The ever active crypto analyst and investor, Joseph Young brings the fallacy about the cryptos to light, putting it on trial. There has been a misconception that the cryptos are a perfect cover for the dirty money and can act as the safest and the purest way to launder money. Young suggests that given the fool-proof traceability in a crypto framework of the blockchain network, even the slightest of mishaps can be picked out easily. The recent incident where Cryptopia was under hack attack and drained out of finance, Binance managed to freeze all the funds that were to fall victim to the outside attack. Young explains via the very example that there are several checks that can pick out the origins for the circling finance which is the exact opposite of being open to money laundering. BlockPublisher managed to garner some comments from the analyst himself over the discourse, clarifying further that the cryptos deny money laundering in every way possible.
The Cryptopia situation was well managed as Binance attempted successfully to freeze all the victimized funds. This is a real reason that instead of cryptos being a lovely homeland for money launderers, it is the exact opposite.
Money Laundering has been a major problem dating back to legalization of currencies and jobs. The issue arises as the money cannot be traced back to the dirty origins which has been the greatest hurdle for the banking systems as per the inability of the corporate institutions to conduct a perfect check over this. With cryptos came the excellent system of blockchain which can cater for this situation very elegantly.
What Joseph Young explained was indeed well elaborated with the perfect example, the issue sticks that it surely does not have to be Binance to freezing funds for another exchange, though inactive as per now. The relevant exchanges should conduct the entire procedure and retain the investments of the users, delivering it to them eventually pardoning for the thing to begin with. The CEO and co-founder of Kolin platform, Felipe A. Millacura has the following to say about the situation.
The argument works just if centralized third parties with the power to freeze anyone’s accounts are involved. To be fair, the attack also affected a centralized intermediary.