HodlX guest post Submit your message
An in-depth Reuters article details how Binance allegedly forged ties with Russian officials. It started last year when Russian intelligence wanted the exchange to leak customer data to help fight crime.in particular, reportedly sought to trace millions of dollars in Bitcoin raised by opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
Navalny reportedly used the funding to expose government corruption. Binance told Reuters the compliance measures required it to respond to “appropriate requests from regulators and law enforcement.”
Reuters reports that this “is part of Binance’s behind-the-scenes efforts to establish ties with Russian government agencies as it seeks to boost its growing business in the country.”
Binance continued to operate in Russia after the country invaded Ukraine, and says it is aggressively enforcing sanctions. In 2019, Binance’s CEO noted that the company’s mission in Russia was to increase the “freedom of money” and “protect users,” leaving potential questions about privacy.not just about Binance and Russia, but in the digital asset space more generally.
There’s every reason for a strong KYC (know your customer) and AML (anti-money laundering) program. Such programs are necessary to eliminate money laundering that funds terrorism and other wrongdoing. However, what happens when countries decide that to operate within their borders, exchanges must inform political opponents?
In this case, we are talking about Russia. However, consider the convoy of Canadian truckers. Again, the focus was on stopping ideologically based funding.
It’s a scary situation when Big Tech, the government or a combination thereof is able to shut down a person’s livelihood.or worse. What happened during the Canadian truck convoy should be a stark reminder to everyone, regardless of political ideology, that concentrated power over our financial system can quickly turn into a frightening situation. In fact, Bitcoin was created on the premise that it was designed to be a decentralized payment system.
We can all agree that we want controls in place to ensure that digital assets do not support terrorists and drug cartels. However, where is this line drawn? And what should industry do when governments demand more in terms of compliance than is necessary to ensure public safety?
In such cases, should an exchange simply withdraw from a market? Or do they have to comply with even the most authoritative demands in order to stay in business? It’s not hard to imagine the slippery slope prevailing here.
The difficulty of this question is compounded when considering the emergence of CBDCs.digital assets developed by a central bank. Consider China’s extensive testing of its own e-yuan. The country has taken a number of steps that would lead many to label its agenda as authoritarian in nature.
How can we move forward with CBDCs without giving up our financial freedom and privacy? I think an essential element is to demand a wall between the government and our financial transactions. A government that offers an alternative to cash that is not anonymous does not offer an alternative to cash at all.
Richard Gardner is the CEO of Modulus. He has been a globally recognized subject matter expert for over two decades, offering intricate insights and analysis on cryptocurrency, cybersecurity, fintech, surveillance technology, blockchain technologies, and management best practices. general.
follow us on Twitter facebook telegram
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please note that your transfers and transactions are at your own risk and any loss you may incur is your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment adviser. Please note that The Daily Hodl engages in affiliate marketing.
Featured Image: Shutterstock/pinkeyes