扶我起来敲代码
--
Can real-name payment for digital asset transactions really prevent first-level fraud?
The current currency dealers claim that they spare no effort in risk control, believing that their strict risk control standards will definitely not receive dirty money. But is this really the case?
The current risk control standards for dealers are: real-name verification, strict transaction history review, no deposits within half a month, risk warning letter, phone recording, and preservation of entire transaction records for filing. But are these useful? They are useful but ultimately useless; these risk control standards can prevent most second-hand and third-hand dirty money, but they cannot prevent first-hand dirty money.
They kept second-hand and third-hand dirty money outside of the risk control standards, only accepting first-hand dirty money, thus buying USDT on the exchange to transfer the first-hand dirty funds to retail investors, making retail investors pay the bill.
The current risk control standards for dealers are: real-name verification, strict transaction history review, no deposits within half a month, risk warning letter, phone recording, and preservation of entire transaction records for filing. But are these useful? They are useful but ultimately useless; these risk control standards can prevent most second-hand and third-hand dirty money, but they cannot prevent first-hand dirty money.
They kept second-hand and third-hand dirty money outside of the risk control standards, only accepting first-hand dirty money, thus buying USDT on the exchange to transfer the first-hand dirty funds to retail investors, making retail investors pay the bill.
Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No financial advice. May include sponsored content. See T&Cs.
0
0