grindle wrote: » Yup. One seller dumping millions caused a cascade of bots trying to stop losses all the way from $317.81 down to $0.10. Buyers who had Hail Mary orders at the bottom got ETH for 1/3 the ICO price. Luckiest bastards alive. 27739x return in 1 minute
Idioteque wrote: » Hold off buying lads - expecting the book price to drop soon by ~30%. Buy the dip
Donald Trump wrote: » The ones who got reimbursed were the lucky ones if you ask me.
SnuggyBear wrote: » Anyone feel like there will be a big dump any minute
bankboucy wrote: » US Treasury wants cryptocurrency transfers over $10,000 to be reported to the IRShttps://www.theverge.com/2021/5/20/22446364/treasury-cryptocurrency-irs-fraud-tax-evasion "The agency says cryptocurrency ‘facilitates illegal activity broadly including tax evasion" “Cryptocurrency already poses a significant detection problem by facilitating illegal activity broadly including tax evasion,” Like I said.......the powers that be, agree with me......who.....just the US Treasury.....i.e. the White House......the CCP & China's leadership......next move is European regulatory authorities / commission to do something BTC hostile in response to Colonial/Ireland bitcoin denominated attack.......Europe is a little slower to get things done my guess is next week or week after something drops which tightens the grip around cyrptos neck.......as I've said previously in other threads this all occurring a couple of weeks after Colonial....weird, so weird......
“At the crux of these proposals is a commitment to revitalizing tax enforcement,” according to the report. “Working to close the tax gap reflects a commitment to ending our two-tiered tax system, one where most American workers pay their full obligations, but high earners who accrue income from opaque sources often do not.”
Donald Trump wrote: » I was going to add some Tortilla chips to my online Tesco order. But I wasn't sure what I should get with them. They are a bit plain on their own. Any recommendations?
Doodee wrote: » Or you know, just want to make sure it is taxed?
Luckycharms_74 wrote: » Check out Julia's latest interview on CNN with Binance CEO
Bob24 wrote: » This. They are basically saying they want visibility on what is happening to make sure the taxman gets its share of the pie. Crypto platforms are likely to be more and more treated as other financial institutions in terms of reporting requirements. The negative way to look at it is that states will have more control on the crytpo ecosystem (or at least there might be a two-tier ecosystem with “official” platforms and projects and “underground” ones). But the positive way to look at it is that if governments are ramping up regulation and tax recovery efforts it does indicate some type of acceptance. Caitlin Long had a decent Tweeter thread on this yesterday: https://twitter.com/caitlinlong_/status/1395489635120394242?s=21
Donald Trump wrote: » Tax recovery does not have to mean acceptance. And the regulation is just a way to facilitate tax recovery. A different situation and motive, but look at the example of CAB closer to home. They will often stick criminals with tax bills. It doesn't mean they accept the crime. It is often just a way of hitting them somehow when they can't prove the actual crime. The regulation effect would be in the mandatory reporting by financial institutions of cash transactions over a certain limit for example.
Bob24 wrote: » I don’t believe the government is formally laying out taxation rules for any activity which it considers illegal? It might use actual tax fraud as a work around to stop criminals which can’t be convicted for other more severe criminal offense due to a lack of evidence (the good old Al Capone story). But that is a different.
Donald Trump wrote: » The tax recovery is not on a "crime". They can just tax individual's profit and gains. Not that I am saying anything is a crime.Don't get hung up on that aspect of it. I only used CAB as a close-to-home example to show that tax recovery on it's own does not imply acceptance.
FileNotFound wrote: » Why are you even mentioning the word "Crime" ? I mean Crypto is fully legal, if not fully regulated. Acceptance is fully implied by the fact it is not illegal. End of this silly discussion really.
Bob24 wrote: » Again though, Revenue has formal taxation guidelines related to cryptocurrency trading activities. They would never have formal taxation guidelines related to drug trafficking activities (because a government entity formally describing tkt as taxable would imply that the government sees this activity as legitimate). This is a key difference.
Donald Trump wrote: » Read my posts again. I explicitly explained I was not calling it a crime. I was only pointing out that taxing does not imply acceptance. I used the example of CAB to show where taxation is done but acceptance is not. Again, I explicitly said in both posts that I was not saying anything was a crime.
Bob24 wrote: » Again though, Revenue has formal taxation guidelines related to cryptocurrency trading activities. They would never have formal taxation guidelines related to drug trafficking activities (because a government entity formally describing it as taxable would imply that the government sees this activity as legitimate). This is a key difference.
FileNotFound wrote: » My question is why use the word "crime" at all, unless you are just trolling for a response? It was the pointlessness of your wording i was highlighting. Unless the above point is valid?
Donald Trump wrote: » You are also getting hung up on crime and illegality. I did not say that they don't accept it. I did not say that they will never accept it. I only said that the act of taxing money made from something is not, in and of itself, a cast-iron guarantee of acceptance of that thing. If it is accepted then of course it will be taxed. But the converse may not be true in terms of logic.
FileNotFound wrote: » The Key thing that DT seems to skip is that most people use actual cash for illegal activites. Its all tender and has all been used for dodge things at some point.
Donald Trump wrote: » 1) Poster said/implied something to the effect of "well if they are taxing profits made from it then that means they are accepting that activity" 2) I said "no, that is not necessarily true" 3) In order to give a counterexample, I used the example of CAB which people on this site are likely familiar with 4) CAB stands for "Criminal Assets Bureau". Because I anticipated some people would lose their shit (and used that phrase in the post) I explicitly said that I was not saying anything related to cryptocurrency is a crime. The only thing that would indeed be a crime is tax evasion. The fact that they want to tax profits on the underlying activity does not mean that they will accept and/or support the underlying asset. They may want to control or limit it in other ways.
Donald Trump wrote: » 1) Poster said/implied something to the effect of "well if they are taxing profits made from it then that means they are accepting that activity"
