News Dominant Crypto Platforms Reluctant to Ban Russian Users

They need to be banned. Quite simply it's a work around to sanctions designed to stop war. As the Russian ruble plummets, it becomes a hedge against inflation in Russia. It also allows Oligarchs to bypass financial restrictions if they can get enough crypto.

If anything, this will speed the banning of crypto by governments. They loathe what they can't control.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Krotow and King_V

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
Yeah, I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the sorts of companies whose primary business is in dealing with a "currency" structure that's predominantly good for enabling criminals to more easily get away with their crimes is far more interested in keeping the money flowing than in the welfare of the average Russian citizen on the street.

The stench of insincerity is strong in their reasoning.

EDIT: and now, it makes me wonder if Putin and his cronies, along with the Russian oligarchs, have heavily invested in crypto to protect themselves from both sanctions, and the damage they're wreaking on Russia as a whole, in a very "F--- you peons, we've sheltered ourselves from consequences."
 

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,937
1,002
3,560
0
They need to be banned. Quite simply it's a work around to sanctions designed to stop war. As the Russian ruble plummets, it becomes a hedge against inflation in Russia. It also allows Oligarchs to bypass financial restrictions if they can get enough crypto.

If anything, this will speed the banning of crypto by governments. They loathe what they can't control.
I doubt Russia is going to be able to fund their war or stabilize their economy through Bitcoin. Even if they could, they still would need someone else on the other end willing to do business with them.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Crypto's full potential at enabling rogue leaders and international terrorism organizations to bypass sanctions due to the very nature of block chains may be about to get exposed for what it is.

With 140+ countries united against Russia, this is the world's best shot at reaching the same logical conclusion: the only way to enforce economic sanctions against any country on crypto is to ban crypto currencies altogether.
 

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,937
1,002
3,560
0
This is what money laundering and proxies are for. Staples of organized crime.
Not on this scale. It's already been demonstrated that crypto isn't as anonymous as people like to believe. You can sneak some drug money through, you're not going to fund a war of this scale or nullify the effects of the global sanctions placed on Russia.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Not on this scale. It's already been demonstrated that crypto isn't as anonymous as people like to believe.
Few things are anonymous when you have the FBI's resources. Normal people cannot afford to investigate the origins of every individual BTC or ETH they get. Give enough people enough Russian crypto through proxies and at some point, you will overwhelm the FBI and other worldwide equivalents' ability to investigate.
 

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
Really? What entity has the financial wherewithal to prop up Russia, but would only do it through cryptocurrency?
Who said anything about propping up Russia?

This is about Putin and his buddies propping themselves up if it completely goes bad for them.

Russia itself is just the sacrificial lamb. If this whole "retake the empire" thing works, great! If not, retire in decadent luxury somewhere out of the reach of the rest of the world.
 
Reactions: Krotow
Not on this scale. It's already been demonstrated that crypto isn't as anonymous as people like to believe. You can sneak some drug money through, you're not going to fund a war of this scale or nullify the effects of the global sanctions placed on Russia.
The point isn't to fund a war. The point is to keep the most powerful from being punished. If they come out at the end of this war, the oligarchs and powerful change their crypto back to rubles at the new inflated rate, they are untouched.

However if they lose crypto, they have no safe hedge but gold with a limited supply in Russia to purchase. As a result their support for the war plummets with their finances..

Putin has already said he's more than fine letting Russians suffer after all this is over. He will change his tune if the wrong ones do.
 
Reactions: King_V and Krotow

Endymio

Notable
Aug 3, 2020
554
164
1,070
2
It's a very complex situation. Putin has multiple reasons for wanting to invade Ukraine. But none of them are truly justified. They are all based in greed, fear and jealousy.
As are all wars, no? The US sought UN approval to attack Serbia in 1999. When the UN refused, the US attacked under NATO auspices instead, in a war that resulted in the deaths of over 10,000 civilians -- three times as many as actual combatant troops killed. The ostensible reason for the US attack was to stop the Serb's ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo. Instead, the action simply reversed its direction, with Albanians killing or driving out Serbs instead. I mention Serbia because a similar situation exists in Donbas, Ukraine, with Ukrainian nationalists attacking ethnic Russians and vice versa, in a conflict that's lasted nearly a decade, and consumed many civilian lives.

Of course, Putin's motivations for invading Ukraine are less about Donbas and more about preventing Ukraine from allowing NATO bases on its territory. Is Russia "justified" in doing so under international law? No -- but neither was the US justified in keeping Russian missiles out of Cuba, or in invading Grenada in 1983 to "keep out the Communists", or invading Syria in 2017.

So yes, as you say, it's a very complex situation, and one which could have been averted by better diplomacy on both sides. Personally, I fail to see the reasons behind the US's relentless insistence on shoehorning Ukraine into NATO, despite the risk of nuclear war for so doing.
 
Reactions: david germain
As are all wars, no? The US sought UN approval to attack Serbia in 1999. When the UN refused, the US attacked under NATO auspices instead, in a war that resulted in the deaths of over 10,000 civilians -- three times as many as actual combatant troops killed. The ostensible reason for the US attack was to stop the Serb's ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo. Instead, the action simply reversed its direction, with Albanians killing or driving out Serbs instead. I mention Serbia because a similar situation exists in Donbas, Ukraine, with Ukrainian nationalists attacking ethnic Russians and vice versa, in a conflict that's lasted nearly a decade, and consumed many civilian lives.

