Quote from: Sipizter on October 02, 2019, 07:47:07 PM

Quote from: qwizzie on October 02, 2019, 02:12:33 PM

Quote from: red4slash on October 02, 2019, 01:10:57 PM

Quote from: Alexey45 on October 02, 2019, 10:40:28 AM

Quote from: pressing207 on October 02, 2019, 09:02:52 AM

It is very worrying that DASH has begun to be removed from some exchanges as an anonymous currency...

FATF will ban exchanges from trading DASH.

where can I see news about this? and what is the reason DASH has been removed from some exchanges? hope this does not happen in many exchanges. would be very bad if it happens because many people assume and believe it and hope it doesn't happen in a big exchange

Thats just Alexey45 spreading FUD (which is why i put him on ignore).

FATF put a list of recommendations out for its member countries to follow (these are not mandatory for exchanges, just guidelines).
Part of these recoomendations includes a "travel rule", which already exist for banks and is now introduced to crypto exchanges as well.
This travel rule allows information gathering on senders and receivers from crypto transactions. Just like Bitcoin has an open blockchain
with public viewable addresses of senders and receivers, so has Dash. This means Dash can comply with this travel rule and the FATF ruling
in general, to the same extend as Bitcoin can.

I think the travel rule is not even about whether currency is private or not. Isn't it more about exchange knowing where the funds are coming from (deposits) and where the funds are being sent to (withdrawal)? All exchanges, who have KYC procedures in place, know all this anyway so this delisting shenanigans is just strange.

The FATF is specifically calling them "virtual assets" and it includes anything crypto related, ranging from crypto exchanges to
custodial wallet providers to all cryptocurrencies. These "virtual assets" needs to comply with FATF recommendations, including
this "travel rule" which goes beyond the basic KYC rules, which mostly involves the verifying and keeping records of their own
users identities and operations. The travel rule aims at something else :

* to capture any VA transfer above 1.000 USD in the cross-border wire-transfer framework**
* to oblige all VASPs to get and to pass their customers information to each other when transferring funds and to take freezing actions
and prohibiting suspicious transactions just as banks or other financial entity are required to do

This could become problematic for exchanges, when they have cryptocurrencies listed that have :

* shielded amounts (means no capturing of any VA transfer above 1000 USD in that cross-border wire-transfer framework**)
* shielded addresses (so no public knowledge about who is sending and who is receiving those transactions)

** i assume this also relates to crypto transactions with above 1000 USD value, circulating on crypto frameworks

I'm not sure if exchanges found a workaround for this or not. Dash does not have shielded addresses or shielded amounts and can
therefore just like Bitcoin more easily comply with this travel rule, but other cryptocurrencies like Monero and Zcash do have shielded addresses, shielded amounts or both active on their blockchain (either by default active or optionally active).

So i consider KYC rules and FATF ruling (including travel rule) two separate level of requirements, where KYC is mandatory i believe
and FATF ruling recommandations are not mandatory, but FATF could punish a country by blocking its access to the global payment network.
(not very likely that this will ever happen, but still).

We will just have to see if this travel rule survives in its current form or if it gets adjusted next year after a year long review (june 2020)
by the FATF. Because this travel rule does not fit as easily with the crypto world (and introduces some serious privacy issues), while it does
fit more naturally with the global banking world (where its primarily designed for).