I agree with the financial institutions making it harder, not arguing that.
If you had used Revolut to receive the payment of selling those sats on robosats, they wouldn't even know you were selling sats. That's why the attack is mostly on custodial services.
The fragment I quoted specifically talks about CASPs, which can be consider any organization involved in the transfer of cryptos. But as I said, I don't think calling self-custody wallets CASPs willt hold in court.
Entirely agree with you on CASPs. At least for now since Ursula and Christine made it very clear that they do not approve of self-custodian wallets. So they'll think of something down the line.
I do use Robosats sometimes but I have a KYC stack for a number of reasons (collateral being one) and seeing how even a KYC stack is falling victim to Bitcoin discrimination within the glorious EU SEPA banking system is disturbing.
Of course they don't like it, but I think they know they can't do anything about it. They can slowly tighten the noose, but if they go to far, people will flee to the grey/black market and they'll lose all control and tax revenue. Central and Northern European countries are more likely to comply, but good luck going cashless in Southern and Eastern countries in the near future.
