OKX to delist privacy coins

[Freemind]

Alas (in my opinion), eventually absolutely everyone (whether someone wants to or not) - but will have to pay taxes + prove for the origin of earnings. Far from the fact that this alternative will be, I have very big doubts about it.

Therefore, the delisting of such (anonymous) coins is the first sign that this is just the beginning. It will be mandatory for exchanges to get rid of trading pairs. Because the SEC will shut them down. It's business as usual. 

I agree with what you say, but I also think that things could even go a little further. For example, blocking all cryptocurrencies whose origin cannot be verified or a higher percentage when taxes are declared on them, or even that the law has the ability to confiscate said cryptocurrencies when the possible origin derives from a crime.

Eliminating privacy coins is the first step towards more complete control of citizens, regardless of country or government, which has always been the goal. In this, CBDCs play a very important role, since being digital, governments will know at all times how much money we have and how we use it, so our privacy will go one step lower. Although it may not seem like it, both things have a lot in common.

[KingsDen]

That is why every day we will see new DEXs born where we can exchange our privacy coins, without KYC, without control and with total decentralization. I'm not worried about what happens to all the CEX's, they've already made billions and left users at the bottom.

I totally agree with you, and other than the fact that people consider centralized exchanges more convenient, they also use it because that is what they were exposed to when they became interested in crypto, imagine if p2p exchanges are promoted to newbies, they would learn how to use it right from the beginning of their crypto journey. I am also not worried about centralized exchanges and it would be great if there is more liquidity in p2p exchanges and more people use them for their trades.

That's what I have always said. The newbies maintain what they were told and where they were introduced during their newbie days. Personally, it took me some times to unlearn some wrong things I was told when I was a newbie. Just because CEXs are more user friendly and do not require any kind of technical knowledge such as signing a message, you see people flood there and allow themselves to be monitored and censored by others. For the sake of privacy coins, DEX will be sustained. We are all moving to decentralization.

[Freemind]

That's what I have always said. The newbies maintain what they were told and where they were introduced during their newbie days. Personally, it took me some times to unlearn some wrong things I was told when I was a newbie. Just because CEXs are more user friendly and do not require any kind of technical knowledge such as signing a message, you see people flood there and allow themselves to be monitored and censored by others. For the sake of privacy coins, DEX will be sustained. We are all moving to decentralization.

The problem is that people prefer not to have to learn technical things (no matter how simple they are) and prefer to have everything with just one click. They are not aware of where their personal data may end up or who and how may use it. There are quite a few forums on the dark web with databases of millions of people from all over the world, and the exchanges are not exempt from attacks. People must decide between the ease of use of centralized exchanges and the value of their personal data, and by this I do not mean that decentralized exchanges are perfect and 100% anonymous.

[NikeFit_7777]

I agree with what you say, but I also think that things could even go a little further. For example, blocking all cryptocurrencies whose origin cannot be verified or a higher percentage when taxes are declared on them, or even that the law has the ability to confiscate said cryptocurrencies when the possible origin derives from a crime.

Eliminating privacy coins is the first step towards more complete control of citizens, regardless of country or government, which has always been the goal. In this, CBDCs play a very important role, since being digital, governments will know at all times how much money we have and how we use it, so our privacy will go one step lower. Although it may not seem like it, both things have a lot in common.

Alas, sooner or later we would have come to that. Any kind of anonymity has always been attractive to the authorities to close this function. I wouldn't be surprised (absolutely) if soon the SEC will speak out on this issue + start demanding (forcibly) that all exchanges remove such coins from trading pairs, etc.

P.S. It is worth accepting the problem and coming to terms with it. Alas, we as users can't change much in this matter. And it is unlikely (I think so) that we will be able to influence (in any way) future regulation by the authorities (of most countries). 

[Freemind]

Alas, sooner or later we would have come to that. Any kind of anonymity has always been attractive to the authorities to close this function. I wouldn't be surprised (absolutely) if soon the SEC will speak out on this issue + start demanding (forcibly) that all exchanges remove such coins from trading pairs, etc.

