Altcoins Talks - Cryptocurrency Forum
Cryptocurrency Ecosystem => Bitcoin Forum => Topic started by: NotATether on June 28, 2024, 07:52:02 AM
-
Update: see https://www.altcoinstalks.com/index.php?topic=322406.msg1581228#msg1581228
Bwahahaha (sorry, I am actually pissed)
The finance department of Denmark is set to ban self-custodying your Bitcoin. That mans you can't legally store your coins in Bitcoin Core (what about miners??), Electrum, Sparrow, Unstoppable, BlueWallet, and pretty much all hardware wallets and software wallets.
These guys must be really pushing hard for you to use an exchange.
It's like everyone forgot how catastrophically FTX imploded just 18 months ago.
It's important to note that Denmark is part of the EU, and so we might see similar regulation on their part as a larger level eventually.
https://coingape.com/danish-regulator-to-ban-unhosted-bitcoin-btc-wallets/
-
Many countries have biased government in one way or the other. The government that made fiat that can be in cash which can be used anonymously.
What is worst is that the bank is full of laundered money. How many can they trace. Scammers are using fiat mostly. There are fake verified accounts. Fiat are mostly used for terrorism financing and the likes. But these people will not see any wrong with what they created.
There are many ways that these governments are as wrong as scammers. They do not just want people's freedom in many ways.
-
Government will always want to get its citizens financial incomes and portfolios on track.
Cryptocurrencies was more interested to users due to its decentralized blockchains and the possibilities to store the assets of self-custodial wallets.
This Denmark policy to ban custodial wallets feels some kind of phishing because there must be an interesting of them to the crypto holders which they don't want the people to know.
If they can actualize this, then there would be no privacy and no security in the Crypto Blockchain anymore because.... Not your key and not also your coin.
-
Cryptocurrencies was more interested to users due to its decentralized blockchains and the possibilities to store the assets of self-custodial wallets.
Yes, but there are many users that do not go for decentralization only but go for investment because many of the altcoins like ethereum are centralized, although not as centralized as how fiat are centralized.
This Denmark policy to ban custodial wallets feels some kind of phishing because there must be an interesting of them to the crypto holders which they don't want the people to know.
You mean ban noncustodial wallet. I guess it is a typo.
If they can actualize this, then there would be no privacy and no security in the Crypto Blockchain anymore because.... Not your key and not also your coin.
There are some countries that still allow noncustodial wallet. In the banned countries, there is no way many people will not still try to have noncustodial wallet especially if they are many of them that prefer decentralized exchanges, and exchanging the coins and their fiat directly within themselves without any platform needed.
-
Denmark or any other EU member can pass any law, but that does not mean that I, as an individual, must blindly respect that law. Such a ban does not apply to anyone who wants to take over any non-custodial wallet and buy cryptocurrencies via DEX, which means that the state has no idea that anyone owns cryptocurrencies at all, let alone in which wallet they keep them.
~snip~
It's important to note that Denmark is part of the EU, and so we might see similar regulation on their part as a larger level eventually.
Every country can independently regulate such things, and what Denmark has done does not mean that any other country will follow. The EU has long passed laws based on AML/CFT, but in some EU members you can still sell/buy cryptocurrencies without KYC up to the amount of EUR 1000 per transaction - and considering the Schengen Area (travel without border controls) the business is especially booming during the tourist season.
-
- We all know that not all countries have the same beliefs as Denmark. So, in my opinion, many countries have made Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies different, and in the end, they also withdrew. Also, most of the time, the governments of each country always prioritize the benefits of their government, not the welfare of their people in the reality of life.
But there are also other countries in this era that recognize blockchain technology, bitcoin, or top crypto's in the field that we are actually living in.
-
This is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, or even give attention, any country can ban anything related to crypto they want, or even crypto in its entire self, but the issue have always been in its implementation.
For example, Nigerian government banned crypto entirely in the whole of the country, but it's citizens still go about crypto like there was or is no ban at all, I believe this will be the same story in Denmark, how are they going to effect this ban? To make sure that citizens don't continue using self custody wallets even after this ban? There is no way to implement such a rule, even if they restrict citizens access to the domains of those wallets, citizens can always use VPN to bypass such restrictions.
-
This is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, or even give attention, any country can ban anything related to crypto they want, or even crypto in its entire self, but the issue have always been in its implementation.
For example, Nigerian government banned crypto entirely in the whole of the country, but it's citizens still go about crypto like there was or is no ban at all, I believe this will be the same story in Denmark, how are they going to effect this ban? To make sure that citizens don't continue using self custody wallets even after this ban? There is no way to implement such a rule, even if they restrict citizens access to the domains of those wallets, citizens can always use VPN to bypass such restrictions.
they may implement this law to all in EU since their MICA had been planing the same way. they are against self custody and that these wallets we are using may just be mandated to ask KYC to its users.
