Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

| October 21, 2018

Scroll to top


Claims Archives -

Fincen Claims Iran Is Using Crypto to Evade Sanctions

October 15, 2018 |

ranian Bitcoin Transactions Estimated at $  3.8M Since 2013

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has warned U.S financial institutions that the Iranian government might be dodging economic sanctions by using cryptocurrencies. The document highlights challenges arising from peer-to-peer virtual currency exchanges and encourages banks to monitor blockchain ledgers for transactions tied to the country.

Also Read: Church Mining Cryptocurrency to Pay Higher Electricity Rates

Iranian Bitcoin Transactions
Estimated at $ 3.8M Since 2013

The U.S. organization, known as Fincen, issued the warning in an advisory to assist U.S. banks and other financial actors such as cryptocurrency exchanges in identifying “potentially illicit transactions related to the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The document includes a lengthy section relating to crypto, as well as an estimate that “since 2013, Iran’s use of virtual currency includes at least $ 3.8 million worth of bitcoin-denominated transactions per year.”

Fincen noted that “while the use of virtual currency in Iran is comparatively small, virtual currency is an emerging payment system that may provide potential avenues for individuals and entities to evade sanctions.”

P2P Exchanges Highlighted as
Key Crypto Conduit

Fincen Warns of Iran Using Crypto to Evade SanctionsWhile reports have indicated that the Central Bank of Iran has prohibited domestic financial institutions from touching cryptocurrencies, Fincen stated that “individuals and businesses in Iran can still access virtual currency platforms through … Iran-located, internet-based virtual currency exchanges; U.S.- or other third country-based virtual currency exchanges; and peer-to-peer (P2P) exchangers.”

Fincen said that P2P cryptocurrency exchangers are a significant means through which Iran can bypass economic sanctions. It defined such individuals as people who offer to purchase, sell or otherwise exchange virtual currencies, either face to face or through websites. It added that “P2P exchangers may operate as unregistered foreign (money services businesses) in jurisdictions that prohibit such businesses; where virtual currency is hard to access, such as Iran; or for the purpose of evading the prohibitions or restrictions in place against such businesses or virtual currency exchanges and other similar business in some jurisdictions.”

Financial Institutions Urged to
Conduct Due Diligence

Fincen also said that U.S financial institutions should remain aware of the “highly dynamic” nature of the global market for cryptocurrencies.

“New virtual currency businesses may incorporate or operate in Iran with little notice or footprint,” it explained. “Institutions should consider reviewing blockchain ledgers for activity that may originate or terminate in Iran.”

Fincen urged institutions to use technology to keep an eye on open blockchains and monitor P2P transactions. Examples of the latter could include “wire transactions from many disparate accounts or locations combined with transfers to or from virtual currency exchanges.”

In addition, the organization reminded institutions and individuals in the U.S. that handle virtual currencies to refer to a list of frequently asked questions on international sanctions that was published by the Office of Foreign Assets Control earlier this year. “Financial institutions and virtual currency providers that have (Bank Secrecy Act) and U.S. sanctions obligations should be aware of and have the appropriate systems to comply with all relevant sanctions requirements and (Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism) obligations,” Fincen said.

Do you think regimes such as Iran will increasingly turn to cryptocurrencies to dodge economic sanctions? Or do you think the concerns outlined in the Fincen document are overblown? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

At there’s a bunch of free helpful services. For instance, have you seen our Tools page? You can even lookup the exchange rate for a transaction in the past. Or calculate the value of your current holdings. Or create a paper wallet. And much more.

The post Fincen Claims Iran Is Using Crypto to Evade Sanctions appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Bitcoin News

Hundreds of ICOs Being Secretly Investigated by SEC, Claims Report

October 11, 2018 |

'Secret' US Investigations into 'Hundreds' of ICOs, SEC 'Tightens Noose,' According to Report

Hundreds of startups are reportedly being “secretly” targeted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for their involvement with initial coin offerings. Companies that participated in ICOs are now scrambling to clarify whether their token constituted a security, and, if so, whether it was properly registered with or exempted by the SEC.

