Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

> Are they? They are not unless they transform to another boring bank which defeats the purpose of the exchange. Banking is not why their users joined

Sure, but if their users joined to participate in an unlawful offshore casino then my point remains. They can comply with regulations, or not. It's not the responsibility of the states to bow down to binance and allow this silliness, but on binance to conform to a state regulatory framework.

View on HN

How is it the responsibility of an offshore company to conform to some states regulatory framework - and which states anyways?

If people want these products and they are regulated out of the market, offshore is where these companies will go to provide them.

If US people want these products and Binance wants to sell these products to US people, Binance should conform to the US regulatory framework. Otherwise it is on Binance to ensure they do not sell their products to US customers.

It is US customers who are circumventing the technical measures set in place to prevent them from trading on these platforms with VPNs and fake PII.

That line of reasoning worked so well for BetonSports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BetonSports

And hey, what's 33 months in prison?

> but on binance to conform to a state regulatory framework.

Which is not something they want. That was my comment about actually, Reuters article implies that binance must comply with some state.

If binance wants to sell their services in a particular market they must comply with the rules that are in place in that market. Is that controversial?

Afaik they do already, binance.us exists

Reuters article is implying that Binance's unwillingness to show what many regulations would require is because it is a fraud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com