SEC is even trying to win a lawsuit against metamask til this day even when ETH was already considered not security. so this is going to a struggle and will likely be the next fud to bring the prices down in the next bear market.
-
LOL is a strange rule and seems to want to control all crypto users in Denmark. If this regulation is really implemented, then what are the steps to control everything so that people do not use self-storage wallets.
It's impossible to check everyone's phone one by one, it's pretty ridiculous when there's a rule that doesn't seem to want someone to manage their own crypto assets.
Expecting everyone to store crypto assets in the CEXs they already monitor so that the government gets more taxes.
-
Expecting everyone to store crypto assets in the CEXs they already monitor so that the government gets more taxes.
They also want to know who you sent your coins to, when you sent it and all information such as that; governments simply wants control, and they know that the only way they can control people's funds is if it is in a custodial wallet. However, i believe there are many ways to circumvent this law, just that you would then be breaking the law, and committing a crime, it is crazy.
-
LOL is a strange rule and seems to want to control all crypto users in Denmark. If this regulation is really implemented, then what are the steps to control everything so that people do not use self-storage wallets.
It's impossible to check everyone's phone one by one, it's pretty ridiculous when there's a rule that doesn't seem to want someone to manage their own crypto assets.
Expecting everyone to store crypto assets in the CEXs they already monitor so that the government gets more taxes.
Its a strategy for them to make money. It looks to me that decentralization will still be compromized regardless of how thenteam developed their project. Whether they claim it to be Decentralized or not, the law will make it centralized.
They are just using the crypto laws for surveillance. The CBDC isn't their only way.
-
Bwahahaha (sorry, I am actually pissed)
The finance department of Denmark is set to ban self-custodying your Bitcoin. That mans you can't legally store your coins in Bitcoin Core (what about miners??), Electrum, Sparrow, Unstoppable, BlueWallet, and pretty much all hardware wallets and software wallets.
These guys must be really pushing hard for you to use an exchange.
It's like everyone forgot how catastrophically FTX imploded just 18 months ago.
It's important to note that Denmark is part of the EU, and so we might see similar regulation on their part as a larger level eventually.
https://coingape.com/danish-regulator-to-ban-unhosted-bitcoin-btc-wallets/
Really fucked up move by them.
Crypto is about to get some very hard hits in quite a few countries.
-
So it started.
This was presented as an option even earlier, it is really incredible that a developed country like Denmark makes such a move, it seems quite amateurish and without basic knowledge of the Bitcoin ecosystem. It would be better if they completely banned cryptocurrencies, that would make more sense.
-
yeah many other countries are going to do it. All saying to prevent terrorism and terrorists moving funds around.
I think the bull is cooked for now.
-
So it started.
This was presented as an option even earlier, it is really incredible that a developed country like Denmark makes such a move, it seems quite amateurish and without basic knowledge of the Bitcoin ecosystem. It would be better if they completely banned cryptocurrencies, that would make more sense.
I was also quite surprised by the Danish government's decision. I thought that Denmark is a member of the EU and would therefore apply MiCA to regulate crypto instead of banning self-custodial wallets. This regulation could seriously affect the development of the crypto market in Denmark, as investors would not be able to self-manage their assets, could not participate in DeFi, and would be forced to accept risks from CEXs.
I hope that crypto KOLs in Denmark will speak out against this regulation and help the Danish government to better understand blockchain technology and the values that crypto can bring to the country. Apart from the proposal to penalize wallet addresses associated with Mixers, this is a stupid regulation made by people who lack basic knowledge of this crypto market.
-
I believe this will be the same story in Denmark, how are they going to effect this ban? To make sure that citizens don't continue using self custody wallets even after this ban? There is no way to implement such a rule, even if they restrict citizens access to the domains of those wallets, citizens can always use VPN to bypass such restrictions.
While reading this post...I am thinking of the same thing on how Denmark can implement such a ban. One of the many benefits of doing business with cryptocurrency is that we can do things privately not unless, of course, we announce it to the government and the world that we are using noncustodial wallets. Maybe people of Denmark should just let the government have the illusion that they will follow all the things that the government is demanding and that they can implement them smoothly...let them be delusional and just do whatever they need to do. This story is just continuing the government vs the people and I know that this can be the tip of the iceberg meaning there will be more moves from the government to restrict the people on their cryptocurrency involvement.
-
These guys must be really pushing hard for you to use an exchange.
It's like everyone forgot how catastrophically FTX imploded just 18 months ago.
Yeah, this legislation is unsafe for the citizens and also nearly impossible to control.
Governments cannot monitor if you downloaded electrum or not for example. Will they ban such websites? I doubt.
