Apparently Julian Assange’s Wikileaks merchant account on Coinbase was shutdown. This is not at all surprising since PayPal, VISA, Mastercard and the banks did the same thing to him/them in the past. In all fairness I don’t think Coinbase is to blame, aside from the fact they are a US based company and under the jurisdiction of the US of course.
PayPal came out and admitted they were forced to close down Wikileaks account, and I am certain the same thing has happened with Coinbase.
They have no say in the matter when the US government comes knocking. Coinbase even recently had to give out information to the US tax department (IRS).
Of course users can still directly pay and donate to any wallets that Wikileaks controls. As of now he lists addresses for Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, ZCash and Monero. This is where things will heat up if he were to have a centralized currency like Ripple or Stellar Lumens. The US government could possibly have those accounts in XRP/XLM frozen since they are a US based company.
This comes down to the wider issue of privacy, rights and freedom online and how cryptocurrency can prevent persecution for political reasons. It also stands to reason that entities based in the US have very little say when the government comes knocking. Coinbase and PayPal couldn’t have said no to the US government or by doing so they would be in seriously hot water.
I always advocate having some IT resources out of the reach of PRISM countries for reasons of privacy and freedom. One of my current favorites are Singapore and Hong Kong in Asia. Hong Kong I place particularly high value on because it has the British based system, yet it is under the protection of China. Hong Kong is less likely to be influenced by a foreign entity than a smaller country like Singapore. A good example of this is how Edward Snowden miraculously made it out of Hong Kong as a wanted fugitive. Surely, Hong Kong was pressured and asked to hand him over, but somehow it never happened.
There are positives here, it looks like some brave entities in Europe have stood up for Wikileaks and at least for now, in France, Germany and Iceland there are some banks, foundations and even a University who are providing him access to the fiat system.
This is very interesting and about high time. There is hardly any legal basis to single out the banning of cryptocurrency and ICOs when so many other questionable things are promoted on Google, Facebook and Twitter. They could have probably gotten away with banning a few confirmed scam coins or ICOs but they’d also have to demonstrate similar action in other industries that they have never done with this.
The allegation of collusion is important and I am very curious how this plays out. My suspicion is that these actions are voluntary. The CEOs of these companies were essentially convinced and paid out to it by stakeholders of fiat and traditional securities. If not that, here would be an interesting defense if they could make such a defense legally in this scenario I propose. Of course all 3 of the major companies are based in the US and are subject to the laws of the US including being obliged to co-operate by providing the NSA backdoors for spying. What if under the pretext of national security these companies were forced to ban cryptocurrency advertising? It may sound far fetched but the US government even wanted to put tariffs on Canada during negotiations for NAFTA under the pre-text of National Security.
It is hard to say for sure what the truth is but I’ll be following these lawsuits as some of the truth may come out in the reply to the claim, discovery and other filings. One thing I am sure of is that neither company came up with the idea of their own volition. It would be another thing to prove which external force or entity is really responsible for this. Financially it makes little sense since they all stood to profit more from the increased advertising revenue so it is very plausible that some other stakeholders made an offer they couldn’t refuse whether in the form of enticement or being obliged by law (even if falsely under the pre-text of national security).
This is huge news for Ripple but apparently at the time of writing Ripple has tumbled more than 5% to .957 USD (under a dollar now). To be honest I do hold Ripple but I believe my analysis to be unbiased.
The news is huge that Ripple will help Saudi Arabia settle foreign currency transactions and shows Ripple has proven itself in the large scale banking and even central banking industry. It looks like other gulf countries including the UAE (United Arab Emirates) are going to be involved as well which could be really huge for Ripple. One thing that many have said though is that none of these banking organizations involved are really interested in XRP. They are using Ripple’s network but these transactions are not being funded or traded in XRP itself.
Some industry analysts have speculated that Ripple’s relationship with big banks is so strong that it may have strong incentive in the future to literally kill/dissolve XRP.
Despite this my outlook on Ripple is strong with the reservations about it mainly being a tool for large banks. Don’t get me wrong, the technology works well for transactions in terms of being low-fee, fast not having to sync the blockchain, very secure (aside from no first party wallets….) but can we trust this company to protect our interests and those of its large banking clients?
I think this is why Ripple has been volatile itself, from an investment standpoint it sounds great but also bad because Ripple is kind of a crypto-rebel by essentially being the tool that cryptocurrency was meant to fight or free us from (the tool of big banks and now Saudi Arabia’s central bank.).
To look at it from the other perspective though this could mean a huge rise for Ripple in valuation but it could also mean the opposite. Ripple has carved out an incredible niche but at the same time risks alienating its main users and investors. The question is what will Ripple as a private and centralized blockchain do?
I do agree the author of the quoted article above could very well have it right for the end game. It’s a shame because Ripple solves a number of key issues while also introducing security and trust issues at the same time. Ripple works well but will it literally sell us users and investors out to central banks in the future?
I’ve attempted to play the lotto and will seek Ripple’s comment on these concerns but regardless of assurances only time will tell where things head.