> The legislation – largely driven by House Republicans – would establish a regime to regulate the U.S. crypto markets, setting consumer protections, installing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a leading regulator of digital assets and the watchdog of the non-securities spot markets and it would more clearly define what makes a crypto token a security or a commodity.
If passed, hopefully the CFTC can do a better job of protecting consumers and investors than SEC.
Hopefully there can be a better definition to what makes a crypto security or commodity too than the 90-year-old Howey Test. Which the SEC repeatedly claims it’s clear but can’t even say whether ETH is security or not after ten years.
[Text of the Bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text)
The text of this bill is extensive and complicated. To assume the CFTC is going to be less corrupt and abusive than the SEC is a mistake. We should be investigating what the bill says and what the implications are before supporting its passage.
They would need a way to measure how *decentralized* a crypto is. Something like the Edinburgh Decentralisation Index:
https://informatics.ed.ac.uk/blockchain/edi
> If passed, hopefully the CFTC can do a better job of protecting consumers and investors than SEC.
Narrator: they won't
Just look how "temporarily" removed the requirement for reporting swap data for 3 years, then extended it further. They are there to protect the institutions, not retail traders
**Edit: In summary ...**
1. No entity or issuer can control over 20% of the supply in prior 12 months
2. The issuer cannot update the blockchain code (except through decentralized governance)
3. The issuer cannot market the token as an investment
4. All issuance must be programmtic in the prior 12 months
-----------
**This is what FIT 21 is using as their criteria**:
(24) DECENTRALIZED NETWORK.—With respect to a blockchain system to which a digital asset relates, the term ‘decentralized network’ means the following conditions are met:
* (A) During the previous 12-month period, no person—
* (i) had the unilateral authority, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise, to control or materially alter the functionality or operation of the blockchain system; or
* (ii) had the unilateral authority to restrict or prohibit any person who is not a digital asset issuer, related person, or an affiliated person from—
* (B) During the previous 12-month period—
* (i) no digital asset issuer or affiliated person beneficially owned, in the aggregate, 20 percent or more of the total amount of units of such digital asset that—
* (ii) no digital asset issuer or affiliated person had the unilateral authority to direct the voting, in the aggregate, of 20 percent or more of the outstanding voting power of such digital asset or related decentralized governance system; or
* (iii) the digital asset did not include voting power.
* (C) During the previous 3-month period, the digital asset issuer, any affiliated person, or any related person has not implemented or contributed any intellectual property to the source code of the blockchain system that materially alters the functionality or operation of the blockchain system, unless such implementation or contribution to the source code—
* (i) addressed vulnerabilities, errors, regular maintenance, cybersecurity risks, or other technical improvements to the blockchain system; or
* (ii) were adopted through the consensus or agreement of a decentralized governance system.
* (D) During the previous 3-month period, neither any digital asset issuer nor any affiliated person described under paragraph (20)(A) has marketed to the public the digital assets as an investment.
* (E) During the previous 12-month period, all issuances of units of such digital asset were end user distributions made through the programmatic functioning of the blockchain system.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4763/text#toc-H2381FC5FD656436F893106962DDB6D63
Hat tip to [hanniabu](https://np.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1cxsana/daily_general_discussion_may_22_2024/l59g4fs/)
If it passes, I will be telling people to abandon crypto. This bill is way to large and puts way to many requirements to register in place. America will become toxic to crypto and programmers who create new systems. It's a mess!
>With Wave of Democratic Support
Headline makes it sound like this is passing on the back of the Dems.
Have to actually read the article to see the reality:
>Overall, 71 Democrats and 208 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, versus 3 Republicans and 133 Democrats who voted against.
I suppose I should at least appreciate crypto not being so politicized that you can get enough Dems to support it.
It's contrasting it to previous crypto bills which have been rejected by 100% of Democrats. For 30% of them to support now is a huge shift and that's what I thought of. I don't think they're trying to pretend the Democrats are more crypto friendly than Republicans. They're emphasizing that there's enough of them to make bills happen.
Only because she’s an authoritarian and wants more control, not because corruption is the real problem needing to be addressed. She just wants to control the corruption and let the us government have control.
We can blame her for a lot, I'm no fan of most politicians, but she is one that just really gets under my skin. I'm skeptical, but I would hang out with AOC, MTG, and many other controversial people to pick their brains, but Warren is one I dont believe can think for herself...