-
If they can't track your portfolio then they'll find ways to do it like this one which to ban the use of self-custody wallets and maybe even use this chance to have their own exchange/wallet and earn from each transactions that every person who are using the exchange/wallet. I think government can ban but I am sure that some people would still use non-custodial wallets secretly.
-
Oh it's not going to be only bitcoin wallets...
Denmark is also introducing 100 euro tax for each cow because they are making ''climate change'' crap ::)
Than I remembered one of the WEF young global leaders lunatics was from Denmark and her name is Ida Auken.
You should listen what she is proposing... to cancel private ownership of cars, homes and everything else, sounds like neocommunism to me.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201120034201/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-really-remember-what-that-is/
https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710
-
.
-
Many countries have biased government in one way or the other. The government that made fiat that can be in cash which can be used anonymously.
What is worst is that the bank is full of laundered money. How many can they trace. Scammers are using fiat mostly. There are fake verified accounts. Fiat are mostly used for terrorism financing and the likes. But these people will not see any wrong with what they created.
There are many ways that these governments are as wrong as scammers. They do not just want people's freedom in many ways.
LOL.
It seems that you did not understand why the government have to ban self custodian bitcoin ownership. This time around they are not pointing at the crime aspect or money laundering. Neither are they saying that the fiat is safe or whatever. What I sensed is that they want an easy way to tax all the citizens. In exchanges, you will complete KYC, your data will be collected, all your income and expenditure monitored and taxed accordingly. With the presence of non custodial wallets, hardware wallets etc, some people can beat their cryptocurrency tax system.
They are not doing so because they care for the people, rather they want to tax the people in it's totality.
-
seems hard to enforce but they will try to do it if they can. this bears careful watching. Meanwhile price of btc dropped a bit since this was announced .
-
It's impossible to check everyone's phone one by one, it's pretty ridiculous when there's a rule that doesn't seem to want someone to manage their own crypto assets.
They won't do that anyway, just limit access to the wallet sites, announce the consequences for violators (jail, fines, etc.), and wait for the next who dares to violate.
Sure this policy sounds quite funny especially for citizens whose government policies seem like nothing. But the Danish rulers I'm sure know better how their population treats policies. If a country's rulers are sufficiently dictatorial, most of its citizens will obey these rules. For example, North Korea with its thousands of ridiculous rules, how many of them break it?
-
How is this going to affect Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA)?
I'm not experts but it seems that it contradict this new UE law? As"The objective of MiCA is to provide a harmonised regulatory framework for crypto assets across the EU".
How can there be harmonised if Denmark is banning self custodial wallets in the first place?
https://www.esma.europa.eu/esmas-activities/digital-finance-and-innovation/markets-crypto-assets-regulation-mica
-
That's totally absurd, they can't do that. At least I thought no one could impose such law, if they can apply this law then any country accepted the BTC can apply this law as well. Its mean people who were speaking that USA can confiscate the US citizen's BTC as well. Those thoughts are true or can came true. This is bad. This is centralization of a decentralized platform.
That's why Gary said, BTC is moving toward centralization, I thought it will be late like, such law will be imposed after 10 years but the countries are moving so fast and this is not right. Proper law should be imposed this will lead to the opening of cases on many citizens of Denmark because according to the report (https://nordicfintechmagazine.com/crypto-reached-mainstream-in-denmark-during-covid-900-000-owners-predicted-within-a-decade/), 7% of the total population is involved in cryptocurrency and the numbers are still increasing.
-
It's so naive to see that government wanting to ban self-custodian wallet and any other wallet out there why to encourage more of centralization or what meaning those who are using hardware wallet or any other wallet are seen or found to be illegal and scammer since their identity aren't reveal or trace?
I can see the hand writing on the wall and what they are about to do their true intentions towards banning those wallets, but however if they thinking about taxation maybe from centralized exchange why not they made it clear pure than banning self-custodial wallet indirectly.
-
How will they know that I used Custodial or Non-custodial Wallet? At the protocol level, only Bitcoin addresses appear.
Legislation like this means that you guarantee that customer funds will be safe in central services or at least give banks or any other financial entities the option of storing Bitcoin, otherwise it will be difficult to know what type of wallet is being used.
-
This is very disappointing, especially when Denmark usually seen as free or democratic country. If EU doesn't stop this regulation, it's another reason for certain people to compare EU with USSR.
-
Once again they want to have more control over citizens, something I have been saying for years and for which I have sometimes been called crazy. I am completely unaware of Denmark's current legislation on cryptocurrencies, but what the government wants to do is one thing and what it can do is quite another. Obviously they can't control everything, so this news makes me think that lawmakers don't know much about how a blockchain works.
