It does look very similar which is surprising given I devoted a significant part of this post to addressing exactly what @blocktrades said last time including education for users regarding applicable laws for the transactions based on location. I am also willing to exclude US users completely if the developer wants to do this and our legal advisers suggest this approach for simplicity and safety of global users.
Yes, but he seems to have misinterpreted what I said and assumed it only applied to the business doing the matching and not to the participants, and that my objection was therefore overcome by the fact that the matching system doesn't handle the money.
I suppose he thought I hadn't bothered to read his post fully and understand it. I can see why he might have thought that; this last post was pretty long and I confess I didn't read all of it. Anyways, I hope my concerns are clarified now.
he seems to have misinterpreted what I said and assumed it only applied to the business doing the matching and not to the participants,
Did you see where I devoted an entire section to talking about this in the post because of what you wrote in the first post? Here is the most relevant section based entirely on what you said:
... because users individually will be responsible for understanding the requirements to make fiat/cryptocurrency transactions based on country and state. If we do not trust users to do this or we say it is wrong to pass these requirements on or we demand that some centralized authority be a part of these transactions, why are we bothering with building any of this blockchain technology to begin with and not just sticking with using our existing banking system? Users are fully capable of handling the responsibility and will do it more effectively in some cases and less in others than existing exchanges.
Fortunately for users, financial regulations vary by country. If someone is doing business in one country and in another country, it doesn't matter what the US regulations are for transacting money, if neither of those users is in the US. Unfortunately with our current system today, we have very limited options for exchanges in most countries because of the need for centralized exchanges to comply with financial regulations from so many different countries.
The app in later stages will help facilitate education with country specific training for any regulations users need to know. For example, when a user signs up in the state of New York, users will be required to read and review both USA laws and NY state laws regarding cryptocurrency transactions. An optional test based on location could even be offered to improve the trust score for new users and to verify the rules are understood.
Hold on, this seems to imply that the solution offsets the responsibility for fiscal due diligence onto the individuals undertaking the transaction.
Isn’t that hat hugely risky for everybody individuals using the service? I mean finance can be pretty impenetrable at the best of times. All you need is a few bad news stories and then you’ve a massive negative spotlight hanging over the thing. You really should be looking to protect users of your system, not tell them they’re on their own.
I know we all want more mainstream access, but shortcutting it isn’t the answer.
@fourfourfun the regulations are most applicable to people running entire businesses to transact money which is not obvious in the reply. An individual cashing out a little bit in earnings is unlikely to have any issues while someone buying and selling millions of dollars of Steem without compliance with the law is likely to run into the same problems as localbitcoins.
We respect users most by starting with a foundation of trust and assisting with education. Our current exchanges are based on the assumption users cannot be trusted which is why escrows and heavy restrictions are in place. People that are trusted are free to do what they please because there is no fear of what will be done. Our exchange will educate people on best practices and laws. When users abuse this trust, legal repercussions may occur.
It does look very similar which is surprising given I devoted a significant part of this post to addressing exactly what @blocktrades said last time including education for users regarding applicable laws for the transactions based on location. I am also willing to exclude US users completely if the developer wants to do this and our legal advisers suggest this approach for simplicity and safety of global users.
Yes, but he seems to have misinterpreted what I said and assumed it only applied to the business doing the matching and not to the participants, and that my objection was therefore overcome by the fact that the matching system doesn't handle the money.
I suppose he thought I hadn't bothered to read his post fully and understand it. I can see why he might have thought that; this last post was pretty long and I confess I didn't read all of it. Anyways, I hope my concerns are clarified now.
Did you see where I devoted an entire section to talking about this in the post because of what you wrote in the first post? Here is the most relevant section based entirely on what you said:
Hold on, this seems to imply that the solution offsets the responsibility for fiscal due diligence onto the individuals undertaking the transaction.
Isn’t that hat hugely risky for everybody individuals using the service? I mean finance can be pretty impenetrable at the best of times. All you need is a few bad news stories and then you’ve a massive negative spotlight hanging over the thing. You really should be looking to protect users of your system, not tell them they’re on their own.
I know we all want more mainstream access, but shortcutting it isn’t the answer.
@fourfourfun the regulations are most applicable to people running entire businesses to transact money which is not obvious in the reply. An individual cashing out a little bit in earnings is unlikely to have any issues while someone buying and selling millions of dollars of Steem without compliance with the law is likely to run into the same problems as localbitcoins.
We respect users most by starting with a foundation of trust and assisting with education. Our current exchanges are based on the assumption users cannot be trusted which is why escrows and heavy restrictions are in place. People that are trusted are free to do what they please because there is no fear of what will be done. Our exchange will educate people on best practices and laws. When users abuse this trust, legal repercussions may occur.
Hi im odeniz.İ just upvoted you.visit my page and follow please :)
No thanks.