Connect with us

Published

on

The European Union’s financial regulatory landscape is in flux with the introduction of multiple Anti-Money Laundering (AML) directives and related laws. These regulations, although designed to protect the financial system, come at a hidden, and sometimes steep, cost to consumers and financial institutions alike. It’s imperative to understand their wider implications, and to question whether the costs — both monetary and ethical — are simply too high.

To name just a few, the AML Directive 5, MiCa and the Transfer of Funds Regulation have reshaped the European financial framework. These laws mandate a rigorous monitoring system. However, the depth and breadth of these regulations are unparalleled in their scope. One cannot help but wonder if such comprehensive oversight is truly sustainable in the long run Banks, crypto asset managers, and even sports clubs now face complex due diligence processes, requiring them to verify customer identities, assets, and transaction patterns. With the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Travel Rule and equivalents of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in play, data collection, sharing, and monitoring become increasingly invasive. This begs the question: to what extent should the quest for security compromise the sanctity of personal data?

For many, this extensive scrutiny spells the end of financial privacy. While it’s undeniably crucial to deter criminal activities, these measures have begun encroaching upon personal freedoms. This isn’t just a minor inconvenience; it signifies a broader shift in the social contract of trust and transparency between citizens and institutions. Consider, for instance, the public accessibility mandate for beneficial owners of corporate entities. Suddenly, individuals and businesses lose control over their financial confidentiality, an unsettling consequence for a region that prides itself on individual rights and privacy. Such drastic changes necessitate a rigorous debate on the ethical implications involved.

Related: How will CBDCs be used for political oppression in your country?

The unforeseen costs of these regulations are burdensome. Financial institutions bear the brunt of technology upgrades, intensive man-hour investments and processes that have been revamped. This not only hampers their agility in a fast-evolving market but also deters potential new entrants from contributing to the financial ecosystem. Unfortunately, these overheads don’t vanish into thin air. They trickle down, affecting consumers in the form of higher fees and limited financial product offerings. In essence, the common man pays a tangible price for these regulatory shifts. Such economic ramifications must be weighed against the purported benefits of these regulations.

What’s even more concerning is that despite these hefty regulations, monumental regulatory failures persist. Big names like HSBC, Danske Bank, and FTX have been associated with regulatory controversies. It’s distressing to observe that even with such stringent rules, large-scale oversights still occur. The juxtaposition of strict regulations with glaring lapses presents a paradox that warrants thorough introspection. It poses a daunting challenge: if these behemoths, with their vast resources, falter, what hope do smaller entities have in navigating this regulatory maze? This naturally leads to skepticism. Are these regulations genuinely effective, or are they mere symbolic gestures, inconveniencing businesses and consumers alike without ensuring the intended foolproof security?

Related: Worldcoin is making reality look a lot like Black Mirror

Europe’s intentions are undoubtedly noble. In a world of increasing cyber threats and financial crimes, protective measures are essential. Yet, the path to safety shouldn’t undermine the values we hold dear. With every stride towards security, we must be cautious not to tread upon the tenets of personal liberty. But it’s equally crucial to ensure that these protective walls don’t become stifling cages. A fine balance must be struck between security and freedom, costs and benefits. As Europe pioneers this journey, it has the responsibility of crafting a model that other regions can emulate without reservations.

Europe’s evolving financial regulatory framework requires a closer examination. Not just from a legal or economic perspective, but from an ethical standpoint. The choices made today will shape the future of finance in the region, setting precedents that could reverberate globally. Personal privacy is a cherished right, and it’s imperative that it doesn’t become an inadvertent casualty in the quest for financial security. The ultimate challenge lies in harmonizing these conflicting demands, creating a landscape where safety doesn’t overshadow freedom. Only by achieving this equilibrium can Europe truly champion a regulatory model that stands the test of time.

George Basiladze is the co-founder and CEO of Wert, a fintech company dedicated to creating products that expand fiat payment access to crypto. He previously co-founded Cryptopay, a Bitcoin wallet. Before fintech, he held analyst roles at companies including NordWest Energy and Evli Bank PLC, accumulating years of experience in the financial and tech sectors. He graduated from the University of Exeter and the Higher School of Economics. Based in Estonia, he has consulted for firms navigating European AML regulations. (Disclaimer: George has direct involvement with fintech companies that could be influenced by European AML regulations.)