Can the government monitor the number of times a wallet is downloaded? No. Can the government know who installs a wallet on any device? No. Do Danish legislators know that privacy is a right in the European Union? Yes, they know it perfectly. It surprises me that one of the most advanced societies in Europe would try to do stupid things like this.
-
seems hard to enforce but they will try to do it if they can. this bears careful watching. Meanwhile price of btc dropped a bit since this was announced .
Believe me, the price of BTC has not and will not react to this kind of news from Denmark, because realistically (let no one be offended) that country does not have any decisive influence on the rest of the EU, and it should be emphasized that they are not even part of the eurozone. In other words, they are in the EU, but they still play by some of their own rules.
This is very disappointing, especially when Denmark usually seen as free or democratic country. If EU doesn't stop this regulation, it's another reason for certain people to compare EU with USSR.
Far from the fact that the EU can be compared to the Soviet Union, they are simply two opposite creations that have never shared common values. What needs to be accepted is the fact that the EU is not as homogeneous as it seems at first glance, because it is made up of countries that often disagree on many things and have completely different views on the world.
This is actually something that can be considered positive, because every country should first of all represent its national interests, which is often not the case, and because of this, people are increasingly turning to politicians and parties that are less pro-European and more pro-national. These days, the focus is on France and its parliamentary elections, and as things stand, there could be a radical turn, because in the recent elections for the European Parliament, the ruling parties in France and Germany experienced defeats.
-
This is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, or even give attention, any country can ban anything related to crypto they want, or even crypto in its entire self, but the issue have always been in its implementation.
For example, Nigerian government banned crypto entirely in the whole of the country, but it's citizens still go about crypto like there was or is no ban at all, I believe this will be the same story in Denmark, how are they going to effect this ban? To make sure that citizens don't continue using self custody wallets even after this ban? There is no way to implement such a rule, even if they restrict citizens access to the domains of those wallets, citizens can always use VPN to bypass such restrictions.
Well, Nigeria is different I guess. Nobody wants to use the naira there as far as I know because it's too inflated and made buying everything much more expensive. Denmark doesn't have this problem, and as far as I know they are not banning crypto outright anyway, so unfortunately it is not going to get as much attention inside the country as it deserves. Businesses etc. will not care for example, nor will those who keep their balance on an exchange.
-
Has anyone actually read the text of the proposal?
The reason for this briefing is that Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA) does not apply to activities otherwise covered by the regulation if they are in practice provided in a fully decentralised manner. The Danish FSA therefore sees a need to identify the fundamental principles that all crypto market
participants should consider before characterising their activities as decentralised - and thus not covered by MiCA.
(https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/06/30/oUeFI.png)
When China banned bitcoin mining everyone was FUD! FUD! FUD!, now we have a guy on Twitter who only cares about his business screaming something that is debunked by the first paragraph of the proposal and everyone believes it!
Seriously?
-
Bwahahaha (sorry, I am actually pissed)
The finance department of Denmark is set to ban self-custodying your Bitcoin. That mans you can't legally store your coins in Bitcoin Core (what about miners??), Electrum, Sparrow, Unstoppable, BlueWallet, and pretty much all hardware wallets and software wallets.
These guys must be really pushing hard for you to use an exchange.
It's like everyone forgot how catastrophically FTX imploded just 18 months ago.
It's important to note that Denmark is part of the EU, and so we might see similar regulation on their part as a larger level eventually.
https://coingape.com/danish-regulator-to-ban-unhosted-bitcoin-btc-wallets/
Really fucked up move by them.
Crypto is about to get some very hard hits in quite a few countries.
And I think more will follow on this kind of restrictions. The crypto enthusiasts of Denmark is now surely thinking of an alternative way to still able to hodle crypto eithout any trace from their government and hopefully they can still manage to use and hodl crypto freely one day. If this will happen here in my country it really hurts because I personally use non-custodial wallets ever since I came into crypto. Though I use centralized local crypto exchanges but only for withdrawals.
-
This is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, or even give attention, any country can ban anything related to crypto they want, or even crypto in its entire self, but the issue have always been in its implementation.
For example, Nigerian government banned crypto entirely in the whole of the country, but it's citizens still go about crypto like there was or is no ban at all, I believe this will be the same story in Denmark, how are they going to effect this ban? To make sure that citizens don't continue using self custody wallets even after this ban? There is no way to implement such a rule, even if they restrict citizens access to the domains of those wallets, citizens can always use VPN to bypass such restrictions.
Well, Nigeria is different I guess. Nobody wants to use the naira there as far as I know because it's too inflated and made buying everything much more expensive. Denmark doesn't have this problem, and as far as I know they are not banning crypto outright anyway, so unfortunately it is not going to get as much attention inside the country as it deserves. Businesses etc. will not care for example, nor will those who keep their balance on an exchange.
