at this point im no fan of gox but in all honesty I think their motive for having the us proxy accounts(mut. sigil. ; wells fargo) was to keep most of the u.s. order book money necessarily off the books and out of the handling of dwolla except for that which was moving in/out as fiat transfers.... imagine 10 mil is on the books of u.s customers  but only 25%  (2.5 mil) was moving as fiat withdraw transfers with 75% or (7,5 mil )staying on the exchange and on the order books..there would be no reason to put the whole 10 mil in control of dwolla...even acting as agent in money transmitting doesn't mean they should not use the proxy accounts to keep effective control of u.s. order book money. ..and moving only whats needed monthly or quarterly for adjustment of the 'withdraw to fiat' percentages over to the acting transmitter agent 'dwolla'... the funny part is the new agreement was  an exclusive u.s contract...were they going to effectively snub dwolla?(an iowa based company) ,,,or is dwolla more involved than first thought?(buyout of dwolla maybe?)owner of dwolla would stand to make a nice profit in a buyout...or was it a pure snub that was happening behind their backs...interesting

anyway I don't think the proxy accounts would need to be registered on the receive side from dwolla as long as the withdraw side of dwolla was the agent of transfer to customers in fiat and the withdraw account maintained correctly by gox...whers the law that says you cant transfer money to the agent of transfer so they can handle customer requests?.............its possible the silent shield was not from from federal prying eyes but merely a shield(firewall) between legitimate order book money and dwollas fiat withdraw account in case people at dwolla decided to run with the money they didn't necessarily need to have on hand.........anywho !!!