An Open Letter from Tristan D'Agosta (poloniex)

https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2015.05.19-Open-Letter

So they are going to follow regulations so that they don’t get shut down, and they want some credit where it is due for bringing margin trading to alt coins.

Shapeshift is working out of Swiss and doesn’t use KYC.

Polo decided to be compliant in the US, so was a business decision for them - they estimated they’d gain more “compliant” business than they’d lose from those who dislike the gov’t meddling into people’s private affairs.
I don’t think they’re surprised that some people stopped doing business with them out of principle (they probably had a pretty solid estimate - if they got it wrong, well too bad for them).

Polo is a good crypto-exchange, it’s just that people are sick and tired from this compliance and Big Brother stuff.

Crypto currencies are pointless when they’re managed by the government, so those who comply are merely helping create a new, degraded version of PayPal (instead of a private company that’s motivated by profit (good), we get a new version controlled by the gov’t (in most cases corrupt, power-hungry control freaks)). I’m not going to help Poloniex bring that about.

3 Likes

Yep, they want to remain living in the USA, so they had to toe the line.

I gather they needed to get the act together when they offered margin trading with lending capabilities. And/Or they had a visit from their “friendly” US authority that had a “quiet” word to them about compliance.

In a nutshell it pretty obvious they had to comply or (eventually) be shut down with big fines to pay.

Actually I have no problems with them doing that as a business, its their choice and helps ensure survivability. But as a user one attraction was that I could trade without government interference. Since I don’t live in the US and a small time trader at best, it is unlikely to affect me anyhow.

2 Likes

Lol… I was about to click “like” until this point… :smiley:

Both Govt and Companies have a roughly equal chance of having such individuals within them. Both have the potential to harm Society due to corruption.
Govts aren’t all “bad” and companies all good. Govt’s at least are “supposed” to be representing the population, Companies represent their own interests and share-holders only, with one clear goal, as you stated - make profit.
The answer is to de-centralise Govt functions - not hand them to the Corporations. :smiley:

1 Like

Private business is about profit. If you don’t like Polo, you can use some other, because there is always some profit-hungry guy who wants to serve an underserved market in order to make a buck. That’s great. And you can also choose to not do business with any one of them. What’s not to like?

The government, on the other hand, doesn’t give you a choice (you can follow their KYC crap or else) and mostly provides crappy and/or expensive service (or harassment, as is the case here).

How these basic facts of life can still not be clear to someone is completely beyond me.

And KYC is not a “function”, it is plain harassment and violation of human rights (property right).

1 Like

Lol…everything you missed off!
OK, basically this is just going to be the Self-Ownership" video debate all over again, so I’ll try to avoid all that. :smiley:

That particular elected Govt’s policy does that - not some universal bad entity called Govt. This is where you stray onto the yellow brick road of wrongness I think. :wink:
Your issue is either with a particular Govt in time, the system of Govt, or the policies enacted by one. In framing the issue as being “Govt” only, are you suggesting we remove all Govt, or Democracy and "let the markets decide|?"
Actually, why am I even asking?

Not if you are dealing in the Fiat currency of the Govt - there are money laundering considerations and implications for collecting the tax for paying for infra-structure, Social Welfare, wide-screen tellys for the idle etc…lol

Life on your planet must have different facts, I expect. :smiley:

Okay, great, a majority of gov’t employees are very nice folks. Now, do I still need to complete my KYC procedure or else?
It doesn’t matter which department is bad, since I cannot decide to not avail myself of their “service” or avoid having to pay for it. In order to be able to do that, I would have to be able to decline any and all services of the government, so by definition the only way I can remain unmolested is to be able to refuse any and all “services” they provide and charge for.

“Considerations” will cause Poloniex’ shareholders lose at least $100K in this year alone (although the number of launderers caught will probably equal 0). There are considerations that school kids may eat junk food, that adults won’t exercise enough, etc. and before you know it the state consumes 30% of GDP (or: the average person pays 10%-30% of their income for useless crap such as this).

(“Tax for infra” is a poor excuse. Polo must pay their income tax regardless who their customers are (and of course after KYC is introduced, they’ll pay less tax))

But we’re not. We’re dealing with crypto.
And I’m not a customer of the US gov’t, I’m a customer of Poloniex (since yesterday with 0 balance across the board).
As I mentioned above, that’ is one of main issues here. I am not ini a business relationship with the US government. They’re making private businesses such as Poloniex agents of the US government, which is a blatant violation of property rights - Polo must (if they want to survive) act as a US government spy for free.