Nigeria didn't ban cryptocurrency in its entirety. They only placed ban on its transactions. This means Nigerian banks and other financial institutions cannot sell or buy bitcoin for you and also should not allow themselves to be used as means to completing cryptocurrency related transactions. The consequences is freezing of the victims account and/or penalizing the involved bank. With this, people of Nigeria relied so much on P2P and also use same banks for transactions but in the narration, they will not include any crypto related keywords. So, there's a clear loophole to be used by Nigerians to boycott the restriction.
But in Denmark, it is a ban of self custody and encouragement of transacting with exchanges. It is directly opposite of Nigerians fate. Also note that it is not all the countries that has weak policy enforcement. Many countries enforce to the later whatever they pass to law.
-
This is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, or even give attention, any country can ban anything related to crypto they want, or even crypto in its entire self, but the issue have always been in its implementation.
For example, Nigerian government banned crypto entirely in the whole of the country, but it's citizens still go about crypto like there was or is no ban at all, I believe this will be the same story in Denmark, how are they going to effect this ban? To make sure that citizens don't continue using self custody wallets even after this ban? There is no way to implement such a rule, even if they restrict citizens access to the domains of those wallets, citizens can always use VPN to bypass such restrictions.
Well, Nigeria is different I guess. Nobody wants to use the naira there as far as I know because it's too inflated and made buying everything much more expensive. Denmark doesn't have this problem, and as far as I know they are not banning crypto outright anyway, so unfortunately it is not going to get as much attention inside the country as it deserves. Businesses etc. will not care for example, nor will those who keep their balance on an exchange.
Nigeria’s case and Denmark’s are different and they cannot be compared to each other. Like in Nigeria, there’s a ban on using cryptocurrency and the government is just after banning exchanges and enforcing them to remove the p2p services on their platform because that’s where they think Naira is being inflated. After removing the p2p services from many exchanges like Binance, KuCoin and OKX; the major ones, it doesn’t still solve the problem with few of them left now that Nigerians uses for p2p transactions. Citizens still use crypto daily like nothing ever changed.
But in the case of Denmark, I think their mission is to find a way to equip the exchanges because if you can only save your coins in exchanges, it has exposed your coin to hack or even monitoring by the authorities. As long as this is concerned, I will still prefer to bank on the Nigerians rules on cryptocurrency than that of Denmark.
-
I wonder if. DENMARK will be forced. TO insure the coins on exchanges.
Usa insured $250,000 at a bank. Cash not crypto.
But if you are forced to usa an exchange and not insured I see a lot of issues.
-
I wonder if. DENMARK will be forced. TO insure the coins on exchanges.
Usa insured $250,000 at a bank. Cash not crypto.
But if you are forced to usa an exchange and not insured I see a lot of issues.
Maybe no much issues. Maybe the exchanges will have a reserve in the government bank or the government Central Bank will buy and sell share to the exchanges, just like how they regulate and monitor fiat banks. If the exchanges have a reserve in government custody and something like hack happens, the government will step in to compensate people. Just a speculation though!
-
So based on the chart shared above, it looks like this mainly targets centralized services or businesses that offer wallet/custodial service no? I can see why some people believe the ambiguity of the term used can lead to stricter control or ban of self-custodial wallets, so clarifying that would help debunk any misleading statement. If I read this correctly basically any wallet provider like Coinbase needs to register with the authority to continue their service over there, but wallets like Elctrum won't require the same thing. CMIIW.
-
So based on the chart shared above, it looks like this mainly targets centralized services or businesses that offer wallet/custodial service no? I can see why some people believe the ambiguity of the term used can lead to stricter control or ban of self-custodial wallets, so clarifying that would help debunk any misleading statement. If I read this correctly basically any wallet provider like Coinbase needs to register with the authority to continue their service over there, but wallets like Elctrum won't require the same thing. CMIIW.
Too late, somebody spread the rumors the evil gubbermint will come after our wallets nobody is going to listen to the actual law and check if that is actually true.
No, Denmark did not propose banning self-custody wallets
https://cointelegraph.com/news/denmark-no-ban-self-custody-wallets
“Hardware wallets do not give custody of private keys to the wallet provider and thus are not regulated by MiCA. Non-custodial wallets, by their nature, are not subject to MiCAR.”
Let's see, will anyone read this update just go by the title and again put their tinfoil hat on!
-
Well, Nigeria is different I guess. Nobody wants to use the naira there as far as I know because it's too inflated and made buying everything much more expensive. Denmark doesn't have this problem, and as far as I know they are not banning crypto outright anyway, so unfortunately it is not going to get as much attention inside the country as it deserves. Businesses etc. will not care for example, nor will those who keep their balance on an exchange.