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Hawk tuah girl’ Haliey Welch says FBI probed her ‘memecoin disaster’

Published

on

By

‘Hawk tuah girl’ Haliey Welch says FBI probed her ‘memecoin disaster’

‘Hawk tuah girl’ Haliey Welch says FBI probed her ‘memecoin disaster’

Haliey Welch, better known as the “Hawk tuah girl,” says the Federal Bureau of Investigation briefly probed her after her “memecoin disaster” — the failed launch of a token in her image that she promoted. 

Welch said in a May 21 episode of her “Talk Tuah” podcast that the FBI showed up at her grandmother’s house looking to speak to her over the Hawk Tuah (HAWK) crypto token, which many crypto commentators have called an exit scam.

“After the coin launch, the feds came to granny’s house and knocked on her door, and she called me, having a heart attack, saying: ‘The FBI is here after you, what have you done?’”

Welch said she handed over her phone to the FBI and met with agents who “interrogated me, asking me questions and everything else related to crypto.”

“They cleared me, I was good to go,” Welch said. 

Welch went viral for her response about an oral sex technique in a vox pop interview posted to YouTube in June. 

The HAWK memecoin, based on her viral catchphrase, launched in early December and almost immediately lost 90% of its value and blockchain analytics firm Bubblemaps’ alleged insider wallets and snipers bought up and dumped massive quantities of the token at launch.

‘Hawk tuah girl’ Haliey Welch says FBI probed her ‘memecoin disaster’
Haliey Welch speaking on her Talk Tuah podcast about the HAWK memecoin. Source: YouTube

Welch said on her podcast that the Securities and Exchange Commission also asked for her phone, and she sent it off “for two or three days” before she was cleared.

Welch’s lawyer James Sallah told TMZ in March that the SEC “closed the investigation without making any findings against, or seeking any monetary sanctions from, Haliey.”

“I trusted the wrong people”

Welch admitted knowing very little about crypto before the HAWK memecoin and said she “trusted the wrong people” for the launch.

She claimed a company, which she said she couldn’t name for legal reasons, was in full control of her X account, which posted videos of her promoting the memecoin.

Welch said she was sent lines to record on video, which were then posted on her X account by someone she trusted but could also not legally name.

She added that on the day of HAWK’s launch, she “kind of knew something was up” and was pulled into a room where a team of people told her to talk on a livestream with YouTuber Stephen Findeisen, better known as Coffeezilla.

“Coffeezilla got on there and they’re like ‘Mute it, mute it,’” Welch said. “Nobody warned me about this guy at all, like nobody at all, they didn’t tell me he was like a crypto wizard, that’s exactly what he is — he ate me the fuck up.”

Related: Justin Sun to attend Trump’s dinner with memecoin backers

Welch said she was only paid a marketing fee and “did not make a dime from the coin itself,” which she said had been totally spent on legal and public relations fees.

‘Hawk tuah girl’ Haliey Welch says FBI probed her ‘memecoin disaster’
A now-deleted post where Welch shared the HAWK token’s tokenomics before it launched. Source: X

Despite being cleared of any legal wrongdoing, Welch took some accountability, admitting that she let many of her fans down who invested in the coin:

“It makes me feel really bad that they trusted me, and I led them to something that I did not have enough knowledge about. I did not have enough knowledge about crypto to be getting involved with it. And I knew that, but I got talked into it, and I trusted the wrong people.”

A group of HAWK buyers sued the alleged creators of the token in December, claiming Alex Schultz, the token’s backing Tuah the Moon Foundation, the token launchpad overHere Limited, and its founder Clinton So promoted and sold HAWK as an unregistered security.

Welch wasn’t named as a defendant.

Magazine: ‘Normie degens’ go all in on sports fan crypto tokens for the rewards

Continue Reading

Politics

Revealed: Why Keir Starmer’s strategy to tackle Reform UK could end up backfiring

Published

on

By

Revealed: Why Keir Starmer's strategy to tackle Reform UK could end up backfiring

Has Labour got the right strategy to tackle Reform UK?

Nigel Farage’s party cost the Tories dozens, maybe 100-plus seats at the general election. Now it looks like the party is hitting Labour too. But has Sir Keir Starmer got the right answers?

Coates

Last year, Labour won a landslide because the Tory vote collapsed, in part because Reform UK took chunks of their supporters in constituencies across the UK.