1 Like

Ok, I’ll try to avoid having the same “tax is theft” argument, as it has already been covered extensively.and stick to the Poloniex thing.
As you have said yourself, the business had choices, it could re-locate, not deal in Fiat, or adhere to the KYC rules. Are you saying that because shareholders decided to invest for profit, then decided to use Fiat and at no point considered whether KYC might apply, then decided to comply - then I’m supposed to be in any way arsed about this, or feel aggrieved for the Shareholders?

There is a medical and Scientific link between obesity etc and the amount of sugar/fat contained in processed foods etc. A large part of the issue is companies specifically targetting children with their advertising.
If there are legitimate health concerns, then the Govt has a Duty/Responsibility to the larger population and will rein in the Companies involved to modify their products etc.
Are you now saying that we shouldn’t have any regulation, even if there are identified health concerns? Actually, again, why am i asking, to you it is “useless crap”.

Not getting the point being made here…

The exchange deals in both doesn’t it, therefore it has to apply KYC.

And, it is the private Company Poloniex asking you to comply, not the US Govt, as you point out the following as a “main issue”

No, you’re not, so why exactly are you blaming them?

You keep saying this, but I’m not seeing why?

No, only crypto currency. KYC was likely triggered by either loan feature of margin trading and/or authorities intervention.

2 Likes

Because I have the right to use my property any way I want, as long as I’m not violating anybody’s rights.
These rules limit ways how I can use my property and force me to bear compliance costs in which I have no interest whatsoever.

(And to add insult to injury, they also lower the value of that property, so now when you have less and less venues where MAID can be traded, look what happens with its exchange rate).

no problem just use the safexchange when maid is released. polo is just a way to get some early speculation tokens.

OK, I’m just trying to establish whether it’s the KYC (Govt) that is your issue, or Poloniex’ actions. Here is an excerpt from the open letter:

“We are a Money Services Business (MSB). Accordingly, we are bound by the rules and regulations defined by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and regardless of how other businesses operate, we are legally obligated to follow the rules of FinCEN to the best of our ability.”

OK, so either, they already were a “money Services Business” in which case Poloniex should have applied KYC earlier, or it’s something, they’ve just become (more likely).
If we assume it has been planned to become a MSB, then Poloniex had knowledge in advance and could have warned customers some time ago. The only issue I’m seeing lays blame squarely with Poloniex, whatever your views.
Your issue appears to be caused by a private Company seeking more profit, regardless of its existing customers. :smiley:

I’ve said from the start that Safex will have to apply KYC - definitely if its using fiat and operating as an Exchange :smiley:
I’m not sure of the form Safex is taking though, though it has been outlined somewhere.
.

There’d b no issue if the state didn’t invent these rules.

Earlier (my first comment on this topic, above) I clearly said it was a business decision whereby they judged the net gain to be positive, so they did it, but the decision was forced upon them by the state. It doesn’t bother me that they made that decision, it bothers me that they are forced to either accept it or to basically hit the street and look for a new job, and their customers then face a similar choice.

Without the interference from the state, there would be no issues.

2 Likes

Absolutely not. Unless your argument is that Financial Markets, Banks etc should operate without any form of regulation? I think we’ve just had experience of what happens when you de-regulate the Financial system - the population suffer from the actions of the greedy cheating Bankers…
Poloniex decided they wanted to be an MSB - being an MSB means applying for a licence and applying KYC. If I want to drive a car, then I have to get a licence and adhere to the road safety laws - Is this being forced on me by the State, or alternatively is it a reasonable thing aimed at preventing mayhem on the roads?

There would be mayhem in the Financial system :smile:

But if you drive on a private circuit, or in your backyard, or on a private road, why would you need a state-provided license?

No, what just happened, yesterday in fact, is that the banks admitted they committed criminal acts of rigging the markets, paid some pocket change fine to the state (not to actual people who they swindled) and now they carry on as if nothing happened. All licensed businesses.

I’ve never encountered as many problems and unhappy experiences on the black market as with regulated and licensed businesses.

Is MaidSafe mayhem? Is bItcoin mayhem? If you think so, sell your unregulated tokens to protect yourself (because Polo’s KYC doesn’t protect you, it protects Poloniex).

Did Poloniex not do their job better than almost any regulated and licensed brokerage? Did they ever - until now, that is - harass you with bullshit paperwork, “financial transaction tax” or other nonsense? (True, they got hacked once, but they couldn’t help it).

Gotta love it when a cryptocurrency user argues in favor of regulations. Amazing.