Also read: Europe, Japan and the ‘Drug’ of Quantitative Easing

SEC ‘Tightens the Noose’ on Startups That Used an ICO

Hundreds of ICOs Being Secretly Investigated by SEC, Claims ReportYahoo Finance and Decrypt claims that “Hundreds of startups that did token sales are finding out they’re in violation of securities law— including many that were sure they did it the right way.”  

The auspicious beginning of the present year came with subpoenas, characterized by the Commission as informational in scope. There appears to be more than mere cataloging of the crypto landscape, as “the Securities and Exchange Commission has significantly widened its crackdown on certain initial coin offerings, putting hundreds of cryptocurrency startups at risk.” The agency “has returned to many of those companies, and subpoenaed many more—focusing on those that failed to properly ensure they sold their token exclusively to accredited investors,” Decrypt notes.  

Formal litigation can be costly, taxing a given regulatory bureaucracy’s workload and clogging up courts and judges. It also appears the agency is at first moving to have suspected companies in violation settle. “In response,” Roberts explains, “dozens of companies have quietly agreed to refund investor money and pay a fine. But many startups that have been subpoenaed say they are left in the dark struggling to satisfy the SEC’s demands, and are uncertain of how others are handling it, according to conversations with more than 15 industry sources.”

IPOs Died in the US, Startups Resorted to ICOs

Compounding matters is how this widespread investigation was unearthed: anonymous sources due to the fact the agency formally “restricts them from discussing the matter,” Decrypt insists. Initial coin offerings are a twist on initial public offerings, IPOs, which have been effectively strangled out of existence in the United States within just the last few decades. Legacy American stock markets, for example, have something close to half the number of public companies listed as they might have otherwise.

'Secret' US Investigations into 'Hundreds' of ICOs, SEC 'Tightens Noose,' According to Report

Saddled with regulations, barriers to entry and countless legal frictions only hordes of lawyers can battle, smaller companies have been priced out of the IPO model for bringing a business to public market in the US. Instead, those that might have participated at one point wait in the queue at merger and acquisition wings of established juggernauts. That, or they leave the US altogether and try their hand in places such as Hong Kong, which has, sure enough, seen an IPO boom recent years.

ICOs, then, are at least part of a response to that environment. Unaccredited investors, with minimal friction, have accomplished in ICOs at least two things most analysts agree: financial democratization and innovation, but at the expense of a wildcat space filled with scams. A startup can in a manner of clicks become presentable enough to sell a proprietary digital token quickly.

A Game of Definitions

About a month after subpoenas were sent by the agency, Chairman Jay Clayton seemed to make the regulator’s opinion going forward very clear. During a Senate hearing on the subject of cryptocurrencies, Clayton stated flatly, “I believe every ICO I’ve seen is a security.” But what constitutes an ICO then becomes the question if every initial coin offering is subject to their jurisdiction. The agency “does not care” about semantics, the report scolds, even though some “companies that did ICOs called their offering something else, such as a ‘utility token’ or a ‘SAFT’ (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens, an ICO method in which investors buy a reservation for tokens yet to be launched).”  

'Secret' US Investigations into 'Hundreds' of ICOs, SEC 'Tightens Noose,' According to Report

Due to the cat and mouse nature of the space, “It is hard to say precisely how many ICOs occurred during the past four years,” Decrypt acknowledges. Thousands for sure, and more than “$ 20 billion has been raised in ICOs to date, but the ICO boom peaked in January 2018. Concerns over the legality of token sales have had a chilling effect.”

However, it is well known that all US firms anywhere near to offering a security are governed by the SEC in one form or another. And the agency does offer a formal exemption which asks participation be limited to vaunted “accredited investors” who earn more than $ 200,000 per year, for two years, and hold a net worth of at least $ 1 million – factors that probably led the company to seek an ICO in the first place. At that same Senate hearing, Clayton was asked how many had sought SEC approval. The answer came back ominously: almost none.

