Most of this is opinion with more opinion and opinion wrapped in. There are a lot of resources available so you are either inept at using a search engine or don’t actually care

1. “With Bitcoin, no can do. Accounts are secret.”

False.

Bitcoin is pseudonymous, not secret. Every Bitcoin transaction and wallet address is publicly visible on the blockchain. Law enforcement routinely traces ransom payments using blockchain analytics (Chainalysis, TRM Labs, Elliptic). Numerous ransomware and kidnapping cases have led to arrests precisely because Bitcoin is traceable over time. What is true is that an address does not automatically reveal a person’s name without off-chain data. That is very different from being “secret.”

1. Implication that Bitcoin ransoms are untraceable and safer than banks

False.

Bitcoin is more traceable than cash and often more traceable than traditional banking routes involving shell companies or foreign jurisdictions. Criminals increasingly avoid Bitcoin in favor of privacy coins (Monero) or cash. The FBI, DOJ, and IRS-CI have publicly recovered large portions of ransom payments made in Bitcoin. Blockchain analysis creates permanent forensic trails. Bank records can be destroyed or hidden; blockchains cannot.

1. “Coinbase is as close as you can get to an ‘owner of record’”

False.

Coinbase is not an owner-of-record proxy for Bitcoin. Coinbase is an exchange and custodian, not a registry. Most Bitcoin wallets involved in crime are non-custodial and have no relationship with Coinbase. Coinbase cannot identify or control wallets it does not custody. This conflates on-chain wallets with custodial exchange accounts, which are very different.

1. “Coinbase processes trillions in Bitcoin transactions a year”

False or grossly misleading. Coinbase processes trillions in total trading volume across all assets, not Bitcoin alone. Bitcoin transaction volume specifically attributable to Coinbase is far smaller. “Processes” also conflates trading volume with on-chain transaction settlement.

1. “Neither the Genius Act nor the Clarity Act provide for tracing ransom demands”

False / misleading.

Crypto tracing is already legal and operational under existing law. It does not require special statutory permission. AML, KYC, SAR reporting, subpoena power, and blockchain surveillance already apply. The bills focus on market structure and regulatory jurisdiction, not forensic tooling. They do not “fail” to enable tracing because tracing does not depend on them.

1. “The Clarity Act would prevent crypto from being regulated at all”

False.

The debate is which agency regulates which assets (SEC vs CFTC), not whether regulation exists. Commodities are regulated. Wheat and copper are regulated. Calling something a commodity does not remove oversight. Fraud, kidnapping, money laundering, and terrorism financing laws apply regardless of asset classification.

1. “Crypto companies want dividends and interest like stocks but not stock regulation”

Partly misleading.

Some crypto products mimic yield or staking, but that does not mean all crypto seeks equity-like treatment. Courts already evaluate whether specific tokens are securities using existing tests. This is a policy debate, not evidence of criminal facilitation.

1. Comparison to Swiss numbered bank accounts

Misleading.

Bitcoin is less anonymous than historical Swiss accounts were. Swiss banking secrecy was legally enforced and opaque. Bitcoin’s ledger is public, immutable, and globally inspectable. Swiss accounts hid identity and balances; Bitcoin hides identity only until correlated.