I think they are forced by government to use Naira for all local purchases, but they are using cryptocurrency like usdt and btc with p2p trading.
Denmark currently doesn't have hyperinflation, but same thing can happen with Krona and with any other fiat currencies that are backed by nothing and use central banking.
New laws are usually just a preparation for what is coming in future, and most people are sadly using custodial wallets and exchanges :P
Any wallet that have integrated exchange swaps will be affected by new Mica stupidity:
Despite not being subject to MiCA, some software wallets provide integrated interfaces to fully decentralized services in addition to their wallet services. According to Thygesen, such integrations could potentially be independently regulated by MiCA if they are not provided fully decentralized.
For example, a software wallet that directly executes orders on a decentralized exchange on behalf of clients could require authorization if a legal entity has control over the offer and provides this specific activity as a service for clients, the DFSA official said.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/denmark-no-ban-self-custody-wallets
-
Too late, somebody spread the rumors the evil gubbermint will come after our wallets nobody is going to listen to the actual law and check if that is actually true.
No, Denmark did not propose banning self-custody wallets
https://cointelegraph.com/news/denmark-no-ban-self-custody-wallets
“Hardware wallets do not give custody of private keys to the wallet provider and thus are not regulated by MiCA. Non-custodial wallets, by their nature, are not subject to MiCAR.”
Let's see, will anyone read this update just go by the title and again put their tinfoil hat on!
It is good that they clarified this, it would've been a shitstorm if it were actually true.
According to the previous chart you posted, it would appear that this doesn't affect crypto businesses incorporated there either - just a very specific kind of offering (or whatever it is supposed to be, I don't understand a few of the terms in the graph).
Any wallet that have integrated exchange swaps will be affected by new Mica stupidity:
Despite not being subject to MiCA, some software wallets provide integrated interfaces to fully decentralized services in addition to their wallet services. According to Thygesen, such integrations could potentially be independently regulated by MiCA if they are not provided fully decentralized.
For example, a software wallet that directly executes orders on a decentralized exchange on behalf of clients could require authorization if a legal entity has control over the offer and provides this specific activity as a service for clients, the DFSA official said.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/denmark-no-ban-self-custody-wallets
Key word being exchange swaps so this sounds more like this affects wallets like Atomic and Guarda or anything else integrating with Changely/NOW, both owned by a shady entity which should keep you away from using them anyway.
-
I think there is nothing to pay attention to. Because there are many countries that have banned crypto completely. In my opinion not all countries have the same beliefs like Denmark. Despite the ban in Denmark, there are many citizens of the country working in cryptocurrencies. To bypass such restrictions, VPNs can be used.
-
According to the previous chart you posted, it would appear that this doesn't affect crypto businesses incorporated there either - just a very specific kind of offering (or whatever it is supposed to be, I don't understand a few of the terms in the graph).
Any wallet that have integrated exchange swaps will be affected by new Mica stupidity:
Despite not being subject to MiCA, some software wallets provide integrated interfaces to fully decentralized services in addition to their wallet services. According to Thygesen, such integrations could potentially be independently regulated by MiCA if they are not provided fully decentralized.
For example, a software wallet that directly executes orders on a decentralized exchange on behalf of clients could require authorization if a legal entity has control over the offer and provides this specific activity as a service for clients, the DFSA official said.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/denmark-no-ban-self-custody-wallets
Key word being exchange swaps so this sounds more like this affects wallets like Atomic and Guarda or anything else integrating with Changely/NOW, both owned by a shady entity which should keep you away from using them anyway.
It's pretty easy
- you offer a self-custody wallet like electrum and you don't offer any services on top of that they don't care
- you offer a self-custody wallet but you offer services like swapping, and investments, staking, bla bla, from which you take profit that requires you to have a license? You need to register!
But in case I offer a wallet again self custody but my wallet allows the users to print their own tokens, create runes or anything else, again, it's not covered by MICA, much like creating LN channels in electrum is not!
Anyhow, thanks a lot for updating the title!
I hope the guy on twitter comes out and apologies for all the misleading crap and his 4 pages of "research".
Despite the ban in Denmark, there are many citizens of the country working in cryptocurrencies.
D'oh! :-X
-
Key word being exchange swaps so this sounds more like this affects wallets like Atomic and Guarda or anything else integrating with Changely/NOW, both owned by a shady entity which should keep you away from using them anyway.
Yes, bet there are many other wallets, and this could affect many Lightning Network wallets also.
I am not sure about Wasabi wallet that is using centralized coordinators, but Exodus wallet and some hardware wallets have similar third party partners, so better be careful if you are exchanging coins with them.
-
- you offer a self-custody wallet but you offer services like swapping, and investments, staking, bla bla, from which you take profit that requires you to have a license? You need to register!