P.S. It is worth accepting the problem and coming to terms with it. Alas, we as users can't change much in this matter. And it is unlikely (I think so) that we will be able to influence (in any way) future regulation by the authorities (of most countries). 

The SEC can file as many lawsuits as it wants, that is not a problem in itself. The problem is with the exchanges that receive these lawsuits and where their licenses operate. If those exchanges are licensed outside the United States and countries related to the United States, they will be able to continue operating without problem. The problem will come when some exchanges have to obey without being able to give their reasons, at that point they should remove the privacy coin pairs and continue on their way.

Another added problem is that although there are countries where the SEC does not have jurisdiction, their governments could rely on United States regulations to, by modifying certain parts, have very similar guidelines, which would end up being the same, and authorized exchanges should also end up deleting privacy coin pairs.

[Wiseman]

This was not explicitly announced, but all the currency pairs that were delisted are related to privacy coins.

Previously, everyone was afraid and many people paid attention only to confidential coins, but then everyone realized that these are the coins that scammers use in 99% of cases of fraud using cryptocurrencies, and now few people want to keep such coins on their balance sheet so as not to provoke attention to themselves. I think exchanges also don’t want to be forced to show the balances of those who have such coins and they simply delist these coins, plus regulators force exchanges to stop using such coins in trading.

[NikeFit_7777]

The SEC can file as many lawsuits as it wants, that is not a problem in itself. The problem is with the exchanges that receive these lawsuits and where their licenses operate. If those exchanges are licensed outside the United States and countries related to the United States, they will be able to continue operating without problem. The problem will come when some exchanges have to obey without being able to give their reasons, at that point they should remove the privacy coin pairs and continue on their way.

Another added problem is that although there are countries where the SEC does not have jurisdiction, their governments could rely on United States regulations to, by modifying certain parts, have very similar guidelines, which would end up being the same, and authorized exchanges should also end up deleting privacy coin pairs.

Alas (unfortunately), the exchanges do what they are told. In the future, the situation will worsen in this regard, because there will be strong regulation not only of anonymous assets but also of exchanges.

There are only two ways out, or they obey the jurisdiction + those rules/laws or completely close their activities, both with exchanges and projects. In my understanding, there can be no other way. Again, what you and I are seeing is just the beginning of regulation, the further it goes the worse it gets. Alas... 

[Freemind]

Alas (unfortunately), the exchanges do what they are told. In the future, the situation will worsen in this regard, because there will be strong regulation not only of anonymous assets but also of exchanges.

There are only two ways out, or they obey the jurisdiction + those rules/laws or completely close their activities, both with exchanges and projects. In my understanding, there can be no other way. Again, what you and I are seeing is just the beginning of regulation, the further it goes the worse it gets. Alas... 

It is very clear that if exchanges do not cooperate (voluntarily or not) with governments, they will end up losing the licenses that allow them to keep their businesses running. But if they are going to require more information and reinforce KYC/AML policies they must also think that part of the users (those who care most about their privacy) could stop using those exchanges and trade on other platforms.

It is possible that all this will lead in the future to "all" exchanges using the same methodology to demand private information from users, which would lead us to the fact that if we wanted to trade on exchanges with large volumes, we would have to do KYC, even if we didn't want to. In fact, I think something like this could happen, since the KYC requirements on the most well-known exchanges are becoming more similar every day.

[NikeFit_7777]

It is very clear that if exchanges do not cooperate (voluntarily or not) with governments, they will end up losing the licenses that allow them to keep their businesses running. But if they are going to require more information and reinforce KYC/AML policies they must also think that part of the users (those who care most about their privacy) could stop using those exchanges and trade on other platforms.

It is possible that all this will lead in the future to "all" exchanges using the same methodology to demand private information from users, which would lead us to the fact that if we wanted to trade on exchanges with large volumes, we would have to do KYC, even if we didn't want to. In fact, I think something like this could happen, since the KYC requirements on the most well-known exchanges are becoming more similar every day.

