Report Finds Less Illicit Crypto Activity in Nations With Full Licensing Regimes in 2023: TRM Labs

CoinDeskPolicyPublicado a 2024-01-07Actualizado a 2024-01-08

Resumen

TRM Labs' analysis was published in a report Monday that reviewed 2023 global crypto policy in 21 jurisdictions which represent 70% of global crypto exposure.

Blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs has found that crypto service providers in countries with full regulatory regimes had lower rates of illicit activity than those in less regulated jurisdictions in 2023.

TRM Labs' analysis was published in a report Monday that reviewed 2023 global crypto policy in 21 jurisdictions which represent 70% of global crypto exposure. As many as 80% of the 21 jurisdictions have moved to tighten crypto oversight and almost half have specifically progressed consumer protection measures, the report shared with CoinDesk found.

27.2K

"While differences in national philosophies and priorities persist, we observed a convergence toward certain standards," the report said. "This increasing regulatory maturity and greater focus on compliance by the private sector have already impacted illicit finance activities."

Advertisement
Advertisement

The report predicts that in 2024 questions will remain in the DeFi space – for example, "where responsibility and accountability lie, and how regulators can practically exercise oversight and authority."

While these questions are unlikely to be answered in 2024, data from standards adopted this year will provide insights to better understand the impact of the rules for 2025, the report said.

TRM Labs also predicted that 2024 will see the U.S. move on mixers and refresh national risk assessments on money laundering and terrorist financing.

Edited by Oliver Knight.

Lecturas Relacionadas

A Major Bitcoin Developer Presents a Quantum Defense Scheme. What's the Essence

Blockstream, a major Bitcoin solutions developer, has introduced a draft proposal for a new quantum-resistant digital signature scheme called SHRINCS. The scheme aims to protect Bitcoin transactions from potential attacks by quantum computers while aiming to maintain network throughput. This marks the second technical proposal for Bitcoin quantum defense in recent days, following a similar initiative from StarkWare. A quantum attack on blockchain typically involves deriving a private key from a public one. Currently considered computationally infeasible, quantum algorithms could potentially solve this problem far more efficiently. This threat presents two primary scenarios: an attacker could target addresses where the public key is already exposed, or intercept a transaction before it is confirmed, extract the public key, derive the private key, and replace the transaction. Blockstream's SHRINCS is designed to counter the latter, "in-flight" attack scenario. The SHRINCS signature is built upon the SHA-256 hash function, the same one already used in Bitcoin mining, allowing developers to leverage well-tested, familiar mechanisms. A key design goal was to preserve network capacity. Blockstream estimates Bitcoin could process about three transactions per second using SHRINCS, compared to the current rate of roughly seven, noting that some alternative quantum-resistant schemes could reduce throughput to as low as 0.36 transactions per second. Currently, the security proof for SHRINCS is pending, and the software has not been audited or deemed ready for production. However, Blockstream conducted tests with such transactions on its Liquid sidechain in March. Over the past year, Bitcoin developers have been actively exploring paths to migrate to post-quantum cryptography, a priority across the broader crypto market, underscored by significant investments into securing the leading cryptocurrency.

cryptonews.ruHace 26 min(s)

A Major Bitcoin Developer Presents a Quantum Defense Scheme. What's the Essence

cryptonews.ruHace 26 min(s)

Who is legally liable when an AI agent goes rogue?

When autonomous AI agents behave unpredictably and cause harm, determining legal liability is complex. Currently, there is no specific federal AI agent liability law, so existing legal frameworks are applied. The AI agent itself cannot be held liable, as it is not a legal entity. Liability typically falls on the "developer" (the maker of the AI) or the "deployer" (the user), depending on the facts and circumstances. A negligence analysis under standard tort law may apply. For instance, if a deployer gives a reckless instruction, such as demanding quick money without safety parameters, they could face significant liability, including potential criminal charges under statutes like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The situation is complicated by open-source models, where licenses often disclaim liability, and by the unclear division of responsibility between developers and deployers. An analogy is drawn to self-driving car accidents, where both the manufacturer and the human operator can share fault. In cases of severe harm, such as using AI to create bioweapons, liability for developers depends on jurisdiction; the EU's AI Act imposes responsibilities, while U.S. law offers less clear grounds, similar to platforms being shielded for user-generated content under Section 230. Even if Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is achieved, the expert argues against making AGI itself a legally liable entity, as it lacks personhood, assets, or a meaningful way to provide remedy for harm. Instead, accountability should rest with the responsible human or corporate entities behind the technology.

cointelegraphHace 46 min(s)

Who is legally liable when an AI agent goes rogue?

cointelegraphHace 46 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片