Will the SEC sorting out ICOs lead to a positive outcome for crypto markets? Let us know in the comments below. 

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

At there’s a bunch of free helpful services. For instance, have you seen our Tools page? You can even look up the exchange rate for a transaction in the past. Or calculate the value of your current holdings. Or create a paper wallet. And much more.

The post Hundreds of ICOs Being Secretly Investigated by SEC, Claims Report appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Bitcoin News

Bitfinex Strongly Refutes Insolvency Claims

October 7, 2018 |

Bitfinex Strongly Refutes Insolvency Claims

Bitfinex has vigorously refuted claims that it and its Tether stablecoin are on the brink of insolvency. Rumors have surrounded the opaque exchange for over a year, but have intensified in the past month. “Bitfinex is not insolvent, and a constant stream of Medium articles claiming otherwise is not going to change this,” asserts a strongly worded denial.

Also read: Total of 7 Crypto Exchanges and 158 Wallets Hacked in South Korea, Police Find

Bitfinex Comes Out With All Guns Blazing

Bitfinex Starts Sharing Customer Tax Data with AuthoritiesRumors of Bitfinex and Tether’s potential insolvency have been swirling through the cryptosphere in recent days. Such has been their virality that the normally uncommunicative exchange has taken the step of breaking its silence. In a blog post published today, Bitfinex emphatically refuted all such unfounded claims and took aim at critics who “are quick to scream insolvency, seemingly with little understanding of what this concept means and what they are generally talking about”.

As proof of this, Bitfinex posted the address of its BTC, ETH, and EOS cold wallets. They contain almost $ 1 billion of bitcoin core, $ 400 million of ether and $ 200 million of EOS. Since the bulk of these assets are presumably customer deposits, they do not in fact prove that Bitfinex is solvent. Besides, even the platform’s staunchest critics have not denied that Bitfinex has significant crypto assets under its control. Rather, they have raised concerns over its fiat banking arrangements, and specifically the enduring question of whether the $ 2.8 billion of tethers in circulation are backed by dollar deposits.

Bitfinex Strongly Refutes Insolvency Claims

“A Targeted Campaign Based on Nothing but Fiction”

Bitfinex hasn’t minced its words in seeking to rebut the many rumors regarding its business, excoriating a “a targeted campaign based on nothing but fiction”, and insisting that customer fiat deposits are working as normal. It’s also insisted that anything that might be going on with Puerto Rico-based Noble Bank, itself the subject of insolvency rumors, is none of its concern. It’s been revealed that Bitfinex is now banking with HSBC, via an intermediary, though it is unclear whether HSBC is aware of this due to funds being funneled through the private account of Global Trading Solutions.

Bitfinex, currently the world’s 12th largest crypto exchange by trading volume, has conceded that it has been suffering from banking issues, acknowledging:

Complications continue to exist for us in the domain of fiat transactions…However, we continue to do our utmost to minimise any waiting times associated with fiat deposits and withdrawals.

Bitfinex Strongly Refutes Insolvency Claims
The Bitfinex BTC cold wallet

Certain figures on crypto Twitter have been encouraging traders to get their funds off Bitfinex before the platform collapses or is shut down by authorities. Both predictions, at this time, are likely to be wide of the mark, although Bitfinex’ critics remain defiant. One, operating under the name “Proof of Research”, has posted a rebuttal to Bitfinex’ blog post, pointing out that in the past month “Bitfinex has removed over 77,000 bitcoins from their wallet. That amount represents 34% of the total funds that were in that wallet.”

Running a top 20 cryptocurrency exchange, especially one that has been established for as long as Bitfinex, ought to be a very profitable enterprise. Questions still remain over Tether, however. To date, no journalist has managed to unearth evidence of a customer depositing or withdrawing fiat currency in return for USDT. Until such a time, the rumor mill will continue to thrive.

Do you believe Bitfinex is solvent? Let us know in the comments section below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, and Bitfinex.

Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

The post Bitfinex Strongly Refutes Insolvency Claims appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Bitcoin News

Bitcoin Distribution Process Was ‘Fairest’ Possible System, Study Claims

October 5, 2018 |

Bitcoin Distribution Process Was 'Fairest' Possible System, Study Claims

Dan Held, co-founder of Interchange, published a summary on Thursday about the perceived fairness of Satoshi Nakamoto’s initial distribution of bitcoins. The director of the institutional-grade cryptocurrency portfolio management service argues that the Bitcoin protocol’s earliest cryptocurrency distribution processes remain the most honest and equitable to date, particularly in comparison with the methods favored by many of the premined altcoins that exist today.

Also read: Bitpay Phases Out Crypto-Debit Cards for European Cardholders

Constant Stream of Crypto Complaints

Bitcoin Distribution Process Was 'Fairest' Possible System, Study Claims
Dan Held

People are always loudly complaining about Satoshi’s early cryptocurrency distribution processes, with many individuals claiming that other blockchains can offer better methods. But this week Held published a paper firmly asserting that “Bitcoin’s distribution was fair.”

Held says that the Bitcoin network “continues to challenge mainstream thought” as it soars in popularity. Yet he also acknowledges that the protocol is still struggling to shake off gripes about specific aspects of its existence. As the Interchange co-founder explains:

One of those is that the distribution of Bitcoin wasn’t ‘fair,’ particularly in the earlier stages of network development… (but) Satoshi set out to design the fairest system possible.

Satoshi’s Hashrate Reduction

Held dives into the earliest days of the Bitcoin protocol, before the concepts of ‘premining’ or ‘insta-mining’ even existed. Premining is the practice of mining lots of coins privately; usually in such cases, the developers end up keeping the largest stash of the currency. But Held claims that the message in the genesis block about the chancellor bailing out the banks is an argument in itself against the wisdom of premining.

Bitcoin Distribution Process Was 'Fairest' Possible System, Study Claims
Paul Sztorc sounds off on Dan Held’s editorial and the fairness of Bitcoin.

Held also explains that Satoshi gave the public a two-month lead time before mining the first block. People such as Hal Finney and others listened to Satoshi right away and began mining the currency. But as Held claims, it really was up to Satoshi and a small handful of miners to keep the nascent network running in those early days. Yet it is widely known that this small group of miners also left the mining scene just a few short years after Bitcoin was firmly up and running.     

“For the first year of Bitcoin’s existence, Satoshi and other miners couldn’t muster enough hashrate to mine more than 144 blocks/day and trigger an upwards difficulty adjustment,” Held says. He claims that Satoshi only mined because the network needed people to do so. And Held notes that Satoshi left the scene once the network had stabilized to the point where it no longer required his own mining output.

The study continues:   

He reduced his percentage of the hashrate in a slow and steady manner. The Satoshi-fingerprinted mining carefully balanced the hashrate of the cluster, with the goal of historically viewable well-meaning intentions — Satoshi initially followed a plan of reducing the hashrate by 1.7 Mhps every five months, but a month after the second such drop abandoned this method in favor of a continuously decreasing hashrate.

Bitcoin Distribution Process Was 'Fairest' Possible System, Study Claims
Dan Held’s paper argues that Satoshi reduced his hashrate significantly over time. Chart Source.

The Faucets: A Flood of Free Coins to
Encourage Early Adoption

Bitcoin Distribution Process Was 'Fairest' Possible System, Study ClaimsSome people have claimed Satoshi mined around 1 million bitcoins. But Held points to recent research done by Bitmex, which claims it is more likely that Nakamoto only mined 700,000 coins. Furthermore, a large portion of the early coins have not even been moved since the day they were created.

Held details how the cryptocurrency was pretty much worthless at the time; for many years, early adopters gave tons of bitcoins away. He points to the faucets that were set up during the early days that gave away lots of bitcoins, such as “the 10k BTC faucet set up by Gavin and other Bitcoiners who donated funds.” Another example of these large giveaways took place this week when Bitcoin developer, Jeff Garzik, explained on Twitter how he gave over $ 103 million dollars worth of BTC in bounties. Garzik states:

In 2010-2011, I gave away 15,678 BTC in developer bounties.

