It seems like quite a jump to say that the current regs that they’ve spent a ton of time building don’t have such a requirement but but they’re definitely gonna add it? Do you know something the rest of us don’t?
More generally, the push should be that there’s no way to practically verify, and exchanges instead should get users to agree and then do risk based analysis, not push users into a nuts protocol.
I'm just being pessimistic, no inside info. Governments are trending towards wanting more and more of people's (previously) confidential transaction information. The EUR 1000 cash purchase limit is an example of this insanity.
It's something we should push back against and so I support your proposal.🙂
I’d much rather we fight those regs than give in. Travel rule is a thing but the compliance needs to focus on the exchange -> exchange transactions, where the rule applies, rather than forcing the exchange -> user transactions to add more complexity.
The point remains that we need to add innovation to obsolete the feature or better break the surveillance use case.
If you take it out you fragment the versions in the network and long term likely force a chain split.
And travel rule and Mica require verification that goes much beyond just signing a message, so if you want to take it out to snub regulators, you are only snubbing the more privacy focused ones like the Swiss, not the evil jurisdictions.