Of course, Putin's motivations for invading Ukraine are less about Donbas and more about preventing Ukraine from allowing NATO bases on its territory. Is Russia "justified" in doing so under international law? No -- but neither was the US justified in keeping Russian missiles out of Cuba, or in invading Grenada in 1983 to "keep out the Communists", or invading Syria in 2017.

So yes, as you say, it's a very complex situation, and one which could have been averted by better diplomacy on both sides. Personally, I fail to see the reasons behind the US's relentless insistence on shoehorning Ukraine into NATO, despite the risk of nuclear war for so doing.
This is not a political forum. But don't even try to compare US intervention with what Putin is doing. Not even close to the same thing. Ukraine was a peaceful country. The most violence they faced was fighting Russian backed rebels where Russia intentionally tried to destabilize the government.

Putin's paranoid and a bully. The world isn't the same and he insist on living in the past. Communism and puppet governments are a failed experiment of the past. All suffered under those models. We in the USA could give two rats tail less about Russia. The purpose of NATO really isn't to attack Russia. It's to make sure sovereign states remain sovereign from foreign military threats. And Putin's attack on Ukraine only proves the need for NATO. And NATO countries do NOT need to hold nuclear arms on their lands. It's optional of the host country.
 

Endymio

Notable
Aug 3, 2020
554
164
1,070
2
Ukraine was a peaceful country. The most violence they faced was fighting Russian backed rebels where Russia intentionally tried to destabilize the government.
The government to which you refer was Poroshenko's government -- which overthrew the previously elected president (Yanukovich) in the 2014 military coup. Poroshenko immediately placed bans on speaking the Russian language, banned ethnic Russians from serving in many government positions, and began engaging in reprisals against ethnic Russians in the East, acts which earned him the title of the "Butcher of Donbas". That was the actual impetus for the civil war that's wracked the "peaceful" nation of Ukraine for the last eight years. Poroshenko is currently rotting in a Ukrainian prison now, and Zelensky is far more moderate -- but once a fire is lit, it's difficult to put out ... especially when you have organizations like Ukraine's neo-Nazi "Azov Brigade" (sanctioned by the US Congress in 2015 for their acts of violence against ethnic Russians) roaming the East. Russia is supporting the separatists in Donbas -- but the US has funded, supported, and even enforced separatist movements in nations from Kosovo to East Timor -- the US support for the separation of South Sudan from Sudan alone caused the largest humanitarian crisis in modern-day Africa. Do the people of Donbas have the right to self-determination no less than anyone else in the world?

Communism and puppet governments are a failed experiment of the past.
Yanukovich was a Russian puppet. Poroshenko was a western puppet. And Russia today is authoritarian, but not communist -- their economy is far more free-market than most of Western Europe.

The purpose of NATO really isn't to attack Russia. It's to make sure sovereign states remain sovereign
NATO was organized to fight Russia -- and it gave assurances in the early 1990s that it would never expand eastward. When NATO stated its mission had changed to "stabilizing Europe" and broke those promises with eastward expansion, Russia itself attempted to join the organization. NATO said no to Russia -- but yes to Russia's immediate neighbors, all of whom hate Russia and may very well be willing to manufacture a casus belli in response.

But all the above is moot. Russia will not allow NATO bases in Ukraine, and it's willing to fight a major war -- potentially a nuclear war -- to prevent it. Given that, it would have been far better for all parties involved to acknowledge that reality. Russian troops spent 11 months on the Ukrainian border while Putin attempted to extract a commitment from NATO. The current US administration repeatedly stated emphatically that any such statement was "off the table". In retrospect, it was a severe policy failure.
 
Reactions: david germain

UWguy

Prominent
Jan 13, 2021
16
4
515
0
Yep like most of you...I'll have to call bullst on this explanation (innocent users my a). A large chunk of their users are thugs and terrorists, wouldn't want to get their panties in a bind. Hopefully the US government and other western nations will step in to close this loophole.
 

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,937
1,002
3,560
0
Who said anything about propping up Russia?

This is about Putin and his buddies propping themselves up if it completely goes bad for them.
We're talking about billionaires. It doesn't matter what we do, they aren't going to be worrying about covering their electric bill or the price of gas as long as they live.
 

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,937
1,002
3,560
0
The point isn't to fund a war. The point is to keep the most powerful from being punished. If they come out at the end of this war, the oligarchs and powerful change their crypto back to rubles at the new inflated rate, they are untouched.
See above. The 10 riches people in Russia have lost over $41 billion since the beginning of the year. #10 is still worth $11.3 billion with the top 10 worth a total of $180 billion. These people are never going to be materially hurt.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Crypto platforms who still want to deal with people guilty in causing war at middle of Europe in 21th century, are dealing with blood money. If they still want to deal with these people, they must be banned and closed. The owners and other guilty staff of these platforms must be tried for supporting war criminals and nuclear terrorists.
Which is more or less what the trading ban on Russia is supposed to do about most things: anyone found breaking the ban may get their asses sued out of existence. If US-based crypto exchanges fail to demonstrate a good faith attempt at stopping Russia-linked trades, they may get dissolved and their core staff will likely have several bad days in court.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS