This part is a turning point in human history

its the "ba" of the karaba system

I work in banking on payment project implementations. The sanctions team need to screen every piece of information we get.
We want end customers to be 100% certain they're sending the money to the right person and not getting scammed so for many payments we show the legal name of the recipient.
The fraud team need to assess how frequently you're making payments to determine if you're circumventing regulatory reporting thresholds or showing signs of drug dealing or human trafficking. (These are government mandated monitoring standards that we get fined for not following).
There's a reputational monitoring team that checks news stories against our client list to ensure we cut ties with people caught for crimes or behaviour with which we otherwise don't want to be associated.
The bank itself wants all payments through our systems so we can reap the relevant fees.
Other businesses want the data associated with your buying history.

What's the impetus for this model to be implemented? I'm up for the discussion, but I'm not following the common use case.

Yes, for node payments.
How does that change what I said?

Anon, this system is literally called "proof of identity".
There's privacy from random third parties, which is needed because on-chain means the data tends to be exposed.
But the parties who are actually involved have literal on-chain proof of identity of the relevant people.

I am a retard that cannot abstract his thinking beyond programming, but tell me, how would this play (DECO) into preventing government censorship when it comes to wrongthink or protests like the canadian truck drivers?

Institutional Vendor A holds a digital asset.
Institutional Buyer B wants to buy that asset.
Both A and B want to be sure that their counterparty isn’t on a sanctions list.
Now A and B can prove that to each other with a cryptographic attestation showing that they are not sanctioned.

This if essentially a box checking exercise as part of the asset’s life cycle that can ensure that it is never traded by sanctioned entities. It’s part of a much more general vision of digital assets that can travel through the custody of any institution, while carrying live data with them wherever they go. Ownership history, price, NAV, will all be conjoined to the digital asset itself, so any buyer will have very clear information about the nature, history and conditions of the asset.

The sanctions team

This makes that entire team redundant. It does their job in a 100% reliable way which doesn't involve sharing any private data.
Are you starting to see how big this is?

from my understanding
it basically lets you check for things that the sanction team would look for without revealing who they are looking for or what they are looking for
neither do they now why they are checking for it
it basically asking something like
is X true for client A for transaction B
X, A and B is all unkown the contract but the outcome verifiable true
gives more privacy and automates the process so you don’t even need a sanction team

kek, sanctions team not needed

This one was written in the correct newspeak for my corporate addled mind.
I've done a couple projects in the sanctions space, when it comes to physical shipment they're often of values greater than either the seller or buyer can afford to guarantee, so they use banks, and that also offloads the sanctions requirements onto us.
For physical sanctions there's knowing the parties involved and also checking all vessel names, their routes for sanctioned nations, their manifests for sanctioned goods... We literally have to receive the physical shipping manifests and other documents by courier.
As if that is some guarantee that the physical documents are tamper free and accurately assessed at each stop.

This sounds like a great use case for digital sanctions checking, those manifests can contain serious data leak risks that can lead straight into insider trading risks.
We already have automated systems for OCRing all sanctions docs, the team exists for when there's a hit that requires investigation. Sometimes things are valid hits but acceptable within current international agreements for the goods type or quantity or if it's going to a specific type of entity. If they could be automated entirely on my world, we'd already have done it. In ignorance of digital asset regulatory standards, though, I'm happy you've got that path forward.
Vaguely related concept, Depending on operating region, all financial entities need to keep all transaction records for a set number of years in case of government inquiry. An entity of always on the hook legally.
Same answer as above

If they could be automated entirely on my world, we'd already have done it.

You're right, they already did it. It's

Anon; there WILL be no more sanctions team. Thats the point. The whole common use case is making redundant all these human tasks which you need to do to fulfil what your present legal obligations for sanctions screening are.

For physical sanctions there's knowing the parties involved and also checking all vessel names, their routes for sanctioned nations, their manifests for sanctioned goods... We literally have to receive the physical shipping manifests and other documents by courier.

As if that is some guarantee that the physical documents are tamper free and accurately assessed at each stop.
Yes. These things will be digitalized and tokenized - the blockchain provides a cryptographic proof that they are not tampered with. Its literarlly more secure than a wage cuck at a bank looking at the physical document and saying "its authentic". It cannot be tampered with. Proof > trust

This part is a turning point in human history.

-4.43%

The problem with Chainlink is it's too complex. Complexity sucks. Complexity makes things 1000x harder than they need to be. And that's what Chainlink does. Makes things worse. Makes them harder. It's a simple fact.

Sergey also needs to slow down when he speaks. It's too fast and makes me lose concentration. Too much words.

Man I'm wiped atm. Above I was talking about international trade sanctions specifically, sorry. Also phone posting.
I'll get more general on cross border payments now.
It misses the obligations of financial institutions to maintain records for X years and the obligation to assess for customer and product limits (though this is now getting into fraud checking territory department wise) (checking if they're putting through 50 lower value transactions to avoid threshold alert triggers for instance).
If all this does is check the watch lists, our systems do that automatically now. The only entity privy is the bank.
The sanctions system grabs the latest watchlists and just does it's thing on every payment processed. Both banks have an obligation to do their own sanctions check, and in some specific weird cases a payment might be checked in two different parts of the payment lifecycle to ensure no one and nothing that triggers hits has been added to the lists between when processing started and when settlement and posting to accounts occurs.

