|
|
|
|
|
|
by tptacek
555 days ago
|
|
|
No, it isn't set up to mislead; no, the causes it's discussing aren't "minor" (they've blown up banks), no, the post doesn't write approvingly of US banking practices, referring to them at points as kafkaesque, not, the post doesn't skate over the "lie" that account closure notices aren't final (it spends a whole section on that), and it seems plain what parts of the system crypto companies are running aground against; they're the same parts that bodega cash transfer businesses have run into for decades. |
|
|
> no, the post doesn't write approvingly of US banking practices, referring to them at points as kafkaesque
And yet almost everyone in this thread has somehow understood it to be a post against the crypto folks and in favour of the banks. And it's too skillfully written for that to be accidental.
> no, the causes it's discussing aren't "minor"
A company going bankrupt is flashy, but can only ever be a small part of an explanation of a bank failure. A description of a shell company with a vague name that does international money transfers is a "look at these clowns" anecdote when you tell it one way and completely routine when you tell it another way. And what actual money laundering exists is, as described elsewhere in this thread, far too small to explain anti money laundering laws.
> they've blown up banks
Only if you buy into his choices about which causes to dig into and which to skate over. Big flashy graph of how many wires were getting reversed (and, in a post that otherwise goes into great detail to excuse people saying things that are manifestly untrue, complete incuriosity about any reason for the bank to say what it did that might not just be gross incompetence), but a one-line dismissal of why banks were reversing them - and no questioning why the setup is like that in the first place. Detailed explanation that a bank's business model fundamentally relied on serving a large number of crypto companies, one-line dismissal of any question as to whether it's reasonable for a regulator to make up an ad-hoc rule, and not drawing the connection between these two statements and asking whether an ad-hoc rule that intentionally puts a single entity out of business might be a little different from an arbitrary rule in other contexts. Extended point and laugh at the bank that expected to be able to regard its portfolio of New York commercial property loans as being worth something, one-line shrugging off that it's completely routine for banks to have large portfolios of essentially worthless New York commercial property loans...
> the "lie" that account closure notices aren't final (it spends a whole section on that)
It does, running bloodlessly over the mechanics, making it all sound so routine and normal and reasonable that you almost forget that we're talking about financial institutions telling blatant lies in writing (and not just about the finality, but about the reasons for the closure and its consequences) to their customers.
> it seems plain what parts of the system crypto companies are running aground against; they're the same parts that bodega cash transfer businesses have run into for decades.
That's not an explanation, it's a curiosity-stopper. I agree that there's a certain amount of kabuki to the crypto companies purporting to believe the things the banks are telling them, but on an institutional level that's really the only reasonable response to a lie you can't yet prove. And again, fundamentally, having been screwing with bodega cash transfers for decades does not make it any better.