Alas, the further you go, the stronger the regulation. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about it.  Most likely you should accept it and continue to study/earn - there is no other way out. In any case, there will be what the SEC will do in exchanges/anonymous services etc. What I wrote above is just my thoughts out loud, nothing more. The further it goes, the more interesting it gets.

P.S. I personally, have already given up many crypto-exchanges, you know what I get in the mail? Messages that I need to pass verification or I will be blocked. 

[MrSpasybo]

Alas, the further you go, the stronger the regulation. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about it.  Most likely you should accept it and continue to study/earn - there is no other way out. In any case, there will be what the SEC will do in exchanges/anonymous services etc. What I wrote above is just my thoughts out loud, nothing more. The further it goes, the more interesting it gets.

P.S. I personally, have already given up many crypto-exchanges, you know what I get in the mail? Messages that I need to pass verification or I will be blocked. 

As Freemind mentioned, CEXs need to comply with legal regulations in order to exist in this market. Internet also had to adapt to be widely used as it is today, and crypto also needs clear legal frameworks to comply with and develop. CZ and Binance's actions are the clearest proof: accepting compromises to retain the future of Binance CEX in the face of intense scrutiny from the US government. The same applies to users: we need to perform KYC when we want to use the services that CEXs provide.

Privacy can be very useful for some users, but it can also be a threat to the management and development plan of the crypto market. Going against governments is not a wise decision, which is why BTC has never been a privacy coin, and the Bitcoin blockchain is public and transparent.

[Freemind]

As Freemind mentioned, CEXs need to comply with legal regulations in order to exist in this market. Internet also had to adapt to be widely used as it is today, and crypto also needs clear legal frameworks to comply with and develop. CZ and Binance's actions are the clearest proof: accepting compromises to retain the future of Binance CEX in the face of intense scrutiny from the US government. The same applies to users: we need to perform KYC when we want to use the services that CEXs provide.

Privacy can be very useful for some users, but it can also be a threat to the management and development plan of the crypto market. Going against governments is not a wise decision, which is why BTC has never been a privacy coin, and the Bitcoin blockchain is public and transparent.

I agree with what you say, but... Any CEX that wants to continue working according to the laws and regulations of the country must comply with the regulations, the worrying thing is that almost all countries and the "different" regulations are a mirror of the existing regulations in the United States, so there is no room to "change or improve" this regulations. It is true that privacy can be very useful for some, and it is also true that other users may not care, but the important thing is that privacy is a right, a right that in many cases ends up trampled without any value.

Every day more banks block accounts of users who want to use their fiat money to buy cryptocurrencies. What power does the bank have to decide what people do with their money?.

When banks say it is to avoid “scams”, ​​it seems like an insult to anyone's intelligence. That excuse is very old...

[MrSpasybo]

I agree with what you say, but... Any CEX that wants to continue working according to the laws and regulations of the country must comply with the regulations, the worrying thing is that almost all countries and the "different" regulations are a mirror of the existing regulations in the United States, so there is no room to "change or improve" this regulations. It is true that privacy can be very useful for some, and it is also true that other users may not care, but the important thing is that privacy is a right, a right that in many cases ends up trampled without any value.

Every day more banks block accounts of users who want to use their fiat money to buy cryptocurrencies. What power does the bank have to decide what people do with their money?.

When banks say it is to avoid “scams”, ​​it seems like an insult to anyone's intelligence. That excuse is very old...

The US remains the world's largest economy, so US crypto views will have a strong impact globally. This is unlike what happened after China banned crypto mining: miners flocked to crypto-friendly countries instead of giving up this potential industry. When the SEC sued Ripple, XRP was delisted from many exchanges, the same thing happened when the US government viewed privacy coins as a threat to money laundering prevention. I think we have to accept this, I have also given up all privacy coins and do not have them in my portfolio.

Currently, banks still have a hostile or cautious attitude towards crypto. In addition to competing for profits, they are also afraid of legal issues related to crypto, especially in countries that do not have a clear legal framework for crypto. But I believe that in the future, when crypto is widely accepted, banks will quickly provide crypto services to customers to generate additional revenue and profits from this vibrant market.