pull down to refresh

Existing KYC law applied to a transparent ledger. That's the design, nation-state scale transparency. Iran can't move billions in Bitcoin without the NSA knowing about it (and if they really wanted to open Pandora's box they could probably just sweep it).
Of all the reasons retail MoE isn't a thing, taxes aren't one of them. That's retarded to even think that. Cash culture exists. Hell, if capital gains rates were even higher, there would be yet more incentive to spend it in small unreported amounts than there would be at exchanges.
The sub single percentage of people that actually want to pay/receive in Bitcoin is not enough network effect to matter in the meatspace.
KYC requirements were introduced and applied to Bitcoin long after Bitcoin was introduced to the world. They were a response. A sly and subtle but very effective preventative one. They enable tracking and tracing of most transactions and effectively substantially reduce the ability for Bitcoin to be used pseudonymously.
Tax obligations act as a real barrier especially for retailers - a retailer asking their tax consultant will be almost always strongly advised not to accept Bitcoin because of the potential tax implications- add this to the risk of debanking and then the on the consumer side the absurdly complex tax requirements effectively discourage anyone except a very enthusiastic Bitcoiner who is prepared to break the law and risk potential prosecution. You cannot seriously argue this is not very effective obstruction designed to prevent the development of mass scale MoE adoption.
The result is, as you note, what we have now- a very low percentage of the potential user population wanting to use Bitcoin for MoE because of the multiple layers of FUD and obstruction put in place by bankers and governments.
They have succeeded in preventing sufficient use to even get close to the network effect engaging to create any threat to fiat monopoly over MoE.
reply