> Do you have any proof for this assertion or is it time to milk crypto cynicism for upvotes on this site again? The GENIUS Act (which regulates stablecoins) specifically calls out complying with AML and sanctions lists. So there's a clear regulatory regime.
Look, it's a fact that lots of criminals use cryptocurrency (see all of the ransomware attacks over the past decade). Secondly, crypto has 100% been used to get around capital controls (particularly in China some years back).
I assume that internal drug syndicates are using crypto (as it makes sense for their business).
Now, what do stablecoins offer here? Simply put, if you send your crypto to some stablecoin issuer, then you can redeem for fiat. There's clearly substantial ML risks here, and more particularly lots of unsophisticated (from an AML perspective) counter-parties here. More specifically, the models used for transaction monitoring and reporting are less likely to pick up on the signals associated with crypto ML/crime activity.
Like, this seems super clear to me, and I'm not making any value judgements here (personally I think that stablecoins/crypto are mostly turning into regulatory arbitrage, but that's not germane to my point here).
> The GENIUS Act (which regulates stablecoins) specifically calls out complying with AML and sanctions lists. So there's a clear regulatory regime.
You should look at the penalties for getting this wrong. Particularly in OFAC, they are no joke (personal responsibility for issues). And untested regulatory regimes tend to get altered based on what happens in the market, and this is gonna be a wild ride.
