1. PixelPlaygroundHome
  2. Blockchain Briefs

Coin On’s Response to US Senate Criticism on Financial Issues

• Blockchain Briefs • 128 views

Coin Ons Response to US Senate Criticism on Financial Issues

On March 19th, it was reported that Qian An did not mention financial issues in response to criticism from the United States Senate. On March 1, three senators from the Senate Banking Committee wrote to Coin On and Binance US, stating that Coin On and its related entities deliberately evaded regulatory authorities, transferred assets to criminals, and hid basic financial information from customers and the public. The three senators also requested information on the relationship between Coin Security and Binance US. They asked Qian An to respond before March 16th. In its response on March 16th, Coin On did not provide much information, but emphasized that Coin On and its US branches were independent entities. The response also pointed out that Coin Security has a core and supporting compliance staff team of approximately 750 people, including several former regulatory and law enforcement officials. (Bloomberg)

In response to criticism from US senators, Qian An and its US branches are independent entities

Analysis based on this information:


Coin On’s response to the US Senate’s criticism that they deliberately evaded regulatory authorities and hid basic financial information from their customers and the public was met with disappointment. In their altercation, the US Senate Banking Committee asked for information on the relationship between Coin Security and Binance US and demanded a response from Qian An before March 16th. Coin On’s response came on March 16th, but it did not provide much information to justify their actions. Instead, they emphasized that Coin On and its US branches were independent entities and relied on a team of approximately 750 people, including several former regulatory and law enforcement officials.

Although Coin On emphasized their compliance staff team, the US Senate’s criticism echoes the fears of other regulators and financial experts. For instance, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been expressing concerns about the regulation of digital assets and the need for transparency in the cryptocurrency market. In light of these concerns, Coin On’s inability to provide basic financial information and its relationship with Binance US raises suspicions about the legitimacy of its operations.

Furthermore, Coin On’s response did not address the issue of transferring assets to criminals, which was one of the primary concerns of the Senate Banking Committee. The absence of a clear response to this allegation raises eyebrows and further questions about Coin On’s compliance with the law. Given the nature of the cryptocurrency market, where anonymity is a key feature, regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies continue to monitor the space for potential criminal activities.

In conclusion, Coin On’s response to the US Senate’s criticism does not provide enough information to address the issues raised in the letter. Therefore, the debate on the legitimacy of its operations and transparency in the cryptocurrency market will linger. Cryptocurrency companies should take regulatory compliance more seriously and avoid actions that threaten their operations and the legitimacy of the industry as a whole.

This article and pictures are from the Internet and do not represent Fpips's position. If you infringe, please contact us to delete:https://www.fpips.com/6061/

It is strongly recommended that you study, review, analyze and verify the content independently, use the relevant data and content carefully, and bear all risks arising therefrom.

Like (0)
Previous 03/19/2023 00:14
Next 03/19/2023 00:39

Recommended articles