And here is the situation on 1 May this year – the national equivalent vote share at the council elections put Reform well ahead in first place. Success – this time at the expense of Labour too.

Coates

How big a threat is this to MPs? As a very crude experiment, Sky News has looked at what would happen if this result was replicated evenly across parliamentary constituencies.

Within the areas where there were county council elections are 77 complete Westminster seats with sitting Labour MPs.

This includes places like Wycombe, where Treasury minister Emma Reynolds holds. Or Lincoln, won by Foreign Office minister Hamish Falconer.

More on Labour

Coates

Now if – for fun – we mapped the country council results from 1 May evenly across these general election constituencies, almost all those Labour seats are gone. All lost, apart from five. That’s 72 out of 77 Labour MPs losing their seats and mostly to Reform UK.

What if we took that swing an applied across the whole country, places where there weren’t local elections?

Angela Rayner in Greater Manchester and Jess Phillips in Birmingham would lose their seats.

Yes this is a crude measure – it assumes a uniform swing can be drawn from the 1 May polls – and local and national elections are very different.

But importantly, YouGov’s latest national opinion polls paint a similar picture to the council elections. Meanwhile, 89 out of 98 constituencies where Reform came second place have Labour in first. Labour MPs are feeling the heat from Farage.

The Reform threat is real. Sir Keir Starmer knows it – and this year has started chasing Reform votes. Slashing aid spending. Abandoning green promises. Hard talk about immigration and living on an “Island of Strangers”.

Sensible given the clear and evident Reform UK threat? Actually – maybe not. Look at the data in detail:

Coates

This block here is all the people who voted Labour in last year’s general election. Now thanks to YouGov polling, we know what people in this block would do with their vote now.

It shows Labour has lost more than half of last year’s voters. Just 46% still say they’d still vote for Sir Keir’s party. But – despite the PM’s strategy – they’re not actually going to Reform in large numbers.

Just 6% of Labour’s voters at last year’s general election – six out of every 100 – said they would vote Reform now. That’s all. So where have they gone?

Well, they’ve been lost much more to liberal and left-wing parties – 12% to the Lib Dems, 9% to the Greens.

So just pause there. That means the number of Labour voters who have switched to the Lib Dems and Greens, arguably on the left of the political spectrum, is three times the number going to Reform to the right.

Just 2% go to the Tories.

And much more seriously for Labour, 22% aren’t going to vote, don’t know or won’t say.

Coates

The bottom line is people who voted Reform have never backed Labour in large numbers.

This shows how Reform supporters last year voted in each election since 2005. You can see – Reform voters are former UKIP voters. They’re Boris Johnson’s Tories.

Let’s put it another way. While 11% of Labour voters may one day be open to voting Reform, 70% are at risk of going to the Lib Dems or Greens – seven times the threat from Reform.

And typically, these voters don’t like the hard line, Reform-leaning policies of Sir Keir Starmer recently.

The local elections show there is a threat to Labour from Reform. But our data suggests Keir Starmer trying to be Nigel Farage lite isn’t the answer.

Is Labour’s strategy really working?

Continue Reading

Politics

SEC charges Unicoin and executives for alleged $100 million fraud

Published

on

By

SEC charges Unicoin and executives for alleged 0 million fraud

SEC charges Unicoin and executives for alleged 0 million fraud

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has charged crypto platform Unicoin and three of its executives, alleging they made false and misleading statements about its crypto assets that raised $100 million from investors.

The SEC said on May 20 that it charged Unicoin CEO Alex Konanykhin, board member Silvina Moschini, and former investment chief Alex Dominguez with misleading investors about certificates that conveyed rights to receive Unicoin tokens and stock.

Mark Cave, associate director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, claimed the trio “exploited thousands of investors with fictitious promises that its tokens, when issued, would be backed by real-world assets including an international portfolio of valuable real estate holdings.” 

Related: SEC crypto task force to release first report ‘in the next few months’

“The real estate assets were worth a mere fraction of what the company claimed, and the majority of the company’s sales of rights certificates were illusory,” Cave added.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in a Manhattan federal court, charged Unicoin and the three executives with various securities laws violations and asks for permanent injunctive relief, along with paying back the allegedly ill-gotten gains.

Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered

Continue Reading

Trending