obviously spin, but "partnership" doesn't bother me much. Partnership doesnt mean equal partners. Someone might have a business "partnership" with a warlord, that lets them live as long as you prive payments.
It still implies some sort of meeting of the minds. You wouldn't say you've entered a "partnership" with the IRS because you paid your taxes, nor a "partnership" with the police because they pulled you over and searched your car.
"I'm excited to work with the Philadelphia Police Department in our new partnership and am thankful they agreed to negotiate yet another meeting with the parole board after I helpfully divulge where I hid more of the remaining bodies."
Yes, they don't have any power. That doesn't prevent them from presenting it like they are eagerly collaborating. And why not? Nobody wants to piss off federal government or the Congress, it's better to show they love it.
Err.. except the environment they exist in - 'crypto' - tends to be full of anti-gov/3letteragency types, so you'd think this is a bad PR angle to take.
At a guess, I would say this is more flagging to their real customers that their funds aren't safu...
Don't confuse the reddit/twitter crowd with the businesses dealing with billions of dollars. The latter can not survive - or at least can not operate in any way that is connected to the US financial system or touching it in any form - if they don't play nice with regulators like OFAC. They could be all ancaps in the depths of their souls, but if they don't play nice, they'd end up in jail. It's not dependent in any way on their politics or the strength of their convictions - it's just how it is when you're dealing with the financial markets. You can be as anti-government as you want, but if you do what the regulators consider money laundering, either you stop it immediately when they tell you (or before), or you will get shut down. If they are not getting shut down, then they are likely cooperating, there's not much other options.
You missed my point. Just because it's in a statement that they made in no way means we need to interpret it as anything but a meaningless attempt to convey to the government they are more than cooperative.
Think about it... My fake example takes it to the extreme and portrays it as a serial killer sending a statement to the police department on how excited they are to help them find more of their victims' bodies. Obviously, it's not really a "partnership". Saying it's a partnership is just an attempt by the serial killer to reframe the situation in a way that implies civility and cooperative pursuit of mutual benefit. As if they are being employed by the police department. In reality, they are a serial killer withholding information in hopes of getting a chance at leniency. We are literally saying the same thing.