1 Like

You wouldn’t… therefore your analogy must be flawed…otherwise I’d be wrong. :smiley:
Hmmm…tricky…ah, I see it…phew!
Poloniex is not driving on a private road, it is driving on the highway of the larger Fiat/Financial system. The private road is Poloniex and it’s users drive on their private road, providing the private road owner with their personal details in order to use the road.
Really nice try though… :smiley:

This is not an argument for no regulation…you are saying that because fines are paid to the taxman ( community pot), rather than directly to the ripped off, we should let them do what they want and not fine them? I’d add that I think the ripped off may chase them through the Courts too for things like PPI’s, nevermind the fines.
Lol…Ok, I’ll toss you a tricky analogy back… Should we permit theft/fraud on the grounds that it is unfeasible to return the proceeds of crimes back to their rightful owners?

Yet! And this is only anecdotal evidence, What you dealing in btw…guns or drugs or something…lol
gotta take dog out, only read up to there, but will be back… :smiley:
Edit:
Back now…

No, but they are not the National currency of anywhere, if they were, then yes, un-regulated it would be Mayhem. The reason being that a Nation needs Tax Revenue in order to provide for essential services, therefore needs to be regulated

Absolutely no idea…I’ve only got this to go on

12 % I believe it was of customers funds, which if you were to translate to regulated brokerages would be enormous…so No, actually - and “couldn’t help it” wouldn’t cut it with regulated brokerages, nor are they likely to change the rules on you overnight.

The private Company Poloniex is hassling you due to its Capitalist desire to become an MSB. You are now (correctly) complaining about Capitalism.

Regulation of the National currencies and their Financial Institutions etc. There is no crypto National currency to my knowledge.
.

What larger system? Do you actually understand what you’re discussing or you’re just posting because you’re bored or trolling?

It’s the customer and Poloniex. It’s a private relationship.
A customer can have no relationship with the government, fiat or “financial system” and he’s still forced to go through the KYC process.

If you go a look (perhaps you should, because you obviously haven’t done it yet), you’ll see that different levels of verification are required for different amount of daily withdrawals which are set in “USD equivalent”.

Of course it’s an argument for no regulation. Because regulation costs, and the costs are paid by us. If you actually followed this topic, you would have known that in the past 10 years a large part of “investment” in the financial sector was wasted on the compliance garbage. That is nothing but a hidden tax because the cost is paid by consumers and private businesses (who then pass it on to their customers in form of higher costs of products and services).

What “we”? There’s no “we”.
You don’t have the right to take A’s and B’s money (tax) or interfere in their affairs if they don’t want to have anything to do with you. That’s the currently situation between a non-regulated crypto-exchange and customer.
And then the state comes along and extorts money from both A and B in order to protect them from theft.
Great business model, for thugs…

If A and B make a deal and one side is unhappy, how is that any of your business?
Do you have any idea how international trade and banking worked before these regulations existed?

What “we” should be able to do is decide who we want to do business with, every one for himself.

My own experience is the only one that matters. If I lose money or have a bad experience, it’s my own problem.
And I deal with whatever and whoever I want, it’s none of your business.
Go to Wikipedia and learn about private property and human rights.

No one was forced to deal with Polo.
Again, Polo actually returned that money to users by forgiving trading commissions (I forgave them the tiny amount owed to me, and it was completely voluntary).
For me, that incident wasn’t a big issue. Others closed accounts and left. Problem solved.

You’re really clueless.

  1. In capitalism, there’s no such thing a “MSB” or “KYC”. There are individuals who go about their private business.
  2. For the third time, I do not welcome Polo’s desire to play along, but it doesn’t in any way lessen their right to do whatever they want with their property. They made their choice, I made mine.

You obviously haven’t read their rules (and probably even aren’t a Polo customer, judging by the level of your cluelessness).
Polo’s KYC requirements are stated in USD equivalent amounts (a different amount for each of the three levels).
It’s massive surveillance without probably cause, and completely unrelated to national currencies or financial institutions.
If one deposits a bunch of MAID to his Polo account and wants to withdraw it the same day, he must submit his details although he isn’t using any “financial services” or dealing in any national currency.

This is the last time ever that I replied to your comment or topic.

Yes, I understand, no I’m not trolling and yes I’m getting bored now.

My first post was the 4th one, so obviously I’ve been following the topic.

I’m extremely clued up about Human Rights thank you.

No, actually, I’m not.
You’re whole argument is the no tax, Free Market, no regulation, no Society model, which thankfully most people don’t agree with - as highlighted by the following:

As I am completely bored with every conversation becoming the same old same old with you and as you say yourself…

Then clearly you have no interest in actually conversing…there would be no point in explaining anything further.