Why would Bitcoin collapse as a consequence of Tether collapsing? I would expect to see a temporary drop due to market instability and low investors' confidence amid fear, but surely not a collapse.
It's kind of like a company's war chest bank account: no matter what happens, the value of the asset is worth at least that much.
But it's a little more pernicious than that. Tethers are typically emmited conveniently at times where the price of crypto is going down, propping the value up. If the current value of BTC exists because of artificial upwards pressure, it's likely that the value should settle back down to where it would have been if not for said pressure when released from it.
I don't have any doubt that tether is up to all manner of funny business (e.g. printing unbacked coins and loaning them out for people to 'invest' in defi ponzis), but mostly its used to trade against varrious altcoins that are only traded on off-shore exchanges not used to trade against Bitcoin. The arguments that it plays some major role with bitcoin from what I see appear to be conjecture and logically unsound reasoning rather than clear and convincing evidence.
If you're aware of something better-- I'd love to see it.
Absent that kind of connection I wouldn't be surprised to see demand for Bitcoin _rise_ once the instability fear cleared: prior to tether being used to purchase sketch-coins at offshore exchanges Bitcoin was the exclusive option for that purpose.
The price of bitcoin will never fall faster then the time it takes to login to a darknet market and update a listing.
This is already being frameworked. “Coffee shop” sales of cryptocurrency (even BTC) is now de facto illegal in the USA. You can’t post a Craigslist ad saying “hey I have 100 BTC willing to exchange for USD”. The feds will (and have!!) arrest you for violating AML/KYC.
XMR is currently being considered for an “asset non-grata” classification where any exchange doing USD/XMR transactions would be held accountable for facilitating money laundering because participation in XMR inherently assists in laundering money.
Suppose I buy a bored ape or whatever, and then I sell it, and then the person I sold it to uses one of those non-KYC exchanges to buy XMR. How are the feds going to know whether it was me on both sides or not?
Are they going to correlate my IP to McDonalds wifi and subpoena the security footage and get me via facial recognition? At some point it's just too expensive to chase down.
US financial sanctions are very intense. The bank/instution that is converting fiat to XMR would be a complete pariah, unable to participate in any global banking or have any transactions with any bank which needs to participate with other global banks.
If you are an institution selling XMR and taking peoples fiat, you would have nowhere to store the fiat. You would have no one (Stripe/Visa/SWIFT/ACH/PayPal/etc) who would process those payments. You would be unable to travel to any western country. Anyone who does business with you could also get similar sanctions.
You could perhaps trade XMR<->ETH or something like that...but eventually someone with the XMR will want to convert it to fiat, and that would not be possible. Anyone doing a lot of BTC/ETH<->XMR trades could be found via blockchain analysis, and similarly investigated and prosecuted for participating in XMR, because XMR facilitates money laundering.
If the US government wants to ban an XMR, it can ban XMR.
The only way I see this kind of works is if they ban crypto in general, and then ban cash in the mail too. Oh yeah and ban foreign trade, because as long as it's legal somewhere else you can spend XMR in THAT country in the form of importing goods to the US and then sell those goods for cash. We're talking about bits in the ether, and unlike with bitcoin at least to our knowledge the public ledger is not traceable. Seems like a tall order.
I mean, yeah this is already done. Over $10,000 requires you to file a FinCEN Form 105. The point isn't "you can't send money" its "The US government only wants to allow systems to exist in which it knows who/what/when/where about any non-trivial sized transaction."
If there's an auditable/subpoenable record, they're happy. If not, they're not. Right now they're "not happy" about XMR. Some day they'll ban it.
As for ETH/BTC<-> XMR they'll probably ban that too. Not from a technical perspective but more like "if we catch you sending ETH to that Russian XMR exchange we'll prosecute you."
I cannot offer legal advice here, but my understanding is if Bob in NY has the fantastically idiotic idea to send $100k through the mail to cousin Suzy in CA, he wouldn't be violating in laws by not filling out the 105 or IRS 8300. He's not engaging in a trade/business and the money is not leaving the borders.
And even if they didn't, that BTC could indeed no longer be allowed in the US controlled banking system (which is far larger than the West).
Of course, if your friend were able to redeem buy actual goods for XMR and send those back to you, great. But what goods vendor would want to own XMR in a world where no institution that does business with banks would want it?
Note that what I'm saying is not purely theoretical - this is the status of Tornado Cash - where they went so far as to arrest developers of that. And banned BTC also exist - there are BTC that are illegal to own, and wallet addresses that are illegal to trade with.
I suppose if they could buy XMR with BTC and see which output addresses were involved with that transaction--those would be addresses controlled by users of the DEX. And then they could buy BTC with XMR, harvesting a few more addresses.
But if they run analysis like that continually they're going to end up paying a lot of money to the DEX in fees.
In fact, the exchange might not even need real users at all. They can just generate enough noise to attract the government's attention, and then soak up the government's money while letting the government spy on a bunch of robot activity.
It's gotta be one of these:
- ban crypto entirely
- give up on drug prohibition
- burden taxpayers with an endless game of whack-a-mole which slowly transfers value out of the US economy without achieving meaningful enforcement goals
I've got a guess about which one it will be.
For instance if you receive $5 and then later send $5, your wallet can just send it from a single address, so none of the other addresses in your wallet can be correlated (via chain analysis) with that transaction. On the other hand, if you have addresses with $2 and $4 and you wand to send $5 then both will be involved in the transaction, plus you'll be getting a new address where you get the change ($1) back.
It would be the same for an exchange. A single address (or a hard-coded list of them) would be a centralizing feature, if it has that, it's not a DEX (because whoever controls the keys for those addresses controls the exchange). A DEX would have to make buy/sell orders happen based on some set of addresses that were not around for the founding of the exchange. Likely, those addresses would also not stay around for its lifetime. You'd generate them as needed and forget them when they no longer served you (I suppose "you" are a DEX node in this scenario).
What's uncertain is just how interconnected they'd have to be. On one hand, you want to keep the list of known associates small so that token taint doesn't spread to all users of the exchange (which is what you described in your previous post). On the other hand, maybe you want the list of participants to be large enough that it's not practical to send an agent to kick down each door in the list.
If anybody can find the maximally infuriating size here, I'd trust that it's the kind of person who would write a DEX.