[JumpCrisscross]

> point of cryptocurrency is precisely to enable bank-like services without bank-like obligations

Crypto has shown some rules are unnecessary or even harmful. They should be repealed, across the board. In other cases, many cases, it's reinforced some rules' necessity. Their scope should be broadened. That's what's going on here.

If the sole value of cryptocurrencies is in evading the rules, it's going to have a tough time.

> the cryptocurrency world does not care about the US Senate

Whether someone cares about the law isn't relevant to lawmaking or enforcement. (This attitude is also counterproductive. It leads to disengagement, which virtually guarantees more-onerous rules than would have been necessary.)

> will just end up being another "I promise I'm not a US person" checkbox when you sign up for cryptocurrency services

This, alone, is insufficient. AML duties aren't discharged by an "I promise I'm not a money launderer or tax evader" checkbox.

[dcolkitt]

> This, alone, is insufficient. AML duties aren't discharged by an "I promise I'm not a money launderer or tax evader" checkbox.

A Maltese company operating a server in Russia is under no obligation to follow US law for a customer who attests that he's Israeli. American KYC/AML provisions do not extend to the entire globe, and non-American entities are under no legal obligation to comply with them.

It is true that the US has a long arm of pressure that exists in the form of the SWIFT banking system. But the thing about crypto native companies is they never touch SWIFT to begin with. So unless you propose deploying the 101st Airborne to Valletta, how do you propose forcing foreign crypto companies from complying with US regulations.

[zarzavat]

In fact this is how it works for real banks too. If you sign up for a bank account outside the US it's routine that they ask you if you are American, because they do not want to comply with onerous US regulations. It's a big problem for Americans who live abroad, who cannot access banking services in the country they are resident in.

[cinquemb]

It was more inconvenient in the past, but with things like (transfer)wise/paypal/stablecoins+crypto it's not that big an issue.

Easier for me to be bankless as an american abroad than to try bother to jump through all the hoops and getting a "real" bank account.

[ryan_lane]

Have you actually tried this? I'm living abroad and I can tell you it's nearly impossible to be bankless, if you want to continue living in that place and have the government be OK with it.

At some point you need a long-term visa, which means you need a job, and that job will require you to have a (local) bank account.

Need to pay bills? You can't pay in cryptocurrency, and they expect local currency. Some may accept credit cards, but most will probably only accept debit or bank transfer. Ones that accept credit cards may only accept national cards.

If you're a US citizen and you have a bank account in the US (or credit cards), and they find out you're no longer residing in the US, they'll probably close your accounts to avoid dealing with FACTA. You'll need to setup special bank accounts, and may also need to switch your brokerage accounts.

At some point credit card companies will realize you're living somewhere else and will close your accounts, because they're intended to be used on vacation in other countries, but not long-term.

To use crypto, you need to convert it into fiat, and you can't do that without a bank account.

[cinquemb]

I've been living abroad for almost six years, I've been working remotely, and for the visa I've needed for where I've wanted to be I do not need a local bank account (I can renew every year or every two years which is the most they allow for foreigners anyways).

I don't use credit cards and never had. When I need fiat, I swap with "friends" locally who want crypto or who do have accounts (they "shill" crypto brokerages on television stations shows [and their ads on other show slots] in the country i'm in and there are more local users of crypto than people who actually have regular brokerage accounts to trade local stocks in the country). And there are local websites where I can actually pay for bills with crypto but I see no real need to when its relatively easy for me to get cash (cash top ups for alot of apps that can be used to pay for lots of things from bills, goods/services and food). Any brokerage accounts I've had (IB and robinhood), I've long drained the funds/liquidated assets and these days I'm really only exposed to what I can trade on a dex.

Other foreigners I've talked usually jump through some hoops to have a local "agent" to set up accounts for them that they have control over, but i cannot be bothered. Less exposure to bailoutistan, the better.

To use crypto, you need to find someone else who will swap for it, and over the past 10 years, that has increased enough for me to be ok with the work arounds. May not be ok for the way you want to live your life, but it works for me.

One day i'll be "stateless", but a lot more work to happen on that front with many others for that to come into fruition… ;)

[krasi0]

This sounds great to be honest. Which country is that if I may ask?

[cinquemb]

> which virtually guarantees more-onerous rules than would have been necessary.

I see this as a good thing™, since more onerous rules will probably negatively affect a lot more people who may not even care about cryptocurrency just because they may be doing something that could be used for interacting with them.

The more invasive the better!