So you respond with a thought-terminating cliche that does not even address my comment, and then when called out on it, you accuse me of insincerity and lack of breadth. Interesting tactic.
What are you talking about? I've addressed your comment twice now. First in a way I assumed you knew enough about crypto to understand, and second explaining that in more detail. I've "accused" you of ignorance, not insincerity.
Meanwhile what you've done is failed to read my comments properly and then attempt to insult me. Read them until you understand, and if you don't, ask questions. That's the spirit of discussion and learning I'm engaged in.
If you aren't, good luck with that, and I wish you the best.
Calling people ignorant while giving a barely concealed bitcoin talking point in response to something completely unrelated (you claimed KYC was harder for crypto, but can't explain why it is favored for those looking to avoid it) is not doing your part in a productive conversation.
It's not "favoured". Crypto use is a tiny subset of all financial activity criminal included. "Ignorant" is not intended as an insult, it's merely accurate. You appear not to know some things and I've tried to help with it.
Money laundering alone is estimated in the trillions per year according to the UN. This is significantly greater than the entire value of all privacy coins combined:
Eg, even if the entirety of Monero was purchased only for money laundering, it could only account for 0.1-0.2% of the total that occurs. Where is the other 99.8-99.9% being conducted? What systems are "facilitating" that?
Well, everything that isn't crypto... banks, cash, checks, etc.