Its literarlly more secure than a wage cuck at a bank

Agreed. I wince when I think of the physical chain of custody when it comes to trade sanctions, because it's not just the team having to scan in physical manifests for OCR. There's the guy at port authority checking weights and quantity of containers. Those guys getting bought off is a real problem, but a tamper proof ledger, while helpful, doesn't stop them lying about the contents or quantities if both companies involved are in cahoots.

Now if it became the accepted international standard, e.g. if SWIFT said fuck you, it's this or you're not using the network, that'd be cool.

Still not really getting the value for the actual payments environment though.
It's already automated for hits on watchlist, of no hit it's straight through processing. If hit, payment is held and investigated, which we do to see if we want to offboard them.

Wow that sounds amazing let me just check the pri…ACK

a tamper proof ledger, while helpful, doesn't stop them lying

The point of an immutable ledger isn't necessarily to stop people from lying, it's to make the lies more easily traceable, and to stop liars from covering up the lies.

im so tired i cant even think straight but boy do i want to debate this on an obscure alaskan ice fishing board

...

misses the obligations of financial institutions to maintain records for X years

blockchains store data for network life

the obligation to assess for customer and product limits

isnt this carried out by the sc as a prerequisite for contract deployment?

We'll never turn down an extra control layer if the implementation price is right. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to provide tangible benefit.
Though, again, we already have fully audit trailed automatic sanctions systems for payments.
So if the pitch is just 'it's that but for digital assets', cool. I don't know if those assets fall under the same regulations, the're not of interest to the banks in the current ecosystem.
After overheads, every bank is pulling billions in profit each. For an alternative system to be adopted by the bank there needs to be a benefit to the bank, and overhauling existing systems is a nightmare. Just uplifting one tiny product type to ISO20022 standard takes a couple years.
And we control the market, we are the consumer savings vehicle, we are every payment between employer and employee, we are every payment between business and supplier.

And we are beholden to an endless amount of government regulation.
Bypass the banks and you're just dealing with all those regulations yourself, which change at least once a year so there's endless projects to meet them.
Let's say a crypto became the new standard of payment, it's going to have all the same legal expectations applied to it.
They'll be in a nice position for green fields project implementation (not seeking with the baggage of 30 year old systems and databases) but that's an insane amount of outlay cost to build all that infrastructure.

It makes the sanctions team unnecessary just like it makes manual verification of all 'proof' paperwork (proof-of-income, proof-of-insurance, proof-of-ownership, etc) unnecessary. It is now totally retarded for people to stand in line at the DMV with a folder full of proof documents which then have to be manually inspected and verified.

We already have automated systems for OCRing all sanctions docs

yes but those aren't privat i asume? i thought the point of deco is to make it impossible to tell for 3rd parties what is going on

the team exists for when there's a hit that requires investigation

i think you could still have a team that looks into things if something is wrong but you just unlock the specific thing without revealing more than necessary

all financial entities need to keep all transaction records for a set number of years in case of government inquiry. An entity of always on the hook legally

same thing as above the information is saved on a blockchain but cannot be read unless the oracles(banks) agree to unlock it to reveal what the transaction was about
a single oracle in the deco network cannot access the data it is verifying nor do they know what they are verifying
but once something is wrong a state institution with the legal rights to do so could still order the keyholders of the contract and the oracle to reveal the data
so it's all saved and ready to be inspected

im so tired i cant even think straight but boy do i want to debate this on an obscure alaskan ice fishing board

Kek, accurate.
I expect my disconnect is just in what the use case is. I know payments, I know direct debit contracts, I don't know smart contacts.
Banks can't offload their 'know your customer' obligations to a service, they can leverage services but someone at the back is always accountable. If a system fails, we get fucked by the regulator, not AWS or whatever vendor of whatever product we use.
I'm in a boomer world, so I'm sure I'm missing the point. I don't know if any clients looking to hide their transactions from the bank with legal reason, the bank doesn't disclose any information without a court order or similar legal obligation, and the people who resolve hits, like sanctions, are highly vetted and have to be in office (lol) on high security floors.

It must just not have much in common with payments, and I had been assuming it was a direct analog.

we already have fully audit trailed automatic sanctions systems for payments

There are "fully audited automatic systems" for a lot of things lol
But apparently every financial institution on the planet believes tokenization/DLT will vastly improve things.

You're trying way too hard, you know that right?

To do what? I expect you're confused.

I know I was confused on the pitch.
I should have reread this post. Addr3ssing a vulnerability in exposed data on chain. I follow the use case more now.
I heard sanctions and got too deep into my own head on sanctions standards for payments.
If it's just proof of due diligence, that makes sense

how the fuck are countries getting around sanctions if there is a team to investigate this shit?

Why creates and controls the list if not centralized authorities?
What even is this braindead drivel?

Except that your tokens are held one only one specific chain

ransoms your web footprint on the dark web

didn't td bank just pay like 3 billion for enabling laundering?

Why creates

held one only one

didn't td bank

holy shit stop posting, druggie