This looks like a bill releasing providers from any liability if they fuck up and lose all my money via engineering incompetence. Which they probably will, because history has repeatedly shown that crypto is total amateur hour.
No thanks. I'll be calling my rep to urge them to vote against this.
ronsor · 48m ago
The point of non-custodial wallets is that the developer does not have your private keys, so they don't control your funds. While it's possible for the software to have bugs, remember that almost all software is already provided AS IS WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, and that in no event with the authors be liable for any damages arising out of or related to its use.
Analemma_ · 30m ago
You're eliding the difference between software and a provider of financial services. My bank is absolutely liable if they fuck up and lose my money, and crypto entities should be as well.
OutOfHere · 33m ago
While that's true, even non-custodial wallet providers get a commission from swap providers, some of which have been said to steal money altogether. As per Reddit, an example of such a scamming swapper is Exolix. This makes it a responsibility of the wallet to not collude with scammers.
logicchains · 48m ago
>releasing providers from any liability if they fuck up and lose all my money via engineering incompetence
If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that steals their coins, they're the one at fault. How about trying to take some personal responsibility, instead of trying to get the full force of government to stop other people keeping custody of their own coins, just to protect yourself from potentially making a bad decision and installing a dodgy app? Edited to remove a personal attack
sapphicsnail · 34m ago
This sounds a bit like arguing that doctors shouldn't be liable for harming a patient. If you make a shady app you should be held responsible for losing your customers' money.
Edit:
I use grapheneos and I don't agree with google gate-keeping what people put on their phone. I just thinks crypto companies, like any company, should be held accountable for their actions.
logicchains · 28m ago
>This sounds a bit like arguing that doctors shouldn't be liable for harming a patient. If you make a shady app you should be held responsible for losing your customers' money.
That's not what the issue is; the issue is that Play Store would ban _any_ app allowing coin self-custody, even if the app isn't any way shady.
sapphicsnail · 15m ago
I'm not responding to the article I'm responding to this in the parent comment
> If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that steals their coins, they're the one at fault.
I don't agree with what google is doing. I think we should be able to download whatever we want on our phones. I think it's not a good take that the customer instead of the company, is the one that should be held responsible if a company fucks up.
blokey · 33m ago
Please don’t make such personal attacks, it doesn’t add to the conversation.
If you want to have a wallet app that is not backed by a company with a banking license, then could you not side load it?
We have basic minimum standards in our food safety, why not have them in our financial services?
You, as an expert in the field still can download any application you wish, but others that may not be an expert, are given some protection from potentially AI Slop apps that they wouldn’t understand are dangerous.
logicchains · 26m ago
>If you want to have a wallet app that is not backed by a company with a banking license, then could you not side load it?
If you haven't noticed, there's a concerted push to make side-loading harder and harder. Sure it's an option for now, but it's quite possible we're only a few years away from Google going the Apple route and the vast majority of mobile devices not supporting installing unapproved software.
lupusreal · 45m ago
It's kind of like when you fuck up and hire the wrong plumber and he tells his burglar friend about your huge TV and they break in to steal it a week later. That's your own fault, stop trying to get the government involved! Sheesh, I just don't understand why simple libertarian principles like this get people confused.
logicchains · 42m ago
>It's kind of like when you fuck up and hire the wrong plumber and he tells his burglar friend about your huge TV and they break in to steal it a week later. That's your own fault, stop trying to get the government involved! Sheesh, I just don't understand why simple libertarian principles like this get people confused.
That's a great example because the venue where the plumber posted his advertisement would not be liable for the plumber's actions.
wizzwizz4 · 36m ago
Not even if they knew, or should reasonably have known, that the plumber was doing this?
logicchains · 30m ago
Are you implying that any app that allows personal custody of cryptocurrency is a scam? Because that's not a reasonable assumption to make; the possibility of self-custody is one of the main arguments made for cryptocurrency.
monksy · 1h ago
This is yet more corporate/government overreach on devices that you're supposed to own.
Trying to prevent software from being available/installed that isn't even in the "legitimate harm" list. That's insane.
I could rant a lot about where we're in a really horrible you don't own your phone and other people believe they own it world, but that would be going off topic here. (I.e. business you go to the store is trying to force and pressure you to install apps.. i.e. sams club, or tours/businesses pushing you excessively to use whatsapp, etc )
p0w3n3d · 15m ago
Maybe it's time to start a phone that people can own, which inside will have a phone they they do not own but it's compliant with banking, govt, and other regulations
fsflover · 14m ago
It exists. Sent from my Librem 5.
msgodel · 40m ago
You'll be much happier if you just pretend smartphones don't exist and don't own one.
reorder9695 · 29m ago
Issue there is with e.g. 3DS for banking, tesco clubcard (read: extortion), TOTP
fsflover · 15m ago
Why would you do that if GNU/Linux smartphones exist? Sent from my Librem 5.
jrflowers · 7m ago
Because I hate it when my phone auto-appends the name of my device onto the ends of my messages
exabrial · 1h ago
Whatd be nice is to have litrally any other option besides google pay, as they refuse to run on Graphene
darth_avocado · 29m ago
Venmo doesn’t have a banking license afaik. Do they ban that? Do we start using the Starbucks app as a wallet?
Just because the keys reside on someone else's device, that doesn't mean you aren't responsible for their money when you control the code that is running.
No thanks. I'll be calling my rep to urge them to vote against this.
If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that steals their coins, they're the one at fault. How about trying to take some personal responsibility, instead of trying to get the full force of government to stop other people keeping custody of their own coins, just to protect yourself from potentially making a bad decision and installing a dodgy app? Edited to remove a personal attack
Edit: I use grapheneos and I don't agree with google gate-keeping what people put on their phone. I just thinks crypto companies, like any company, should be held accountable for their actions.
That's not what the issue is; the issue is that Play Store would ban _any_ app allowing coin self-custody, even if the app isn't any way shady.
> If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that steals their coins, they're the one at fault.
I don't agree with what google is doing. I think we should be able to download whatever we want on our phones. I think it's not a good take that the customer instead of the company, is the one that should be held responsible if a company fucks up.
If you want to have a wallet app that is not backed by a company with a banking license, then could you not side load it?
We have basic minimum standards in our food safety, why not have them in our financial services?
You, as an expert in the field still can download any application you wish, but others that may not be an expert, are given some protection from potentially AI Slop apps that they wouldn’t understand are dangerous.
If you haven't noticed, there's a concerted push to make side-loading harder and harder. Sure it's an option for now, but it's quite possible we're only a few years away from Google going the Apple route and the vast majority of mobile devices not supporting installing unapproved software.
That's a great example because the venue where the plumber posted his advertisement would not be liable for the plumber's actions.
Trying to prevent software from being available/installed that isn't even in the "legitimate harm" list. That's insane.
I could rant a lot about where we're in a really horrible you don't own your phone and other people believe they own it world, but that would be going off topic here. (I.e. business you go to the store is trying to force and pressure you to install apps.. i.e. sams club, or tours/businesses pushing you excessively to use whatsapp, etc )
> Venmo is a service of PayPal, Inc., a licensed provider of money transfer services (NMLS ID: 910457). All money transmission is provided by PayPal, Inc. pursuant to PayPal, Inc.’s licenses. © 2021 PayPal, Inc.
See also:
https://venmo.com/legal/us-licenses/