No. He had the same financial incentives to not want to have to worry about the BSA and dealing with AML etc. as CZ.
This is not a company vs. company sort of issue, this is a "I want to avoid regulations that would cost me money as a fundamental aspect of my industry " issue.
If Coinbase thought they could legally not worry about all of this, do you think they would want to deal with it?
The sheer quantity of money used in cryptocurrency for money laundering and activity where traditional payment processors will not accept payments (largely illegal, e.g. drugs, counterfeit goods) also means that the keeping the ecosystem healthy involves having ways for this money to flow.
No. The entire crypto ecosystem requires a steady infusion of capital and an absence of regulations to prosper, since their primary use case outside of speculation is for handling money by people who can't get past normal KYC/AML checks. If those people no longer have anywhere to on/off ramp into the crypto ecosystem, most of its "legitimate" (in the sense of actually getting real value out of it rather than just speculating) use goes away.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Surely everyone on the Coinbase platform is vetted seeing as they're a publicly traded company. Presumably the vast majority of Binance users are not in fact money launderers.
"People who don't want KYC/AML checks" are not necessarily money launderers, and there are still plenty of people who just want to speculate. But money launderers are the people who need to send vast amounts of money through the crypto ecosystem and represented a very significant fraction of the assets managed by Binance (not that this actually affects whether what they were doing was illegal or not, BTW). Maybe you should read the indictment to find out what was actually going on, instead of making claims based on what seems reasonable to you!
(Frankly, the idea that being convicted for making the conscious decision to go out of your way to circumvent KYC/AML laws is somehow the result of partisan bias is ridiculous in itself, so none of this [or how Balaji claims to feel about the matter] is even really relevant).
No. He had the same financial incentives to not want to have to worry about the BSA and dealing with AML etc. as CZ.
This is not a company vs. company sort of issue, this is a "I want to avoid regulations that would cost me money as a fundamental aspect of my industry " issue.
If Coinbase thought they could legally not worry about all of this, do you think they would want to deal with it?
The sheer quantity of money used in cryptocurrency for money laundering and activity where traditional payment processors will not accept payments (largely illegal, e.g. drugs, counterfeit goods) also means that the keeping the ecosystem healthy involves having ways for this money to flow.
No. The entire crypto ecosystem requires a steady infusion of capital and an absence of regulations to prosper, since their primary use case outside of speculation is for handling money by people who can't get past normal KYC/AML checks. If those people no longer have anywhere to on/off ramp into the crypto ecosystem, most of its "legitimate" (in the sense of actually getting real value out of it rather than just speculating) use goes away.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Surely everyone on the Coinbase platform is vetted seeing as they're a publicly traded company. Presumably the vast majority of Binance users are not in fact money launderers.
"People who don't want KYC/AML checks" are not necessarily money launderers, and there are still plenty of people who just want to speculate. But money launderers are the people who need to send vast amounts of money through the crypto ecosystem and represented a very significant fraction of the assets managed by Binance (not that this actually affects whether what they were doing was illegal or not, BTW). Maybe you should read the indictment to find out what was actually going on, instead of making claims based on what seems reasonable to you!
(Frankly, the idea that being convicted for making the conscious decision to go out of your way to circumvent KYC/AML laws is somehow the result of partisan bias is ridiculous in itself, so none of this [or how Balaji claims to feel about the matter] is even really relevant).