FinCEN USDT
What an excellent letter from Mr Ben Davenport.Unfortunately it shows that the people at the helm of FinCEN don’t have a clue aboutwhat their policies will achieve for law enforcement nor what damage they could do to thegeneral public.That, for me, is really worrying because it implies there is an ulterior motive.There has been cyber-crime since the Internet came into being and cryptocurrenciessince 2009; enough years for law-enforcers to know what policies achieve what benefits.The crypto-space is well understood by experts in their field. Clearly no experts wereconsulted when formulating these rules.To read about the effects of these new policies implies that they have not been wellthought out; rushed through with only 2 weeks comment-time. So perhaps it’s a politicalmove; pressure from politicians, trying to “make a stand against cyber-crime in cryptoand make it safer for everyone!” which, reading between the lines, is actually the same asevery government’s unspoken mandate: “We want more control, more power and will doanything to achieve that with little thought for the consequences”.Ben’s letter does more than try to slow the steamroller of poorly thought-out legislation. Ithighlights how scared and unenlightened our leaders really are when it comes tocryptocurrencies, including what blockchains can achieve for civilisation and whycriminals will generally try to avoid something which is readily tracked by anyone withaccess to the Internet.The monopoly held by fiat currencies for hundreds of years is finally being challenged.Competition is generally healthy for progress, unless of course, the competition is ‘better’in every conceivable way. In those cases, monopoly holders rarely concede without a‘dirty’ and unfair fight.Instead of knee-jerk reactions like these, FinCEN should try consulting experts, publiclydefining what really needs to be achieved, then carefully implementing policies thatactually benefit law-enforcement instead of harm Joe Public, rather than do the bidding of‘the powers that be’ to protect an institution that, it could be argued, is no longer worthprotecting.
What an excellent letter from Mr Ben Davenport.
Unfortunately it shows that the people at the helm of FinCEN don’t have a clue about
what their policies will achieve for law enforcement nor what damage they could do to the
general public.
That, for me, is really worrying because it implies there is an ulterior motive.
There has been cyber-crime since the Internet came into being and cryptocurrencies
since 2009; enough years for law-enforcers to know what policies achieve what benefits.
The crypto-space is well understood by experts in their field. Clearly no experts were
consulted when formulating these rules.
To read about the effects of these new policies implies that they have not been well
thought out; rushed through with only 2 weeks comment-time. So perhaps it’s a political
move; pressure from politicians, trying to “make a stand against cyber-crime in crypto
and make it safer for everyone!” which, reading between the lines, is actually the same as
every government’s unspoken mandate: “We want more control, more power and will do
anything to achieve that with little thought for the consequences”.
Ben’s letter does more than try to slow the steamroller of poorly thought-out legislation. It
highlights how scared and unenlightened our leaders really are when it comes to
cryptocurrencies, including what blockchains can achieve for civilisation and why
criminals will generally try to avoid something which is readily tracked by anyone with
access to the Internet.
The monopoly held by fiat currencies for hundreds of years is finally being challenged.
Competition is generally healthy for progress, unless of course, the competition is ‘better’
in every conceivable way. In those cases, monopoly holders rarely concede without a
‘dirty’ and unfair fight.
Instead of knee-jerk reactions like these, FinCEN should try consulting experts, publicly
defining what really needs to be achieved, then carefully implementing policies that
actually benefit law-enforcement instead of harm Joe Public, rather than do the bidding of
‘the powers that be’ to protect an institution that, it could be argued, is no longer worth
protecting.
Change language