Satoshi’s Signal

Held acknowledges that Satoshi wasn’t perfect, but he concludes that Bitcoin’s release was the most even-handed distribution process one could build, “given what he was building/timing/audience.”

Satoshi was trying to “signal to everyone” that Bitcoin was not simply a “scam,” Held says.

The conservative deescalation of his mining contributions, his departure from the community, never spending any of his coins, nor using his influence for any purpose, shows that he wanted the world to make up their own mind about
his project and judge it on its own terms.

Held’s conclusions about the fairness of Bitcoin’s distribution processes stand in stark contrast to the chaotic nature of the current token craze. Many initial coin offerings (ICOs) and other altcoins in the past have had significant premines, some of which have been so blatant that everyone knows the developer and close friends recruited to help pump the coins are simply setting themselves up to be rich for life. Some of these individuals have even lied and pretended to not premine at all, while many others have openly admitted to premining anywhere from 1-20 percent of the currency’s total supply.

In contrast, Satoshi and the early developers and adopters dealt with an electronic peer-to-peer cash system that was essentially worthless at the time. But they attempted to get others to see how bright the future could be. And eventually, people started to listen.

What do you think about Held’s claim about Bitcoin being a fair distribution process? Let us know how you feel about this in the comments section below.

Images via Shutterstock, Picks & Shovels, Twitter, and Pixabay. 

Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

The post Bitcoin Distribution Process Was ‘Fairest’ Possible System, Study Claims appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Bitcoin News

E. Coli Claims Lives of 2 Kids From One Family

October 5, 2018 |

In a tragic turn of events, two English children from the same family have died after contracting E. coli, the BBC reports. The kids, whose names and ages haven’t been released, lived in the Charnwood area of Leicestershire. They died from haemolytic uraemic syndrome, a complication of E. coli that…

Venezuela’s Petro Copied Dash, Claims Ethereum Developer

October 4, 2018 |

Venezuela’s Petro Copied Dash, Claims Ethereum Developer

An Ethereum developer is claiming the state-backed petro (PTR) cryptocurrency, a plaything to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, has taken substantial amounts of its newly published whitepaper from Dash (DASH). Indeed, at least at first glance, it does appear there are close similarities between the altcoin and the world’s first national cryptocurrency.   

Also read: Bitcoin Cash Speaker Series II Brings Leading Bitcoiners Together

Venezuela’s Newly Published Whitepaper Appears to Have a Great Deal in Common with Dash

Readers familiar with altcoin dash will recognize its salient features: instant send, masternodes, consensus combination, an X11 mining algorithm, and so on. That these elements have found their way into the recently published Petro whitepaper caught the attention of at least one keen reader, Ethereum developer Joey Zhou.

Venezuela’s Petro Copied Dash, Claims Ethereum Developer
Joey Zhou

The coincidences appeared to be so strong in his reading and subsequent comparison that Zhou took to Twitter, announcing “Lol Venezuela’s new Petro token is a blatant dash clone (at least the whitepaper, page 11).” He then linked to a graph that’s prominent in both the whitepaper (page 13 in the PDF) and the Dash Github.

Under the heading “Technical Description” (Section 11.6, “Staking o Tenecia”), the petro whitepaper seems to propose a consensus algorithm combination of Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS), which is similar to that of dash. Petro begins by allocating 85% of its rewards to “Nodos Maestros,” or masternodes, with the remainder left to users. But to be fair, Dash’s breakdowns are not nearly as skewed.  

Venezuela’s Petro Copied Dash, Claims Ethereum Developer
The offending image found by Mr. Zhou. Compare it to dash’s Github svg.

Masternodes, Instant Send, X11 Mining =
Highest Form of Flattery?

