Quote from: erk on August 15, 2017, 11:07:39 PM

Quote from: R2Pleasent on August 15, 2017, 10:39:12 PM

Yes, to elaborate on the new structure, you can trade crypto to crypto (BTC/ETH for example), or BTC/BTE (crypto for BTC-e debt token). So in the mid term, if they look like they'll be repaying the BTE tokens, the BTE will approach 1:1 USD. As it approaches further and further, it could effectively become another "Tether" style crypto which is intended to follow the USD. If they can pull that off, they will effectively have replaced the need for USD with their own token which they control.

With a fully crypto exchange, BTC-e would be stronger than ever because the need to hold/handle fiat was the main point of failure this go around. Couple that with more secure hot wallets which can survive a similar server seizure situation, and move the servers to more secure locations, suddenly BTC-e becomes the closest thing out there to an invincible exchange.

There is no reason why they can't do eventually handle other fiat, eg. RUR and let the USD people organize there own conversion from one to the to the other outside of the BTC-e exchange. That's how USDT works.

I can't speak to the RUR situation. Presumably there aren't the same risks as there are for USD and EUR. So maybe some limited liquidity fiat markets are possible, eventually. As for Tether, it works because the house of cards hasn't tumbled down yet. Hundreds of millions of dollars are locked in Bitfinex/Tether, and no one can get it out. That doesn't seem like a sustainable situation, long term.

Short term, no one cares, because crypto is in a bubble; people need Tether to move USD value among exchanges, and Tether stays equal to or even more valuable than real USD because of inability for Bitfinex to receive deposits. If/when all the money stops flowing into crypto, I think we will start to see this situation break down considerably.

Quote from: erk on August 15, 2017, 11:07:39 PM

The sad part about all this is there are exchanges that handled the USD to and from BTC-e eg. OKPAY who are the ones that the FBI should have put up against the wall for money laundering, not BTC-e as they were mostly dealing with the fiat from OKPAY etc. not the end customer.

I think this is what the exchange's legal team believed. It's what most users likely believed. KYC is the problem of the actual fiat transmitter, right? But I guess that's not how the FBI sees things...

Quote from: erk on August 15, 2017, 11:07:39 PM

Same goes for wire transfers etc., the company sending the funds to BTC-e should be the one up for money laundering. The logic is simple, BTC-e are not a bank, they don't hold the USD like they do crypto, someone else holds the USD for them, and that someone is obliged to honor the money laundering laws. Dirty USD money should never have been allowed to get to BTC-e in the first place if the money transmitters were doing their jobs properly (unless it was physically delivered as cash).

Payment processors like OKPAY (Mayzus) launder money all day, every day. I'm actually puzzled regarding not only how Mayzus avoided being taken down with BTC-e, but how it could be that Mayzus voluntarily froze BTC-e's bank accounts, rather than having them frozen by the feds and their proxies in other countries.