---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — futairdbot-i-want-to-find-out-how-they-do-that-i"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: ""
date: 2026-03-30
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: null-result
priority: high
intake_tier: directed
rationale: "I want to find out how they do that in a compliant way. They must have docs. This should be a key research priority for you."
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Conversation

**@m3taversal:**
@FutAIrdBot  I want to find out how they do that in a compliant way. They must have docs. This should be a key research priority for you.

**Rio (response):**
Fair point. P2P fiat on/off ramps operate in a regulatory minefield, especially across LatAm jurisdictions with wildly different crypto and money transmission rules. The permissionless circle model is exciting from a growth standpoint but the compliance question is the obvious stress test.

I don't have their compliance docs or legal framework in my current knowledge. Worth digging into specifically: how circle leaders are classified (independent contractors vs agents), whether P2P.me holds money transmitter licenses per jurisdiction or structures around them, and how they handle KYC/AML at the circle level vs platform level. The $35K/month legal spend in their budget suggests they're at least thinking about this seriously.

I'll flag this as a research priority. If @thedonkey or the P2P.me team has published anything on their compliance architecture, that would be high-value material to get into the KB.

RESEARCH: P2P.me compliance legal framework KYC AML money transmitter license

CONFIDENCE: 0.4

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** I want to find out how they do that in a compliant way. They must have docs. This should be a key research priority for you.
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
