[rwarfield]

We have normalized the treatment of the financial and payments systems as things that exist primarily to perform law enforcement surveillance functions. It's the same dynamic that leads to debanking of small accounts - payments firms exist on thin margins and the potential fines for inadvertently servicing a bad actor are stratospheric, so it's entirely logical to play it safe by refusing to service anyone whose profile looks even the slightest bit risky.

[elric]

Debanking small accounts isn't something that I'd heard of before. But debanking "undesirables" is certainly a problem.

Over here (Belgium) we have legalized prostitution, but it's very hard for sex workers to open a bank account. There's some legislation that forces banks to offer them a basic bank account (at a steep fee) if they can prove that they've been rejected by N banks. Which is a start, I suppose.

Banks have basically become an extension of law enforcement, tax collectors, anti-terrorist operations, and morality police. Which is ironic, given how many banks brazenly break laws on the regular, how absolutely depraved parties with bankers are, etc. They're hardly paragons of virtue. Yet they get to gatekeep "virtue".

[roenxi]

I agree; but if we're bank-bashing I'd like it to be comprehensive:

What with all the attention they have to put into cooperating with the authoritarians they also aren't particularly good at their theoretical purpose, which is pooling people's money and investing it productively. We're watching an ongoing capital crisis in the West where we've been out-invested by nominal communists; it is absurd. The banking system has sticky fingers all over that mess. Then they get political protection through financial crisises where they should be taken out by bankruptcy but the powers that be prioritise having reliable people in what is effectively law enforcement rather then putting good capital managers in charge.

So, y'know. Upside is the banks do a great job of shutting down sex workers and political activism. 10/10 mark for reporting what everyone is doing to law enforcement. Downside is that turns out to be a big distraction from all the wealth creation banking can enable.

[verisimi]

> Banks have basically become an extension of law enforcement, tax collectors, anti-terrorist operations, and morality police. Which is ironic

Not ironic at all. This is the design.

[FrustratedMonky]

"legalized prostitution"

If legal, then why do banks have a problem offering an account. No risk of a bad actor, because it is legal.

It would be like a small business or contractor.

[neves]

I've heard that in Uruguay, where marijuana is legalized, it's very hard for a legal dealer to have access to financial services.

[throwaway2037]

    > Over here

Where? NZ/AU?

[EasyMark]

How would they know someone is a sex worker? Surely any database of such is not publicly accessible, even by banks?

[wvh]

Top 1% vs bottom 1%. Amazing what one day in the shoes of another could teach a person.

Well, hopefully.

[ThePhysicist]

These companies aren't public utilities, no one would complain about a US bank not doing money exchange business with entities in the Ukraine or Belarus, why would that be different for US companies offering donations over the Internet? The fact is that all platforms that facilitate cross-border money transfers between two parties without clear services or good being exchanged are used for all kinds of money laundering, and governments try to contain that for good reasons. In the end they probably don't care much about the revenue they make in these countries as it's probably negligible. Again, their good right to do so, I don't see any issue with this at all.

[elric]

The article claims that funds were held after being donated. That certainly goes way beyond "not choosing to do business". The claims were refuted by BuyMeACoffee, which changes things.

But if I, as a donator, donate money to someone using your service, and you then don't give that money to its intended recipient, you've effectively defrauded me. Had you said in advance "I can't do that, because you're trying to give me money to $foo which I don't support", then that is your right as a business.

[throwaway2037]

What's wrong with a US bank sending money to Ukraine? Sure, they might ask for an explanation, but I doubt they will reject. Example: You need to send money to a family member (immediate or extended), or want to donate directly to the national treasury (yes, you can do this), or another war-related non-profit. These are all legit. There is probably more risk in money transfers to Bulgaria or Romania, due to online scammers. Belarus is a wholly different matter. They are one step away from Russia-level sanctions, due to aiding Russia during the invasion of Ukraine.

