The blockchain doesn't (consistently) tell you who owns which wallets, nor if they're a terrorist financier or money launderer. This is besides the point that "exchange" has a specific legal meaning under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
It wouldn't surprise if they do indeed keep all the data. After all, almost all these companies are data driven, and they have data analysis departments [0].
In Toronto, TMX Inc (holders of the Toronto Stock Exchange) along with Paycase and Bank of Montreal have recently organized to establish their own trading desk/brokerage at the TSX for cryptocurrencies. The news of that came about a week or two after Bank of Montreal banned all purchases of cryptocurrency both on their debit and credit cards.
While I'm suspicious of the banks' intentions in some of these cases— I'm with you. There's just been too many outright scams, ponzi schemes, and theft.
If I were a big fund or HFT shop I for sure want as much insurance as possible that my bitcoin trading funds are kept safe. Futures have too low liquidity, and don't trade on weekend when many moves happen.
I completely agree though. I can't even begin to imagine what the crypto exchanges are getting away with. I haven't read about about any dark pool scandals in years so I think the banks have been behaving better.
I really doubt it. These exchanges are making unbelievable amounts of money in fees. There's no reason for them to risk that just to make a little more.
If you use these exchanges, you are basically playing in a wild-west casino where the house has every single advantage and every incentive to siphon off every dime of your money.
Martha Stewart's insider trading saved her a grand total of $45,673.
The New York Department of Financial Services and Attorney General's offices are some of the few state offices that relish going after banks. If you're a New Yorker, getting a dispute resolved with a large bank typically only involves Cc'ing one or both (if the facts are on your side).
How will we know the difference? What will we do if indeed it's the latter?
Is it really easier for you to spin this into a conspiracy theory than consider the facts on the ground?
If you want New York money, you need to deal with the New York legal system.
Decentralized exchanges won’t help you either. Any time you interface with a nation’s currency, you’re going to deal with that nation’s government.
No, it isn't. It's only reasonable within the tiny fantasy world of True Believers where the whole world is conspiring to keep the glory of cryptocurrency down. This is the exact same action that would be taken against any other unauthorized, unregistered securities trading. Not to mention an area which has become infamously rife with scams and fraud.
Schneiderman especially has a sterling reputation with regard to pushing against the great financial powers and investigating crimes in that area.
Come on now - that's not fair.
I have lived most of my life in NY. I have spent a lot of time interacting with Albany, including briefly having access clearance to SUNY Plaza. I have met with people in the NY government who seemed like they had good intentions, and those who didn't - in the executive branch, the Senate, and the Assembly.
And I think it's very reasonable to always suspect that the motivation is not consumer protection, but defense of entrenched interests. Saying so doesn't put someone in a "tiny fantasy world."
This Museum of Political Corruption[0] (not accidentally put in Albany) opens next year - I suggest you visit and learn about the struggles we've had with our government over the years.
Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt here. They're shills. They have a vested financial interest in twisting logic and reason to convince the world that a secret cabal of bureaucrats and bankers are conspiring against this particular technology.
This is the primary problem with discussing anything crypto-related online. In a technical discussion about the merits of Linux and free software, you can be reasonably sure that whomever you are engaging with does not have a financial interest in pushing their particular stance. It seems like in any crypto-related discussion, it is impossible to find honest, impartial debate.
Many other Canadian banks banned the purchases on credit cards alone—not preventing anyone from using Interac Online or Visa Debit, etc.
But I don't think it's the exchanges who are behind them, but other big players.
Excuse me - are you addressing me with this comment? My identity is not secret. My contributions to open source software (and to higher education in New York State) are reasonably well known.
Are you seriously directly calling me a shill right now?
Is this the level of discussion that we've reached on HN now?
FWIW, I think my comments have been pretty moderate. I don't see anything that is even vaguely construable as shilling. Nor am I positioned with anywhere near the resources to make shilling worthwhile.
Rather than a shill, I am a long-time NY activist who has deep problems with the way my government has interacted with nearly every facet of the (largely toxic) financial industry in my state. I don't think that concerns regarding the underlying motivation of the AG's office are ever unreasonable to raise, and certainly not here.
Just wait few more months and the sign "This domains has been seized by the FBI" will start to pop around...
For investing, not surprising, the whole thing is going the way of the tulip bubble... it's just not worth discussing a 25 year old technology still looking for a problem to solve...
In this case: major finance players are top dogs in Albany politics (along with other FIRE economy and pharma). Their input most certainly has influenced and is influencing both investigations (or lack thereof) into criminal activity in big banks and other financial institutions, as well as into crypto-blockchain tech.
Some big players probably want more robust assurance that their crypto assets are protected. Others probably want to create pain in the space either because they hold a short position or because they have fear of losing their regulatory capture.
But acting like there is no relationship between the (absence of meaningful) investigations into NY finance and this news is unhelpful.
Attorney General Schneiderman fined Goldman Sachs and other banks over $5 billion [1]. "Clearly" indeed...
[1] https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-led-state-fe...
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Schneiderman is acting here to protect the banking system and not acting to protect his constituents from being defrauded.