As if according to MICA the company won't be sued if its don't own the keys, but if it integrates swapping, and other functions then it will be because recently USA's authority SEC sued Consensys for implementing swapping (and other functions) for unregistered securities and they want to shut it down.
Considering that POV I think MICA will also have the same rule because they have to provide funds for swapping and other functions and thus they are involved. I say if a company want to create a decentralized or self custodial wallet, they should not integrate any other functions in them to avoid themselves from any lawsuits.
-
I say if a company want to create a decentralized or self custodial wallet, they should not integrate any other functions in them to avoid themselves from any lawsuits.
If a company wants to create a decentralized environment then it should be truly decentralized not with them being the only service available directly to the wallet, much like the whole Netscape vs Microsoft drama.
You either go fully NGO NoN-Profit and you allow your users truly decentralized and barrier-free features or you implement more features than those games that require you to pay for everything in order to play and face the consequences of earning money from your customers!
Too many "free" products lately that make a ton of money out of "free" stuff.
-
This is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, or even give attention, any country can ban anything related to crypto they want, or even crypto in its entire self, but the issue have always been in its implementation.
For example, Nigerian government banned crypto entirely in the whole of the country, but it's citizens still go about crypto like there was or is no ban at all, I believe this will be the same story in Denmark, how are they going to effect this ban? To make sure that citizens don't continue using self custody wallets even after this ban? There is no way to implement such a rule, even if they restrict citizens' access to the domains of those wallets, citizens can always use VPN to bypass such restrictions.
When something is illegal engaging in such activity becomes a criminal offense. Which means one can go to jail for using non-custodian wallets. This is a big problem for people who cherish privacy. So there are many things to be scared of. In my country, the police can search your phone at will, and if they see a decentralized wallet you are a suspect that will be exploited or sent to jail. It is far better not to have this rule in place because trying to invade these bans can be risky. And such laws can hinder crypto adoption because many people wouldn't want to take such a risk.
-
If a company wants to create a decentralized environment then it should be truly decentralized not with them being the only service available directly to the wallet, much like the whole Netscape vs Microsoft drama.
You either go fully NGO NoN-Profit and you allow your users truly decentralized and barrier-free features or you implement more features than those games that require you to pay for everything in order to play and face the consequences of earning money from your customers!
Too many "free" products lately that make a ton of money out of "free" stuff.
Good point, a company should follow its path the one it set at its inception. For example, Metamask wallet was first used for storing assets, etc. but later they introduced staking and other stuff to make more money and now SEC is on their ass because SEC say they are providing the staking of unregistered assets while there is exchange Robinhood which did not introduced staking feature AFAIK. I think it's a good move because if they had introduced it like Binance, Coinbase, KuCoin, etc. they would be facing the same consequences as well. I know I am talking about CEXs, not DEXs but Metamask counts as decentralized.
So yeah, a platform should stick to the main idea, I think they modify it because the trend for some projects is changing as the demand is changing. So, whatever people will demand most of the decentralized platforms try to provide it. Besides I liked the last statement, it's really confusing though but makes sense when we talk about DEXs.
-
~
Good point, a company should follow its path the one it set at its inception. For example, Metamask wallet was first used for storing assets, etc. but later they introduced staking and other stuff to make more money and now SEC is on their ass because SEC say they are providing the staking of unregistered assets while there is exchange Robinhood which did not introduced staking feature AFAIK.
Well, I really can't really blame them for changing their ways with that much money insight, Metamask is developed by company, whose purpose is to make money, ok, make money, offer all the services you want, and strat charging us for using metamask but don't go weasel your way out of being licensed and paying taxes! If you change your business from selling ice cream to being a bank, act like one, not come up with excuses.
while there is exchange Robinhood which did not introduced staking feature AFAIK.
Because some companies simply don't want to get involved in this mess as they see it as too costly, some do it as they think they can manage and some do it not caring at all about their circumstance as they think being registered in the Bahamas is a bulletproof way to be out of the reach of any regulation.
In my country, the police can search your phone at will, and if they see a decentralized wallet you are a suspect that will be exploited or sent to jail.
What country is that?
-
This is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, or even give attention, any country can ban anything related to crypto they want, or even crypto in its entire self, but the issue have always been in its implementation.
For example, Nigerian government banned crypto entirely in the whole of the country, but it's citizens still go about crypto like there was or is no ban at all, I believe this will be the same story in Denmark, how are they going to effect this ban? To make sure that citizens don't continue using self custody wallets even after this ban? There is no way to implement such a rule, even if they restrict citizens' access to the domains of those wallets, citizens can always use VPN to bypass such restrictions.
