Shapeshift CEO Responds to Wall Street Journal Laundering Claims

reporters at the wall street journal wrote “how dirty money disappeared into the black hole of cryptocurrency”, a published product from months of investigative journalism liking Shapeshift with money laundering. The company’s CEO, Erik Voorhees, says that the info was obtained in a misleading way.
Director Eric Voorhees earned much of the world ‘s credibility in the crypto space .his company has lived half of the entire life in the entire cryptosphere. If there were a relative outsider/insider of cryptocurrency, an ambassador of sorts for the decentralized digital money revolution, it’s safe to write Mr. Voorhees would make many top ten lists, and Shapeshift is his most notable contribution alongside Bitinstant, Coinapult, and Satoshidice. “Shining Light on WSJ’s Attack on Shapeshift and Crypto”’ is the answer of the hardened investor to the Wall Street Journal.
That aside, he and the exchange believe the WSJ produced a pure hit piece, gaining trust over 5 months only to omit relevant information, overlooked the chance to prevent potential illicit activity, ultimately proving the reporters do not have a sufficient understanding of blockchains and our platform in particular, Mr. Voorhees insists.
It has not been a wonderful public relations experience for a veteran company. At the beginning of September, Non-custodial crypto trading platform Shapeshift has introduced a membership program which will soon be mandatory. To make any exchange, they will have to begin collecting basic personal information of its users, and there will be five membership levels. The move was met with disdain in the crypto space. .to then get more flack from the institutional side of finance at roughly the same time probably is not in the company needs now.
“The WSJ reporters reached out to us months ago,” Mr. Voorhees details, “they asked for a friendly support of the crypto industry on a piece”. Over a period of five months, we were open and accommodating of their questions while in contrast they misrepresented their intentions until very recently, further complaining. they included not a single statement from those lengthy discussions, preferring instead to include out-of-context remarks I’d made elsewhere. WSJ had another agenda.
For any solid investigative piece, there is statistical information that should be used. The executive director takes on the journalists usage of basic facts, and unfortunately that they neglected relevant context and meaning of it. One claim was about $ 9 million being laundered through the service.
“Even if it was true, it is 0.15% of Shapeshift’s exchange volume during the described time period; We have a strong record of complying with law-enforcement requests […]; We work with other exchanges on an almost-daily basis to identify and block thieves and criminals, through a self-policing group Shapeshift created to protect the users and industry; We block entire countries on the sanctions lists; We have an internal anti-money laundering program that uses blockchain forensics that are far more advanced (and we would argue, effective) than asking someone for their name and address; We blacklist suspicious addresses upon learning of them”, he outlines. There is no mention of this in the WSJ article.
perhaps the most frustrating problem for anyone is to explain the basics of crypto. If journalists miss those essentials, it can be devastating. “and the WSJ reporters seem to have confused how the platform functions” Mr. Voorhees stress. “Based on our own analysis of the transactions cited in the article, the WSJ erroneously attributed vast sums of allegedly illicit transactions to Shapeshift in a way that exhibits a profound failure to grasp how blockchains, in general, and our system in particular, really works”.He lists three fairly normal examples of how the shapeshift allegedly laundered money: “In other words, $600 of suspicious funds were sent to an exchange that wasn’t Shapeshift. Because Shapeshift happens to be a customer of this same exchange – 10 months later in a completely unrelated transaction – the exchange sent funds to Shapeshift. The authors didn’t understand how to properly read the blockchain transactions, so they assumed there was $70k in ‘dirty money’ sent to Shapeshift. Allegation: $70,000 laundered by Shapeshift; Reality: $0 laundered by Shapeshift.”.
In truth, good journalism goes to the roots and send those under the microscope. But good journalism must be charged and authors of investigative reports have a duty to continue to offer readers the chance to be closer to the indicates truths .”We asked the WSJ to send us the specific transaction ID’s […] As of this writing, the WSJ has been unwilling or unable to send the requested transaction data necessary […].”

Related posts
cryptocurrencyDOGEdogecoinDOGEUSDElon MuskNews

More Than Just A ‘Joke Coin’: Elon Musk Reveals How He Feels About Dogecoin

For a long time, DOGE skeptics have wondered what Billionaire Elon Musk found promising about the meme-asset. And as if the Tesla CEO set out to answer their questions today, he disclosed in a very recent tweet, why he believes…
Bank of EnglandBitcoin NewsbtcusdBTCUSDCBTCUSDTcryptocurrencyCryptocurrency NewsNewsxbtusd

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey is Giving Crypto a Thumbs Down — Here’s Why

The Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, at the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland; on Thursday, passed a vote of no confidence on cryptocurrencies, stating that investors must get ready to suffer total investment losses eventually. “Bitcoin has no…
cryptocurrencyDOGEdogecoinDOGEUSDElon MuskNews

Be Careful! Elon Musk Warns As Dogecoin Soars On SNL Eve

In the warm-up to a special Saturday Night Live Edition featuring the self-acclaimed billionaire dogefather, Elon Musk, Dogecoin (DOGE) has recorded tremendous speculative success and is currently sprinting past the $0.6 mark in a bid to cross the $1 epic…