Sunacrip, the self-proclaimed autonomous entity that oversees all of Venezuela’s cryptoasset-related matters, features prominently in the Petro whitepaper. Though Petro supposedly has masternodes, a key part of dash governance, Sunacrip is given a lot of relative power. For example, it is allowed to change the consensus for the network’s “convenience.” Yet the whitepaper claims masternodes will “make decisions in the network and support transactions carried out by themselves.”

Venezuela’s Petro Copied Dash, Claims Ethereum Developer

Whether it’s straight plagiarism or a friendly open-source lifting might depend on who is judging the whitepaper. However, if petro were to be so “blatant,” as Mr. Zhou claimed, dash would be a logical choice. Venezuela has a history with dash, and as recently as this summer the world’s 12th-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization caught a double-digit price bump, apparently due to a rush of Venezuelans racing to escape notorious hyperinflation.

An even deeper dive into petro shows what appears to be a pattern when it comes to dash similarities. Indeed, both instant send and X11 mining have been woven into petro, which are also critical features of dash. Described as “most important” to petro are “the instantaneous sending (less than five seconds) of the transactions, which represents an innovative advance with a significant impact compared to existing cryptocurrencies.” That sentence omits, of course, the most famous crypto using masternodes, dash.

Do you believe Venezuela copied dash, or are the similarities in its petro whitepaper simply a coincidence? Let us know in the comments below. 

Images courtesy of Shutterstock. 

At there’s a bunch of free helpful services. For instance, have you seen our Tools page? You can even look up the exchange rate for a transaction in the past. Or calculate the value of your current holdings. Or create a paper wallet. And much more.

The post Venezuela’s Petro Copied Dash, Claims Ethereum Developer appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Bitcoin News

Shapeshift CEO Responds to Wall Street Journal Laundering Claims

October 2, 2018 |

Shapeshift CEO Responds to Wall Street Journal Laundering Claims

Reporters at the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) tied innovative ecosystem cryptocurrency exchange Shapeshift to money laundering. “How Dirty Money Disappears Into the Black Hole of Cryptocurrency,” was its published product from months of investigative journalism. The company’s CEO, Erik Voorhees, claims cooperation with the WSJ was obtained “under false pretenses.” He also charges the WSJ “omitted relevant information” among other gaffs. 

Also read: Ross Ulbricht Marks Fifth Anniversary in Prison

Shapeshift CEO Erik Voorhees Calls Wall Street Journal Article an “Attack”

Shapeshift CEO Erik Voorhees earned as much street credibility in the crypto space as anyone. His company has been around for nearly half of the nascent industry’s entire history. If there were a relative outsider/insider of cryptocurrency, an ambassador of sorts for the decentralized digital money revolution, it’s safe to write Mr. Voorhees would make many top ten lists, and Shapeshift is his most notable contribution alongside Bitinstant, Coinapult, and Satoshidice.  

Shapeshift CEO Responds to Wall Street Journal Laundering Claims

“Shining Light on WSJ’s Attack on Shapeshift and Crypto” is Mr. Voorhees attempt to set the record, as he sees it, straight. If legacy finance news organizations of record were to “attack,” they couldn’t really do better than he and Shapeshift. That aside, he and the exchange believe the WSJ produced a pure hit piece, gaining trust over “5 months” only to “omit relevant information,” overlooked the “chance to prevent potential illicit activity,” ultimately proving the reporters “do not have a sufficient understanding of blockchains and our platform in particular,” Mr. Voorhees insists.

It hasn’t exactly been a wonderful public relations month for the veteran firm. As these pages noted at the beginning of September, “Non-custodial crypto trading platform Shapeshift has introduced a membership program which will soon be mandatory [… the] exchange will have to begin collecting basic personal information of its users, and there will be five membership levels.” The move was met with widespread criticism especially among the experienced within the space. To then get even more flack from the institutional side of finance at roughly the same time probably isn’t what the company needed.

Shapeshift CEO Responds to Wall Street Journal Laundering Claims
Graph provided by Shapeshift.

