Few people I respect more than Peter in this space, but I found his post to be fairly misdirected. Ill go through it one by one since a lot of people have asked. 1) bringing up that the PATRIOT Act already applies to digital assets via the BSA was imo unnecessary as a „clarification“, as the article mentions how the PATRIOT Act applies to money in the 2 or 3 paragraph I believe. This does not change that this would be the first rule under the Act to be tailored specifically to digital assets. 2) CoinCenter themselves stated in their comment that the rule would affect virtually any tx touching privacy - stating that its not „a ban“ is unnecessary for reasons explained above, as it would be a defacto one. 3) That the new admin doesnt want 311 applied as stated in the proposed rule is merely based on vibes. I hope this is true, but theres no public info to suggest this to my knowledge. Unfortunately, I cannot report on vibes. 4) again unnecessary imo as Gackis perspective was laid out in the article re making sure to only target illicit activity - I even updated the article with additional info on this after Peter‘s comment, but Gackis sentiment was included from the start, so not sure why he brought that up. 5) vibes, again 6) This was constructive feedback that I missed and updated after Peter‘s comment. Hope that helps.