Coin On’s Response to Senate Criticism

03/19/2023 00:31 • Blockchain Buzz • 127 views

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, a popular cryptocurrency exchange, has come under fire after being accused of regulatory evasion by the Senate Banking Committee. In a letter sent to Coin On and Binance US on March 1st, three senators requested information on the alleged transfer of assets to criminals, as well as the hiding of financial information from customers and the public. The senators also requested information on the relationship between Coin Security and Binance US.

However, on March 16th, Coin On responded to the criticism by emphasizing that Coin On and its US branches were independent entities. While they did not provide much information, they did point out that they have a core and supporting compliance staff team of approximately 750 people, who include former regulatory and law enforcement officials.

Interestingly, it was reported that Qian An, the founder of Coin Security, did not mention financial issues in response to the Senate’s criticism. This raises questions about the nature of Coin On’s compliance processes and whether they are truly transparent and accountable.

It is clear that the Senate’s critique was meant to hold Coin On accountable for their regulatory practices. A lack of transparency in financial reporting and relationships with other entities suggests avoidance of regulations and possible illegal activity. However, Coin On’s response, although limited, suggests that they will not be easily swayed by outside pressure and will continue to operate independently.

In sum, Coin On’s response to the Senate’s critique appears to be defensive but does not conclusively address the accusations. This raises concerns about the nature of Coin On’s compliance with regulations and reinforces the importance of transparency in financial reporting.

This article and pictures are from the Internet and do not represent SipPop's position. If you infringe, please contact us to delete:https://www.sippop.com/5070.htm

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.

Coin On’s Response to Senate Criticism

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

Related recommendations