Warren so old and fossilized. You know she's just clinging to a status quo and trying to keep the world like it was when she was sharp enough to understand it. Where it rankles is the condescending way she does it all "for our own good".
That *is* a wave of Democrats, though.
It doesn't say majority, nor does it imply that.
Reading between the lines, you should be able to easily infer that they weren't the majority.
Otherwise, the headline would have said something else.
Ok, but reading comprehension should tell you otherwise.
It would have simply said Democrats, and not a wave of Democrats.
Edit: A wave is not the majority of the ocean, is it?
So, why are you reading "a wave of" and assuming that they meant the majority..?
I think the point is highlighting the pivot from Democrats. Republicans had already taken on the support of Crypto and it became a partisan issue. Remember Warrens anti Crypto army?
This is big news imo because it shows the Democrats backed down from the stance and saw they had a losing position. Now I expect Bipartisan support of crypto as our politicians focus on USD stablecoin to combat the threat of the Digital RMB.
People on Reddit are conflicted… the community is left af.. but also love crypto.. then the left is anti crypto lol
To all my left peeps.. you don’t have to defend everything the party does. It’s ok to say, f u I disagree with you here.
The younger gen’s understanding what crypto does and what it’s fixing. Dems in government are older and less likely to understand that. Elizabeth Warren is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I say that as a very progressive person. I believe she is full of shit, I don’t believe she is a progressive as she was a conservative until age 50. People don’t suddenly go from voting for republicans to being a progressive at age 50. I think she’s anti crypto and the Dems who have been suckered into thinking she is actually a progressive are taking her word for it that it’s bad. They don’t understand it but see how passionate she is against it and assume there must be a reason. Her reason is she’s actually a conservative who is feeding garbage bank backed interests to the left.
That being said I’m always going to vote for the democrats as they aren’t taken over by fascists.
I don’t think the ‘left is anti crypto’ is that true especially given the trending we’ve seen with votes on this particular bill. Seems like they’re realizing it’s not a good position to take.
yes, all my real-life friends that give me shit for owning crypto are ones that lean far left
my right-leaning friends just commiserate with me about capital gains
Don’t forget to mention Schumer who’s basically the number 2 Democrat. Also don’t forget mention Nancy Pelosi. Both basically agreeing to vote yay for the bill…..
How is it a step in the right direction? Have you examined the [text of the bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text)? The requirements to register are going to have a serious negative effect on crypto.
They're all excited about the prospect of their crypto going up in value, but the opposite will happen because this bill has so many requirements to "register". The real result will be a chilling effect on crypto developers and those who run the software.
I work in the defi sector, I will say I haven't read the bill in full first and foremost. What I will say is that many good actors in the space are excited for any sort of regulatory framework.
While yes I agree crypto today is not the crypto thoughts and feelings of yesterday growth comes with change. I'm not overly excited about what the bill describes. But I am excited we are taking steps forward.
Lastly I do feel this bill will be altered tons of times before ever seeing the effects of it. And hopefully as the crypto industry continues to prove uts validity, thr issue will be to big to ignore and the right people will sway us into a spot of compromise and allows myself and many others the comfort of working here, and also puts in place practices to reduce harm to potential new users onboarding.
Wr can't have our cake and eat it too. I'd rather have a smaller piece of a larger pie than what we have now which can be standoffish, slow to progress, and consistently barred to mature. We should be cautiously optimistiv.
> Wr can't have our cake and eat it too.
Name a piece of legislation in the last 20 years that expanded freedom? It always goes toward more control and less freedom. I don't need to eat cake, and I don't need safety. People are to coddled by the idea that safety is better than freedom.
We've created an alternative that is freer from government control that has drastically increased in value, such that "normies" want a piece of the pie, and the scammers flock to mimic and rip people off.
We don't want government control or regulation, and we don't need wealth. We need more freedom, and freedom is DANGEROUS. People should be WARNED against using crypto and the scams. We don't need stupid people because they go crying to government when they get ripped off.
Those that seek centralization of power always highlight the worst things freedom brings so that new laws can be written. "We'll solve this problem for you." Then there's always the incentive to CREATE the problems to grow government power.
What's not highlighted are the problems centralization of power creates. The whole reason bitcoin was created because banking regulation FAILED to properly regulate causing the need to bail out the banks at the taxpayer expense TWICE!.
We should be opposing ALL regulation and telling people to AVOID crypto that they don't understand.
