CoinDeskPolicyОпубликовано 2024-05-06Обновлено 2024-05-07

Введение

The ATO said the data will help identify traders who failed to report their cryptocurrency-related activities.

  • Australia’s tax office will force cryptocurrency exchanges to provide personal and transaction details of 1.2 million traders.
  • The regulator is attempting to crack down on people trying to avoid paying their tax liabilities.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has asked cryptocurrency exchanges to provide the personal data and transaction details of up to 1.2 million accounts, according to reports.

The Australian Financial Review reported on Monday that “as part of a surveillance effort announced in April, the ATO said its latest data collection protocol would require designated cryptocurrency exchanges to provide the names, addresses, birthdays and transaction details of traders to help it audit compliance with obligations to pay capital gains tax on sales.”

The ATO said the data would help identify traders who failed to report their cryptocurrency-related activities, including the exchange of crypto assets when they sold it for currency or used it to pay for goods and services, Reuters reported on Tuesday.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Australia’s crackdown on the crypto industry has been more evident since the collapse of FTX. It has sued companies for attempting to sell tokens without the appropriate licenses, banking partners have blocked payments to cryptocurrency exchanges and has proposed a new licensing regime for crypto exchanges.

Last year, the ATO clarified that its capital gains tax on crypto products also extends to wrapped tokens or token interaction with decentralized lending protocols.

Edited by Parikshit Mishra.



Похожее

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit2 ч. назад

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit2 ч. назад

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit3 ч. назад

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit3 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片