False Pretenses, Omissions, Insufficient Understanding

“The WSJ reporters reached out to us months ago,” Mr. Voorhees details, “asking for friendly assistance on a piece about the crypto industry in general. Over a period of five months, we were open and accommodating of their questions while in contrast they misrepresented their intentions until very recently,” further complaining “they included not a single statement from those lengthy discussions, preferring instead to include out-of-context remarks I’d made elsewhere.” In Mr. Voorhees’ reckoning, the WSJ had another agenda altogether.

For any solid investigative piece to have legs, it requires statistical information for context, breadth. The company CEO takes on the journalists’ usage of basic facts, and worries they either misrepresented their significance or omitted relevant context completely. One claim had to do with $ 9 million being laundered through Shapeshift.

Shapeshift CEO Responds to Wall Street Journal Laundering Claims
Graph provided by Shapeshift.

“$ 9m (even if it was true) is 0.15% of Shapeshift’s exchange volume during the described time period; We have a strong record of complying with law-enforcement requests […]; We work with other exchanges on an almost-daily basis to identify and block thieves and criminals, through a self-policing group Shapeshift created to protect the users and industry; We block entire countries on the sanctions lists; We have an internal anti-money laundering program that uses blockchain forensics that are far more advanced (and we would argue, effective) than asking someone for their ‘name and address;’ We blacklist suspicious addresses upon learning of them,” he outlines. “There is no mention of any of this in the WSJ article.”

Good Journalism Continues Dialog After Publication

Perhaps the most frustrating issue for anyone immersed in crypto is having to explain to mainstream media the basics. If journalists miss those, their accounts and conclusions can be devastating.

“And the WSJ reporters appear to have gotten confused about how our platform functions,” Mr. Voorhees stresses. “Based on our own analysis of the transactions cited in the article, the WSJ erroneously attributed vast sums of allegedly illicit transactions to Shapeshift in a way that exhibits a profound failure to grasp how blockchains, in general, and our system in particular, really work.”

Shapeshift CEO Responds to Wall Street Journal Laundering Claims

He goes on to list three fairly routine examples of how the WSJ allegedly got it wrong, using a $ 600 illustration: “In other words, $ 600 of suspicious funds were sent to an exchange that wasn’t Shapeshift. Because Shapeshift happens to be a customer of this same exchange – 10 months later in a completely unrelated transaction – the exchange sent funds to Shapeshift. The authors didn’t understand how to properly read the blockchain transactions, so they assumed there was $ 70k in ‘dirty money’ sent to Shapeshift. Allegation: $ 70,000 laundered by Shapeshift; Reality: $ 0 laundered by Shapeshift.”

In fairness, good journalism rattles cages, gets to the root, and unnerves those under its microscope. But good journalism also must be held accountable, and authors of investigative pieces have a duty to continue dialog even after publication in order to better allow readers closer proximity to supposed revealed truths. “We’ve found numerous other examples,” Mr. Voorhees complains. “We asked the WSJ to send us the specific transaction ID’s […] As of this writing, the WSJ has been unwilling or unable to send the requested transaction data necessary […].”

What do you think of the WSJ’s claims and Shapeshift’s response? Let us know in the comments section below. 

Images via Pixabay, Shapeshift. 

Be sure to check out the podcast Blockchain 2025, latest episode here. Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our tools section.

The post Shapeshift CEO Responds to Wall Street Journal Laundering Claims appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Bitcoin News


LeSean McCoy’s Ex-GF Claims NFL Star Physically Abused Her

October 2, 2018 |

LeSean McCoy’s ex-girlfriend Delicia Cordon has filed new court docs claiming the NFL star physically abused her during their relationship … alleging he once literally kicked her out of bed.  It’s all part of Cordon’s ongoing lawsuit against…


Ryder Cup Fan Claims Eyeball Exploded When Struck By Brooks Koepka Shot

October 2, 2018 |

The woman lying on the ground in this photo claims her eyeball “exploded” when she was struck by a Brooks Koepka tee shot at the Ryder Cup … and now she’s threatening to sue.  49-year-old Corine Remande was watching the USA vs. Europe…