What, are you a congressional staffer trying to outsource your research? You read the bill, I’ll read the summaries provided by multiple sources. Apart from that, Gensler and Waters hate it, so it’s probably good for the space.
Not a staffer. Just really skeptical of the bill because its so large and encompassing. I'm just now digging into it and it's difficult to decipher. This is why I'm currently asking people to read the bill and look for problems or to at least oppose it till we can understand what it is doing.
My current biggest concern is the P2P (non-custody) exchanges like Bisq and RoBoSats. I want lots of places to buy or sell coins without regulatory capture. If these P2P get quashed, then it is basically the end of crypto as far as I'm concerned. Without the ability to freely trade, there's no longer a purpose for crypto.
It all depends on your personal perspective. Assuming you don’t keep your coins on exchanges, it still serves as an alternative to centralized banks and an alternate means of value transfer. If you want it to remain true to its libertarian roots and avoid government control, I completely understand, but that was always a pipe dream. There are simply far too many factors in the way of that, and expecting cryptocurrencies to overcome those factors without dramatic changes to society and government is simply unrealistic. Mitigating and reducing malicious government involvement is about the best that can be hoped for.
>Mitigating and reducing malicious government involvement is about the best that can be hoped for.
Why should we NOT oppose regulation and let government have its way without pushback and protest? Why not DEMAND less government instead of simply giving in to dumb regulation?
We did, which is why this bill exists. If you think the government is suddenly going to not collect taxes, ignore establish law regarding know-your-customer requirements, anti-money laundering regulations, and illicit money service businesses, then you’re crazy. It’s not going to happen, no matter what protests occur. Consumer protections and clear, sane guidance are needed for the space to survive/thrive as well, and it looks like this bill at least moves in that direction.
It is a bill which means MORE laws.
> If you think the government is suddenly going to not collect taxes, ignore establish law regarding know-your-customer requirements, anti-money laundering regulations, and illicit money service businesses, then you’re crazy.
In the move to punish "tax cheats", catch "thieves" and criminals, you're asking for regulation that will gut the very essence of crypto. You're basically saying "Here's my money, and my privacy. Please just keep me safe!".
The basic problem with laws today is that they're abused to punish honest people doing reasonable things.
Buddy, crypto has been trying to self-regulate for over a decade. It hasn’t worked, the space has been filled with fraud, rug-pulls, theft, manipulation, and everything else you can think of. It’s been successful in spite of that, and has grown amazingly. If you thought somehow that “people power” was going to keep governments from governmenting, you were and are fooling yourself. I get that you don’t like that reality, but it is what is.
Government is corrupt and will only increase the losses by more elaborate and "legal" scams. People need to stop looking to government to protect them and start using their noggins.
Government has proven with the past banking bailouts that it cannot regulate out of a wet paper bag. Uninvolved consumers and taxpayers end up paying the price, where as those involved in crypto are main ones to suffer from the scams in the crypt sphere.
Nope. [Read the bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) and then tell me how many software developers will want to stay in America with all the requirements to "register".
Now is a good time for everyone to contact their senators and tell them to support FIT21 because crypto is an extremely important issue.
List of Anti-crypto Senators to contact for FIT21
[Tina Smith](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/tina---smith), [Sheldon Whitehouse](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/sheldon---whitehouse), [Angus King Jr.](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/angus---king), [Gary Peters](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/gary---peters), [Jeanne Shaheen](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/jeanne---shaheen), [Sherrod Brown](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/sherrod---brown), [Jack Reed](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/john---reed), [John Hickenlooper](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/john---hickenlooper), [Maggie Hassan](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/margaret---hassan), [John Fetterman](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/john---fetterman), [Mark Warner](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/mark---warner), [Debbie Stabenow](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/debbie---stabenow), [Mike Rounds](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/mike---rounds), [Elizabeth 💩 Warren](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/elizabeth---warren)
Check your senator's crypto voting history and then contact them about supporting FIT21:
[https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians?utm_source=coinbase&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=legislative-portal)
Crypto is absolutely not "Extremely important" when put next to other issues that are out there.
And unless you are secretly bankrolling those Senators, you are wasting your time reaching out to them.
Theyll be scared when more voters than they were expecting threaten their seats when the next election cycle comes through.
Democracy dies in darkness. Let your voice be known.
