Quote from: MSantori on August 28, 2013, 02:21:00 AM

To address a few questions:

FinCEN hosted the meeting, not the Foundation.

It did not subpoena the foundation. We went willingly

As far as I know, it was not recorded. It wasn't open to press either.

The Foundation did not endorse any particular investigative or regulatory methods, nor did we lobby for any particular policy position. The meeting was the beginning of a conversation, not a debate. Moreover, the Foundation has not developed any particular policy position as of yet. It is in the midst of determining its policy positions by democratic, community-driven process. If you'd like your voice heard in this process, or would like to know more about how it works, you should consider joining the Foundation.

I should say that we made one particular point very strongly, that the Foundation does not represent "Bitcoin". We represent our constituent members. We tried to be as transparent as possible about that.

MSantori, I'd be interested in knowing what direction the agencies are leaning towards in their regulatory brains. Is the concept of virtual currency something that will be regulated into the mainstream much the way the USD operates today or will it be relegated to the outskirts of our FIAT based economy?

It would be in the best interest of the Bitcoin community and economy for the Foundation to have a general idea of what direction regulations should take. I am a compliance officer at a broker/dealer with experience at a fortune 100 company and the big players in the finance game hire lobbyists to make their point. They have an agenda and a goal in mind in terms of how regulations should be developed and how it will impact the industry. I'm not suggesting that the Foundation hire Lobbyists, just emphasizing the importance of that democratic, community-driven process.

I will say you've convinced me about the Foundation. My colleague and I will be joining.

Thanks for the information and representation.