Criminals use what works. So therefore that means that crypto actually does its job as a real currency that cannot be controlled. Criminals also have a habit of using auto mobiles, guns, computers, shoes, etc.
Chain analysis companies whose whole reason for existing is selling exchanges and governments software to track illicit cryptocurrency transactions show that less than 1% of transactions are illicit in nature. So I don’t know how that means the majority of crypto is used for illicit finance.
I mean it has its issues but a non regulated currency not controlled by a government is cool imo
The main issue is that it tries to fix government trust issues with private actors trust issues. It’s still trust issues
Its supposed benefits are vastly overshadowed by their only practical application: allowing online crime to flourish.
I suppose you don’t use cash then. Come on, there is almost no online crime anyway
I can buy almost everything with cash but with shitcoins I can only pay ransom. And the FBI probably won’t agree there’s virtually no online crime.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ drug users gotta get their drugs
Criminals use what works. So therefore that means that crypto actually does its job as a real currency that cannot be controlled. Criminals also have a habit of using auto mobiles, guns, computers, shoes, etc.
If criminals only used cars from brand X and nobody else used brand X, it would be viewed the same.
There are plenty of currencies out there, which normal people use. Cryptocurrencies are mainly used by criminals though.
Chain analysis companies whose whole reason for existing is selling exchanges and governments software to track illicit cryptocurrency transactions show that less than 1% of transactions are illicit in nature. So I don’t know how that means the majority of crypto is used for illicit finance.
Had to go out and find a source myself.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/Europol Spotlight - Cryptocurrencies - Tracing the evolution of criminal finances.pdf
Private companies say less than 1%. Academia says around 20%. That’s a huge difference to only cite one side of the story.