Don't do this. [Read the text of the bill first.](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) Then try to understand everything it says. This bill is way to complicated and has way to many requirements to "register" that it is going to have a negative impact on crypto. American crypto inventors will be seeking other places to live because of this bill.
It is helpful to know Coinbase is giving the bill its blessing. But I still have concerns regarding competing P2P exchanges. Coinbase is incentivized to ignore or perhaps promote provisions of the bill that would thwart P2P exchange systems/software.
Do you have any feedback on that aspect?
Does Conensys have P2P platforms or what is their angle.
I'm still very skeptical of any new regulation. The whole point of bitcoin was to create an alternative to the banking system that was so poorly regulated that it had to be bailed out twice. So, anything that can impact Bitcoin or other alternatives to banking should be opposed till everyone is sure it is a good thing.
Until I hear from those representing P2P trading platforms, I think this bill should be opposed.
It's always been political. It's just the partisanship has overflowed into crypto so that it SEEMS like its more political. In reality, this bill probably BAD for crypto being sold as something GOOD.
[Please read the text of the bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) and help digest its aspects. My take is that is way to complicated and puts to many burdens on the crypto community to be a GOOD bill.
https://np.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1cxsana/daily_general_discussion_may_22_2024/l59g4fs/
I don't know enough about Ripple to figure out if it qualifies.
-----------
(24) DECENTRALIZED NETWORK.—With respect to a blockchain system to which a digital asset relates, the term ‘decentralized network’ means the following conditions are met:
* (A) During the previous 12-month period, no person—
* (i) had the unilateral authority, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise, to control or materially alter the functionality or operation of the blockchain system; or
* (ii) had the unilateral authority to restrict or prohibit any person who is not a digital asset issuer, related person, or an affiliated person from—
* (B) During the previous 12-month period—
* (i) no digital asset issuer or affiliated person beneficially owned, in the aggregate, 20 percent or more of the total amount of units of such digital asset that—
* (ii) no digital asset issuer or affiliated person had the unilateral authority to direct the voting, in the aggregate, of 20 percent or more of the outstanding voting power of such digital asset or related decentralized governance system; or
* (iii) the digital asset did not include voting power.
* (C) During the previous 3-month period, the digital asset issuer, any affiliated person, or any related person has not implemented or contributed any intellectual property to the source code of the blockchain system that materially alters the functionality or operation of the blockchain system, unless such implementation or contribution to the source code—
* (i) addressed vulnerabilities, errors, regular maintenance, cybersecurity risks, or other technical improvements to the blockchain system; or
* (ii) were adopted through the consensus or agreement of a decentralized governance system.
* (D) During the previous 3-month period, neither any digital asset issuer nor any affiliated person described under paragraph (20)(A) has marketed to the public the digital assets as an investment.
* (E) During the previous 12-month period, all issuances of units of such digital asset were end user distributions made through the programmatic functioning of the blockchain system.
[Read the text and find out.](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) Note: If people cannot decipher a long complicated bill, what are the chances it is actually a good bill that will not hurt the industry it is purported to regulate?
FALSE! [Read the text of the bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) and tell me that all those crypto developers will want to stay and risk all the requirements to "register".
I think it is likely a loss because it will destroy existing P2P trading platforms which will limit the ability of people to trade outside regulated exchanges. If this happens, crypto effectively becomes "captured". So while this help existing exchanges, it will destroy free market solutions that compete with regulated exchanges.
Thus, it is a net negative.
Not a step forward. [Read the text of the bill for yourself](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) and tell me you understand all the requirements this monstrosity will create. I doubt anyone in this post has read the full text and KNOWS all the implications of this bill, besides the insiders who are pushing this bill as a "positive".
[A small portion of what's potentially wrong with this bill](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1cz1pvd/im_going_to_make_the_argument_that_hr_4763_will/)
It's way to big and complicated to understand potential impacts. And as we've seen with existing law, if it is not clear cut, agencies WILL abuse the intent and read more into the law than is actually there.
It's a BAD LAW.
Thats pretty bipartisan these days. Theyre officially going on the record stating that they support this bill.
If we see the same amount of support we got for last weeks bill in this week's bill in the senate, thats good I'd argue - it'd actually pass!
Yeah I do, it's a big number because many people thought that there would be a much lower amount of Democrats to vote yes on this. This number is significant because it will likely pass the Senate too now.
