Except it's even worse than that. The bill's ban is almost like requiring banks to somehow account for the full history of every single penny that comes through the door.

To be clear (my view only ofc), the presumption should be that those using mixers are looking to obtain the same level of financial privacy that banks are legally required to provide when citizens use any other form of 'money' movement. We do not presume guilt in America!

😡

Nick Anthony Privacy is just a little thing to be cleaned up.

So we're going with 'guilty' until proven innocent now? 🫠

This is a great thread on an anti-mixer bill. Carsten's statement 'the presumption should be that these are money laundering channels' is not how things should work with innovation. (As Nick says: 'Guilty before proven innocent.') It's becoming more common and we just shrug.

Given my libertarian sympathies and great appreciation of Lawrence H. White's work, I expected that our joint Cato Institute book event, 1 year ago today, would be the climax of my book tour.
It was!
Thanks Larry, Norbert J. Michel, Cato CMFA, Nick Anthony.

cato.org/multimedia/eve…