[notahacker]

The traditional financial system carries out trillions of transactions which are not money laundering, yet is required to jump through enormous amounts of red tape to prove its customers are not money launderers, and companies still get into trouble with regulators if they're not satisfied with their AML policies.

A new payment processor advertising the ability to accept completely anonymous transactions as a key benefit over the traditional ecosystem is going to attract a much higher ratio of money laundering to legitimate merchant accounts, and even without that, marketing Lack-of-AML-as-a-Service is sort of thing that gets regulators interested in shutting you down...

[decorator]

> The traditional financial system carries out trillions of transactions which are not money laundering, yet is required to jump through enormous amounts of red tape to prove its customers are not money launderers, and companies still get into trouble with regulators if they're not satisfied with their AML policies.

I'd agree the traditional system would probably have less money laundering. It also has less freedom, & could have significantly less innovation in the future.

> marketing Lack-of-AML-as-a-Service is sort of thing that gets regulators interested in shutting you down

I think they're run from South Africa, so I'm not sure if regulators could shut them down. Crypto is global & crypto is on the internet. Wherever cryptocurrencies go, human minds will follow. People will create them with their computers (mining) & transact with those who accept them.

Coming down hard on crypto assets could create a parallel economy. Untaxed & no regulation. Then what do regulators do? Nothing, because they just lost their jobs & any control over anything.

[notahacker]

Criminal economic ecosystems have existed since long before cryptocurrency, as has AML law even in mere regional financial hubs like South Africa.

The real question is to what extent is it beneficial for non-criminal businesses to invest in the capability to handle niche currencies like Monero used by hardly anybody and attractive primarily to money launders. Because if it's predominantly criminal businesses using them, it's not really making regulators' jobs more difficult.

[decorator]

> Criminal economic ecosystems have existed since long before cryptocurrency, as has AML law even in mere regional financial hubs like South Africa.

Even if South Africa shut them down, I'm sure others will find a way to run such payment processors. Where there's money, there's motive.

> The real question is to what extent is it beneficial for non-criminal businesses to invest in the capability to handle niche currencies like Monero used by hardly anybody and attractive primarily to money launders.

People who launder large sums of money would likely do it through the traditional financial system. How does one launder, say, a billion dollars through a Monero today? I don't think they could. That type of money is being laundered through the banking system[0].

> The real question is to what extent is it beneficial for non-criminal businesses to invest in the capability to handle niche currencies like Monero

If it's easy to implement & their niche likes to use them, then I would say it's probable.

Crypto can win bit by bit. Country by country. There are some jurisdictions that seem to be embracing the tech (like Japan & Switzerland).

That's some people using it. If it continues to grow & you know it's going to grow faster than any other asset it makes sense to do some speculation. Then with that speculation, you start to learn about crypto. It starts to spread as people become aware of returns, & it continues to grow, & so on.

It's resilient. I like resilient assets. I think a little bit of crypto can be a good investment. If anything it's fun. That's one of the reasons I think young people like it.

Do it for fun, spend it when people accept it. People even give discounts for buying in crypto.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-...