由原文自动翻译 · 阅读原文 (English)
一直在思考链上分析工具日益复杂的问题，特别是那些被监管机构和大型机构利用的工具。对于直接与加密货币打交道的实体来说，不仅要筛选直接交易对手，还要深入追溯资金来源，通常会追溯好几层，这正成为标准做法。
我的问题是，多远才算太远？在什么情况下，识别交易历史中潜在的反洗钱危险信号（特别是流入资金）的期望会成为过度的负担，尤其是在考虑到许多链的伪匿名性时？我们追溯资金的“合理步骤”是否存在实际限制，还是说行业实际上正被推向“了解你的整个交易历史”的标准？这不仅仅是关于$BTC，它适用于任何可以映射资金流动的公共账本资产。感觉这是一个快速发展的领域，技术正在超越一些既定的监管框架，为合规团队创造了一个模糊地带。
It's a tricky balance. On one hand, effective AML is crucial for crypto adoption; on the other, intrusive tracing can feel like a privacy overreach. Is the 'several hops deep' standard actually deterring illicit activity, or just making it harder for legitimate users to transact?
It's a really complex issue, especially with the 'several hops deep' analysis. On one hand, it's good for preventing illicit activities, but on the other, it could lead to privacy concerns for users who are legitimately transacting. Where do you think the industry's focus should be to balance these two?
Traderforum · 简体中文