<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Aml on Blockchaining.org</title>
    <link>https://blockchaining.org/tags/aml/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Aml on Blockchaining.org</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://blockchaining.org/tags/aml/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Mixers, Privacy, and the Limits of Pseudonymity in DeFi</title>
      <link>https://blockchaining.org/2026/04/21/mixers-privacy-and-the-limits-of-pseudonymity-in-defi/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blockchaining.org/2026/04/21/mixers-privacy-and-the-limits-of-pseudonymity-in-defi/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Every transaction on a public blockchain is permanently recorded and visible to anyone. Wallet addresses are pseudonymous — they are strings of alphanumeric characters with no obligatory link to a real identity — but pseudonymity is not anonymity. Governments and blockchain analytics firms have developed increasingly sophisticated methods for tracing transaction chains and linking addresses to individuals. Mixers exist to complicate that process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A mixer is an application that breaks the chain of custody between a sender&amp;rsquo;s wallet and a recipient&amp;rsquo;s. In a basic smart-contract-based mixer, a user deposits funds from one address into a contract pool, then withdraws the same amount to a different address. The connection between deposit and withdrawal is obscured — the output wallet has no traceable relationship to the input wallet. To improve effectiveness, mixers typically require deposits in standardized denominations and depend on a sufficient number of concurrent users to create a large enough pool that individual transactions cannot be easily disentangled.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The DeFi Regulatory Gap and What Congress Is Doing About It</title>
      <link>https://blockchaining.org/2026/04/21/the-defi-regulatory-gap-and-what-congress-is-doing-about-it/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blockchaining.org/2026/04/21/the-defi-regulatory-gap-and-what-congress-is-doing-about-it/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Decentralized finance has operated for years in a regulatory environment that is, by any honest assessment, unresolved. No overarching legislative or regulatory framework specifically governs defi. Existing laws — the Bank Secrecy Act, securities statutes, commodities regulations — were written before the technology existed and have been applied to it through guidance, enforcement actions, and legal interpretations that have shifted substantially depending on the administration in office.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network established in 2019 guidance that money transmitter regulations apply to decentralized applications when those apps perform money transmission, stating that the rules apply &amp;ldquo;regardless of label.&amp;rdquo; A small number of defi entities have registered with any federal regulator, and Treasury acknowledged in a 2023 report that there is likely limited compliance with BSA/AML requirements across the sector. The gap between stated regulatory obligation and actual compliance is not ambiguous — it is documented.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
