ralphie on Nostr: About KYC. From the standpoint of companies, KYC makes a lot of sense. They don't ...
About KYC.
From the standpoint of companies, KYC makes a lot of sense. They don't want to accept money that is (potentially) stolen, linked to money laundering by criminals, terrorism or other bad source of origin.
Plus, their owners are under direct or indirect threat of getting sued or having to serve jail time for not applying KYC.
From the standpoint of consumers however, KYC can be perceived as a disproportional measure- even a psychological humiliation ritual -, designed by bureaucrats, to attack the human right to transact freely and preserve privacy.
KYC policies can also be perceived as inherent evil. Because it is reversing the burden of proof, it intentionally makes everyone a criminal by default, unless one can proof otherwise.
KYC actively attacks human rights activists and whistle blowers from receiving funds so they can fight legal battles or survive when states go rogue.
Reality is, only 1-3% of global trade is linked to crime or money laundering, and in many cases it can directly or indirectly linked to corrupt states.
So, this leaves a sobering reality, that 97% of the global population must suffer, because of a few bad actors. This is in direct attack with the proportionality principle.
Why are we still pretending KYC protects consumers or that it is good practice?
KYC stifles innovation, it hinders the speed in which humans can transact.
KYC is based on fear instead of trust. Its even a business model.
KYC is anti human.
From the standpoint of the state, KYC makes totally sense. Because most states embraced the control system, instead of principles of a free society.
1984 bites, many business owners, including myself, are internally conflicted.
At the same time, nobody really seams to really care.
Problem is, all roads from KYC lead to tyranny because everyone can be controlled.
Fuck.
Good morning by the way.
From the standpoint of companies, KYC makes a lot of sense. They don't want to accept money that is (potentially) stolen, linked to money laundering by criminals, terrorism or other bad source of origin.
Plus, their owners are under direct or indirect threat of getting sued or having to serve jail time for not applying KYC.
From the standpoint of consumers however, KYC can be perceived as a disproportional measure- even a psychological humiliation ritual -, designed by bureaucrats, to attack the human right to transact freely and preserve privacy.
KYC policies can also be perceived as inherent evil. Because it is reversing the burden of proof, it intentionally makes everyone a criminal by default, unless one can proof otherwise.
KYC actively attacks human rights activists and whistle blowers from receiving funds so they can fight legal battles or survive when states go rogue.
Reality is, only 1-3% of global trade is linked to crime or money laundering, and in many cases it can directly or indirectly linked to corrupt states.
So, this leaves a sobering reality, that 97% of the global population must suffer, because of a few bad actors. This is in direct attack with the proportionality principle.
Why are we still pretending KYC protects consumers or that it is good practice?
KYC stifles innovation, it hinders the speed in which humans can transact.
KYC is based on fear instead of trust. Its even a business model.
KYC is anti human.
From the standpoint of the state, KYC makes totally sense. Because most states embraced the control system, instead of principles of a free society.
1984 bites, many business owners, including myself, are internally conflicted.
At the same time, nobody really seams to really care.
Problem is, all roads from KYC lead to tyranny because everyone can be controlled.
Fuck.
Good morning by the way.