The FATF (more on that later) in its guidance allows for more leniency than the EU regulator/politicians have provided. In particular they seem to strike out the 1000 EUR threshold.
The main idea in the travel rule is to throw in information about sender/receiver of payments or crypto transfers in the value chain.
It's not a good idea. In fact the cryptocommunity in 2019 advised the FATF to just require that information be made available. More proportional.… https://t.co/xiWePOrNSbtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
FATF is not a formal international organisation by the way. It is still a project group since 1989. Deliberatey so, so it hasn't got the need for formally subscribe to principles like UN treaties as the UN resolution privacy in a digital age.
Now look at the difference between rules for fiat and crypto, in terms of adding information and applicable regimes. Crypto transfers (widely defined) need to throw in a huge chunk of info more, using only the international regime.
And now look at the concerns of the European Data Protection Board, voiced in April 2023, outlining that regulatory alliance of Commission, Member States en EU Parliament may be going too far in infringement of fundamental rights and privacy.
Some smart readers of this thread will say: hey Simon. This EDPB letter refers to different legislation: why are you mixing these two up?
Well, because they are mixed up. The rules that the EDPB outlines also cover the transaction data in the Travel Rule which must be stored.
The EU Court of Justice is not too happy about too extensive broadcasting and availability of customer data. It has verdicts in all kinds of areas, telecom, passenger data, ubo register which all limit the use of personal data to what is strictly needed.
So what we can see is that we have the FATF 'recommending' to spread out data all over the world (a bad idea to begin with) and the EU rulemakers topping it up to a degree, eliminating proportionality and finalizing the rule without understanding it is related to other rules.
There are fundamental arguments against the whole EU travel rule as well as the part where it is disproportional in its workings. A list of fundamental arguments is presented in 2019 to Dutch Finance Minister Hoekstra.
Back in 2019 the Ministry of Finance said. Well, wait and see, it's just a recommendation of the FATF. The soup won't boil over. Just rest assured all privacy principles will be taken onboard.
That turns out to be incorrect; see the letter of the European Data Protection Board.
I recall having contributed to the US consultation on the travel rule. In brief weeks we had to react and respons to similar ideas in US.
Have a read at my response, listed here on my blog. It outlines the fundamental issues at stake.
I think the international crypto community should realize that is has the opportunity to challenge the travel rule of the FATF here in Europe before the European General Court under rules of annullment.
There is only until August 23 (2 months and 14 days) to file a legal action to request a ruling that forbids the travel rule coompletely (as being superflous with availability of data being most important) or with respect to thresholds and such.
I am now underway in the work of setting up a coordinated action to challenge the TFR in EU. The Dutch environment is particularly suited for this because we have a court case of premature application of this rule being denied.
@SatoshiRadioPod @DanielMol @StammisIO Het boetebesluit DNB Binance maakt duidelijk dat diensten aanbieden niet begrepen moet worden als in de financiële dienstverlening. Met 'richten op de NL markt'. Dat is een grote vergissing die menigeen maakt op ditmoment.
Het hebben van klanten uit NL is waar het om draait.
Zo'n Keulemans die zegt dat iemand achter zijn rug zit te shamen. Terwijl hij zelf zijn eigen positie in Volkskrant misbruikte om mij zonder poging tot weerwoord achter mijn rug om in een 'column' weg te zetten en te shamen als zolderkamer geleerde.
OK, mensen voorbereiden voor debat.
Rutte weer in klassiek pak met zwarte das.
Gebruikelijke paling-in-emmer-snot opmerkingen.
Nog steeds dividendbelasting als grootste fout.
Had al sorry gezegd op woensdagavond.
Ga niet vertrouwelijke gesprek vorige herhalen.
bla bla bla.
Als coalitiepartijen, ondanks het geneuzel van VVD, toch weigeren de motie van wantrouwen te steunen, dan is overduidelijk sprake van Stockholm--syndroom.
Wat Rutte het meest pijn doet is de peilingen. Linksom of rechtsom weet ie dat het gedaan is. Als narcist trekt ie dat niet. Dus deze moet je gewoon telkens herhalen.
De buddy app was ten dode opgeschreven omdat ie niet alle banken aan elkaar linkte en niet meerdere rekeningen koppelde. Dat zijn zulke elementaire gebreken dat je niet kan zeggen dat het 4-8 jaar nodig is om dat te regelen.
De privacy voorwaarden sloten niet aan op de contractvoorwaarden en de contractstructuur met gemeente als contractant en burgers als 'gebruikers' was kwestieus.
In een context waar budget apps een twijfelachtig businessmodel hebben is het verhaal van oprichter Buddy onzin.
In dit interview noemt de ontwikkelaar van een zinloze en slechte budget app de live reactie van een gebruiker uit de schuldenhoek een jammerlijke misser.
Dat lijkt me klassieke projectie. De hele buddy app is een jammerlijke misser zonder enige realisitsche basis.
Er zit een structureel en juridisch probleem onder het contracts-construct van MyParcel dat het hen mogelijk maakt om te duiken voor hun aansprakelijkheid.
So if I were the SEC I would want to establish:
- full statutory independence BinanceUS
- legitimate employee contracts of Binance US employees with BinanceUS entitities
- formal role descriptions and authorities related to management of assets/crypto and fiat
- separate… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Anyone interested in the differences between the SEC and Binance order, can have a look here.
SEC wants transfer to US territory, Binance reserves rights to use third party affiliate structures. SEC wants all keys/hardware, Binance speaks of one… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
The big difference as I see it, is that SEC fully distrusts Binancecom and thus chooses wording that make it unequivocally clear that it's not about just handing over the one ledger with access keys, but any tool/device that grants a non-BAM entity tool access or control of US… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…