[jonathanstrange]

Of course, people would complain about a bank not doing money exchanges with Ukraine or Belarus. Moreover, payment system providers, money transfer systems, and banks are to some extent public utilities, especially when there are no viable alternatives. They are essential for business.

[growlNark]

> no one would complain about a US bank not doing money exchange business with entities in the Ukraine or Belarus

Frankly, it's none of my state's damn business who I exchange money with. Their beef with other states is their problem—why are they dragging us through their bullshit?

If they want to collect taxes on it, at least that has the veneer of doing their job properly, and I'm happy to pay it.

[ngruhn]

The alternate is crypto. That will service anyone for ANY reason.

[eru]

Well, that and cash.

Btw, crypto (like bitcoin) is only an alternative because of convention.

The complete history of bitcoins is globally trackable, and people could all decide that they'll pay more for bitcoins that came from Satoshi's initial hoard, or that they'll refuse to accept bitcoins that were ever seized by the FBI.

(Yes, there are mixers. But you'd just refuse to accept any bitcoin that took part in the mixer transaction, if any FBI coins were in there.)

[twelvechairs]

This is a major reason (maybe the major reason) crypto keeps going up. Many people want money to avoid government oversight - for reasons both benign (e.g. avoiding having money confiscated arbitrarily) and nefarious (everything from tax avoidance to funding crime and war).

Not long ago we lived in a world where currency from anywhere other than the nation you were in (or maybe somewhere close by) was impractical to use on a daily basis. Things have changed now and the government's use of money as a tool to keep control of citizens is loosening. For better and worse.

[audunw]

Crypto isn’t an alternative to a bank. Not any crypto I’ve seen at least.

The primary purpose of a bank is to issue debt. That’s why they were created. A bank has to be able to “print” money to issue debt. This isn’t a flaw as some crypto fans like to think, it’s a very important feature. Debt issued by banks replaced the informal promise-based debt people used before we had banks. You didn’t need money on hand, or to borrow some coins from some rich dude, to get help building a barn. You got help from people in the village in exchange for some other goods or service you’d provide them in the future. Bank issued debt with “printed” money is the replacement to that, and it only works if money can be created on demand.

Crypto can’t “print” money on demand, by design. So it can’t replace banks.

[immibis]

The future of legitimate activity is that it will be performed on the same platforms designed to protect criminal activity, because it will be treated as criminal, despite not being so.

If BuyMeACoffee was run like a dark web drug marketplace, it could support every country.

[sabas123]

Which is not necessarily a good thing.

[browningstreet]

Given that Coinbase is crypto, and Coinbase was just added to the S&P500, and Coinbase has KYC, that's true only for a subset of crypto users.

[renewiltord]

This is one of my favourite word shifts. Back in the '70s this would have been quite the claim of sexual debauchery. I still chuckle at it.

[mppm]

I think at this point it would be preferable for the government to take over the payment infrastructure directly. This is often seen as dystopian, but it's a dystopia that has already come to pass for the most part. If we made it official, at least the rules for what can be blocked or refused or frozen would be out in the open.

[eviks]

No they wouldn't, just like the rules of who can be deported and for what aren't in the open, but often arbitrary.

Also, 100% dystopia is still worse than a "most part" one

[grumbel]

Numerous countries are debating the creation of a digital currency:

EU: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/html/index.en.ht...

UK: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound

US: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11471

[KingMob]

I mean the current US govt is doing all sorts of awful things in the open, so I'm not sure this will be an improvement.

I no longer believe that "sunlight is the best disinfectant", and haven't for a long time now.

[idiotsecant]

This is why I've been a hardcore crypto evangelist since before it was briefly fashionable and then wildly unfashionable. My opinion has not changed.

[rprend]

I suspect people wouldn’t actually like the alternative. An alternative world where it’s relatively easy to get an MTL, or consequences for AML aren’t huge, looks a lot like crypto. Imagine banks and money processors doing rugpulls or going bust.

[lazide]

It’s the ‘greedy coward’ leadership model - tends to work pretty well for most businesses, until it does’t. usually all at once.