant in the US, but that's a big UX pill to swallow for 10-100 sats. So we need to solve for a very unmotivated bitcoin curious nocoiner trying the site for the first time too.
We've been going over this repeatedly for a few weeks now. I'll write up our plans next week which aims to be such a polyglot approach.
reply
Makes sense. Not what you want when you're in a growth phase. And particularly not for those folks without a Lightning wallet or without Bitcoin knowledge.
If there's any silver lining, I imagine it focuses minds to a more non-custodial future & roadmap. Assuming there's anything ever to come from crappy legislation.
reply
I imagine it focuses minds to a more non-custodial future & roadmap
Yes, we're very excited about that!
reply
deleted by author
reply
Yep
reply
What about zapping content posted from those countries? Where do the sats go?
reply
They go to their account because we don't maintain any state about where a user is located we only check if/when they are transacting in a sanctioned region.
reply
Does that mean they can’t withdraw when they’re transacting from a sanctioned region, but if they changed to a non-sanctioned region, then they could withdraw?
reply
The way our code currently works, yes, but I'm not sure if that's compliant or not.
reply
What if someone is from a non-sanctioned country, and their VPN randomly selects a sanctioned country during an SN visit, would that permanently lock their account from withdrawing, even if they log in from a non-sanctioned country again?
reply
The thread you're commenting on describes that it doesn't work that way.
There is no locking. As described it prevents transacting.
reply
Makes sense 👍I’ll be interested to see how this evolves over time!
reply