Filling out a form is not KYC. I could fill out that form with false data; nobody would know.
O_o
- You would need to guess a correct combination of name, address, and social security number for a person you are going to be impersonating (or other TIN). Which is a crime.
- âWillfully falsifying certifications or affirmations may subject you to criminal penalties including fines and/or imprisonment.â â from the form you were going to lie on.
4 Likes
@Ruskiem and @snorkel : actually they are KYCâd, as I have already said.
There are various forms of KYC, according to the risk profile. The first step just requires you to collect some information (ie name, address, ID), which is exactly what applies in this case. The second step requires you to verify them to the best of your abilities (typically reserved for banks/financial institutions). Only the final step (which does not even remotely apply to storjâs case) is to verify every detail submitted, beyond any doubt (ie multi-million per month investment firm client).
Only if you are an US citizen.
Yes, but how many of these countries are actually causing significant issues? Looking at the node distribution map, it appears that the majority of nodes are not located in countries where sending fiat would be a problem. I suspect that there are minimal restrictions on sending fiat to countries or regions like the US, Canada, the EU, and the UK, which likely account for a substantial share of node operators. However, I havenât verified the numbers to confirm this.
Storj isnât the only company that has to manage worldwide payments, yet it seems to be the only one that thinks it needs a cryptocurrency to do so. Havenât you ever wondered how other companies handle global payments without relying on cryptocurrency?
Of course, managing global payments can be challenging for a company to handle on its own. Thatâs why I suggested leveraging existing solution providers that specialize in this area. These providers take care of everything, including compliance with rules and regulations. All thatâs required is to send them the amount to be distributed, and theyâll handle the rest, distributing the funds worldwide to payees in their preferred method, including depositing local currency into their bank accounts. This way, everything is taken care of in a compliant manner, adhering to all relevant laws, restrictions, and regulations. These solutions do exist.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean that Storj cannot sent out USD payments internationally with their bank? I have just checked the homepage of some random US bank and they clearly offer the option to send out international wires to Germany. You can do that even on their mobile app. They even tell you what information you need from the payee to send out a wire to Germany and all you need is the IBAN and the BIC of my bank account. Why do you believe this does not work?
Or are you saying that I cannot receive a SWIFT payment in my bank account? I am not aware of anything that would prevent me from receiving SWIFT payments into my regular bank account. I am also able to send out SWIFT payments even via online banking. This is verified with my bank. So it appears that the receiving side is not the problem and would be perfectly capable to receive fiat money from a US bank account. But letâs also look at the US node operators where receiving USD really should not be a problem. Even for them there is no such option offered from Storj. So the receiving end is not the problem of this. At least not in a technical or compatibility sense.
But even if there was some technical or compatibility problem with SWIFT and my bank so I could not receive it, I can provide Storj with personal US domestic banking details through an EMI, which would make sending USD for Storj and receiving USD for me a breeze. So I really donât see the issue you are describing that there would be any technical or compatibility issues that you have mentioned that would prevent me from receiving international fiat payments from Storj if they would offer such.
But let me repeat also: My argument is not about Storj handling 123 countries on their own. My argument is to use a solution provider that is specialized on such a task.
I am not aware of such a law or legislation. But I am not an expert on that. I know that financial institutions have to KYC their users, bur regular businesses? So if you send out $5 to some German bank as a company you have to KYC the payee and report it to US government while if you do the same with crypto you donât? I donât know but it does not sound rationale to me. At least this would mean that the Storj token is used to bypass legal and regulatory restrictions. I really do not know if that sounds good or if it is really the case.
As said I donât know if this would be really required to receive $5 a month from Storj. I have to do KYC with my bank and I have to do KYC with the exchange to sell the tokens. So if it is required and helps to get rid of the burden to handle the Storj token, yes probably.
How many would be willing to receive fiat instead of some proprietary token where they have to go through KYC anyway to sell it? I want money from Storj, so I have to give them my my bank details. I think this is a very normal way how things work.
You mean it is better to allocate a lot of resources and money to be not KYC compliant? If the law is like what you are saying, sooner or later payment through token will be under the same restrictions. So if there is a KYC requirement, it will happen at some point and will be no different than using fiat.
But let me make it clear again because the repeating argument is that Storj cannot handle it or does not have the resources or whatever. And this is not what I am talking about. First thing I am talking about is: Make payments through a solution provider that knows all the laws, restrictions and regulations, performs all the KYC where it is required and distributes the payments to the payees. Everything automated via API all you have to do is to send them the money to be distributed. Again: How do you believe do other companies handle all this and are not using cryptocurrency? This could even reduce current payout workload on Storj end dramatically and free up resources currently allocated.
Second is: If at some point Storj is required to buy tokens to be able to pay their SNOs use some stable coin instead of the Storj token. This alone would have some significant advantages for the SNOs and it would be simple to offer both ways of payouts.
For me however I have to say I would prefer to be paid fiat directly into my bank account and to get rid of the cryptocurrency requirement. I donât mind anybody else who wants to get paid with crypto, I think some of the solution providers I have checked offering this as payout option as well. So as I have said, everybody gets paid the way he prefers.
1 Like
This also lead to additional not needed costs without any value, it will not drive the sales.
I do not think that it worth it to change the current situation and have additional problems and also pay for that a premium. Every SNO is agreed to be paid in tokens, and they are free do not accept these conditions and do not run a node, but itâs my personal opinion. There are always options.
Perhaps not or yes, I do not know. There are could be restrictions like can they pay to individuals directly or not. However, it doesnât matter, there is no point to increase costs without any additional value.
I know that there are sometimes difficulties to send money from US to EU or to any other country, itâs from my personal experience with that, I have no idea, would it happen for every bank though.
Yes, I have had this problem with some German banks, I do not know, is it solved or not.
However, as I said, I do not believe that increasing costs on sending small amounts to thousands people around the world is worth any time or money of the company without any value. It also maybe not possible to send to some people, or mistakes would cost a premium or additional requirements will be needed. Not worth it in my opinion.
1 Like
The value is this will allow storj to focus more resources advancing its core competency â providing storage. is storj in business of building international payment network? No? Then it shall pay someone else to handle that.
The same way it pays accountants to do accounting, cafeteria cooks to prepare food, and Google to host satellites. You are not DYIing any of those and for the right reason: you canât, nor shoulnât do everything from scratch, so you focus on core business and pay other vendors to do whatâs they are best at.
So why is paying to vendors is any different?
Another benefit - less work for node operators. IN the same vein, they want to focus on providing storage, not manage wallets and figuring out all that nonsense for $10/month.
I, as an operator, had to figure out cryptocurrency and wallets and exchanges, and nobody will return me that time I consider 100% wasted, learning about things I had absolutely no interest in learning about. I still donât.
Not this time, it even not considered. We do not need additional costs, only additional usage.
See also
itâs old, but nothing has changed except migration to Ethereum
also
And we have had a similar discussion in the past:
1 Like
I believe that this discussion is going in circles. We figured out, that the STORJ token is utility token, itâs not a security and not shares, it also is not investment into the company but it helps to keep the network healthy, it also solves many problems across borders and limitations of the current financial system.
We do not have plans to change the payout system in a foreseeable future.
@jammerdan your opinion is shared.
I would close this topic as useless.
7 Likes