When something is illegal engaging in such activity becomes a criminal offense. Which means one can go to jail for using non-custodian wallets. This is a big problem for people who cherish privacy. So there are many things to be scared of. In my country, the police can search your phone at will, and if they see a decentralized wallet you are a suspect that will be exploited or sent to jail. It is far better not to have this rule in place because trying to invade these bans can be risky. And such laws can hinder crypto adoption because many people wouldn't want to take such a risk.
Well, after reading the update, I am happy that the ban on self - custody wallet rumors turned out to be just an actual rumor, which was all false, but then, as much as what you said did make a lot of sense to me, I still will like to let you know that as much as a government of a country has power over the citizens that they rule over, they aren't at liberty to just do any thing, ban or allow anything they please.
When a government declares a ban on something which everyone knows that them banning that thing was simply for their selfish interest, and not really because that thing is bad, if almost all the citizens of that country ignore that ban and continue to make of use of the thing, trust me, the government will have no choice but to retrace their steps, because it is never possible for a government to send more than half of her citizens to jail, no where has that ever been done before.
-
When a government declares a ban on something which everyone knows that them banning that thing was simply for their selfish interest, and not really because that thing is bad, if almost all the citizens of that country ignore that ban and continue to make of use of the thing, trust me, the government will have no choice but to retrace their steps, because it is never possible for a government to send more than half of her citizens to jail, no where has that ever been done before.
Oh really?
How is crypto usage in North Korea? Oh wait, how is internet usage, oh damn, my bad how is everything in North Korea?
In totalitarian countries, the government allows you as much freedom as they think is necessary, after publicly executing 600 people for protesting do you think the religious fanatics in Iran would have a problem banning wallets?
If Russia does this tomorrow and everyone caught will be sent to war, do you think people will keep using crypto?
This was a lucky situation in a truly democratic country, where they didn't even think of banning it in the first place, but get this stupid idea in the head of a dictator and see the outcome!
-
In totalitarian countries, the government allows you as much freedom as they think is necessary, after publicly executing 600 people for protesting do you think the religious fanatics in Iran would have a problem banning wallets?
If Russia does this tomorrow and everyone caught will be sent to war, do you think people will keep using crypto?
It's not like things work that way in totalitarian regimes. Dictatorship governments pass rigorous laws, but they also liberally allow the same laws to be broken. The use of crypto in such cases is most beneficial to those who have power because it allows them to hide the money they have or for all dirty transactions more easily.
At the same time, ordinary people are consciously allowed to work outside of the law and thus divert attention from some real needs that should be normal for everyone. Which results in a smaller revolt against the government.
For example, in North Korea, it's less of a problem if you hold 0.5BTC than if you say that Kim Jong Un is an backdoor.
-
It's not like things work that way in totalitarian regimes. Dictatorship governments pass rigorous laws, but they also liberally allow the same laws to be broken. The use of crypto in such cases is most beneficial to those who have power because it allows them to hide the money they have or for all dirty transactions more easily.
I lived in one! They allow everything that doesn't harm their interest and a functional underground economy for the masses is the last they want if it threatens their interests, all those things that broke the law like underground imports and currency were in fact controlled by the state allowing certain individual to do it as long as it was beneficial to them, the moment something crosses the line it was stopped in seconds.
If you think a totalitarian regime would allow anything to go out of its control and grow inside its system you're definitely mistaken or you're not talking about a totalitarian regime at all.
-
If you think a totalitarian regime would allow anything to go out of its control and grow inside its system you're definitely mistaken or you're not talking about a totalitarian regime at all.
It's just quite complex and I didn't want to go into details and expand the discussion in that direction.
For example, the totalitarian regime, in addition to prohibiting drug trading, still allows it within a certain limit. At the same time, the biggest dealers and players are under the control of the same regime.
Someone can do the same work "under the radar", but only until the amounts are significant. The regime is aware of this and consciously allows it, as long as it has insight (control) into the entire system and as long as it suits it.
-
Well, I really can't really blame them for changing their ways with that much money insight, Metamask is developed by company, whose purpose is to make money, ok, make money, offer all the services you want, and strat charging us for using metamask but don't go weasel your way out of being licensed and paying taxes! If you change your business from selling ice cream to being a bank, act like one, not come up with excuses.
You are right, if they are expanding their business then you must comply with the law and consider facing all the problems as well. I think they just think they have achieved a lot and have a big reputation in the community so why not introduce more features that are most likely to attract the authorities? As I read your POV about Robin Hood and I also agree with that.
Because they were smart enough to not mess with something that they think will bring problems to them and now AFAIK they have bought the Bitstamp exchange as well. The success of Robin Hood is considerable because it was started by two fellows and the story is awesome after knowing the story I can tell they are smart enough to do all updates in compliance with law.