> The "terrorist financing" and retail stuff is a smokescreen to seem worthy of the CFTC's attention. Nobody is being protected here. No significant terrorist financing is being stopped.
So enlighten me, what is the actual $$$ threshold where "terrorist financing" can be deemed a legitimate complaint?
Crypto space is chock-full of scammers, hustlers, bad actors, and organized crime. Which of the crimes are worth paying attention to and which aren't? Has the bar slipped that low that some crimes are "small" and aren't worth going after?
> So enlighten me, what is the actual $$$ threshold where "terrorist financing" can be deemed a legitimate complaint?
I don't know, more than the percentage of your average multinational bank? No large financial institution is going to have literally zero unsavory characters using its services.
> Crypto space is chock-full of scammers, hustlers, bad actors, and organized crime. Which of the crimes are worth paying attention to and which aren't? Has the bar slipped that low that some crimes are "small" and aren't worth going after?
The point of my comment and Matt Levine's article is that they are not going after these things. They are superficial artifice on top of the real thing they are going after them for: allowing US HFT firms to trade there.
> So enlighten me, what is the actual $$$ threshold where "terrorist financing" can be deemed a legitimate complaint?
It seems reasonable to at least set the lower bound above Deutsche Bank who are frequently in the spotlight for AML and terrorist financing for amounts far greater than $600 and operating today.
So enlighten me, what is the actual $$$ threshold where "terrorist financing" can be deemed a legitimate complaint?
Crypto space is chock-full of scammers, hustlers, bad actors, and organized crime. Which of the crimes are worth paying attention to and which aren't? Has the bar slipped that low that some crimes are "small" and aren't worth going after?
Seems like a stones throw away from whataboutism.