pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Ov1 2 Nov \ on: Are Cashu mint operators breaking the law? bitcoin
No laws apply everywhere to all persons at all times in all cases. Even in restrictive regulatory regimes like the US, there are many use cases where trusted fiduciaries are legally used. Also, just because regulators claim authority, that doesn't make it so or mean that they have the rule of law backing their claims up.
So, while money 'transmission' laws and KYC/AML may theoretically be required in some places by some people for some use cases, in practice, many regulators are effectively 'Naked Emperors. Their new robes leave them naked and powerless to enforce them in practice.
But, to just name a couple scenarios where existing US Persons may be well within their rights and provide the bureaucrats the boxes to check that they need, here are a few potential 'mint' scenarios to consider:
- Trustees managing Trust assets for Beneficiaries of the Trust are specifically tasked as fiduciary agents, and already 'Know' who their Beneficiaries are, so neither party takes on new duties, risks, or exposes new data. Dispersing Beneficiary payouts as Cashu tokens is simply a new autonomous rail for transferring control over the 'body' of the Trust.
- Employers issuing Cashu tokens at the end of every shift, that the Employee can either let 'roll over' in the mint or to 'cash-out' into LN sats as they see fit is another situation where no new trust or data is exposed to anyone.
- Family Offices and nuclear families dispersing family assets to family members as 'allowances', 'stipends', or 'salaries' also may sometimes want the simplicity of a single signer Cashu mint. But, more likely they'll want the multi-sig capabilities delivered by Fedimint mints.
- Private Membership Associations, also, as many of the PMA 'Poker Houses' are structured as, might also choose to use the exact 'casino chip' application that others have mentioned. Using the 'Cashu Tokens' as bearer instruments for in-house gambling where 'gambling' is otherwise prohibited seems unlikely to fall under the jurisdiction of the financial regulators.
Worker-owned Coops, Non-Profits, pop-up markets, and more may also find use cases that don't create new rug-pull, data exposure, or regulatory risks. Is it really likely that the local Farmers' Market Cash, that often exists and is used already in many form factors, will draw attacks from the regulators..? Not likely, IF kept small, local, and temporary, as is most appropriate for this technology anyway.
Will some people get rug pulled? Absolutely!
Will some mints get attacked by bankster thugs? Absolutely!
Will this technology ever be stopped or put back in the 'bag'? Absolutely not!