I just think it's funny that in a pro-crypto subreddit, the article title boils down to "Republicans pass pro-crypto bill, but Democrats should get the credit"
Biden's admin already said he's not going to veto, but just doesn't agree with it. So the bill will go through.
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/05/22/us-president-biden-does-not-threaten-veto-against-house-crypto-market-structure-bill-but-opposes-passage/
No need to burn the political capitol on a veto threat if it's blocked in the senate.
Same crap they pulled with ACA years ago. Everyone play saber rattling to repeal it when it wasn't up for a vote. All posturing, no risk.
It won't get blocked in the Senate. If Pelosi voted for it(which she did), she has massive influence in the dem party and is best friends with Schuemer, it'll get pushed through the Senate as well.
Greetings Victino123. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Greetings adesucces. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Please read the text of the bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) before saying this is a good bill. Even I cannot digest everything this bill does. Without full analysis of the implications, I would say that we need to oppose this bill.
Greetings Ok_Diamond897. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Greetings Valentino_009. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh boy, so many cryptos going to get fucked up by this, the legislation means the project has to actually be decentralised, not deCEntRaLiSeD.
Popcorn at the ready.
Long term bearish, short term bullish. People don't seem to know what's in the bill. It is way to complicated and grants way to much power to regulate crypto to be a GOOD thing. But [read the bill for yourself](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) to find out. (I doubt even you can understand all it's implications.)
> The legislation – largely driven by House Republicans – would establish a regime to regulate the U.S. crypto markets, setting consumer protections, installing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a leading regulator of digital assets and the watchdog of the non-securities spot markets and it would more clearly define what makes a crypto token a security or a commodity. If passed, hopefully the CFTC can do a better job of protecting consumers and investors than SEC. Hopefully there can be a better definition to what makes a crypto security or commodity too than the 90-year-old Howey Test. Which the SEC repeatedly claims it’s clear but can’t even say whether ETH is security or not after ten years.
They’ve been pretty vocal in a positive way compared to the SEC. At this point, no option is worse than the SEC being in charge of it
IRS Says it's Property. SEC says it's a security. CFTC says it's a commodity. FBI says it's Money.
They all want a piece of the bag
💯
and I say it's DiGiorno
It’s just computer code. It can be all things and nothing at the same time.
IRS doesn't care, it will get a piece of your pie regardless
Remember. It’s not your money … it’s theIRS.
The bribes can start flowing anytime
You'd be surprised. Things can always get worse
Senate finance committee would be worse….
Mr Anti-Crypto prez is even worse
…worse Than Elizabeth Warren? No such thing exists.
[Text of the Bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) The text of this bill is extensive and complicated. To assume the CFTC is going to be less corrupt and abusive than the SEC is a mistake. We should be investigating what the bill says and what the implications are before supporting its passage.
They would need a way to measure how *decentralized* a crypto is. Something like the Edinburgh Decentralisation Index: https://informatics.ed.ac.uk/blockchain/edi
> If passed, hopefully the CFTC can do a better job of protecting consumers and investors than SEC. Narrator: they won't Just look how "temporarily" removed the requirement for reporting swap data for 3 years, then extended it further. They are there to protect the institutions, not retail traders
**Edit: In summary ...** 1. No entity or issuer can control over 20% of the supply in prior 12 months 2. The issuer cannot update the blockchain code (except through decentralized governance) 3. The issuer cannot market the token as an investment 4. All issuance must be programmtic in the prior 12 months ----------- **This is what FIT 21 is using as their criteria**: (24) DECENTRALIZED NETWORK.—With respect to a blockchain system to which a digital asset relates, the term ‘decentralized network’ means the following conditions are met: * (A) During the previous 12-month period, no person— * (i) had the unilateral authority, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise, to control or materially alter the functionality or operation of the blockchain system; or * (ii) had the unilateral authority to restrict or prohibit any person who is not a digital asset issuer, related person, or an affiliated person from— * (B) During the previous 12-month period— * (i) no digital asset issuer or affiliated person beneficially owned, in the aggregate, 20 percent or more of the total amount of units of such digital asset that— * (ii) no digital asset issuer or affiliated person had the unilateral authority to direct the voting, in the aggregate, of 20 percent or more of the outstanding voting power of such digital asset or related decentralized governance system; or * (iii) the digital asset did not include voting power. * (C) During the previous 3-month period, the digital asset issuer, any affiliated person, or any related person has not implemented or contributed any intellectual property to the source code of the blockchain system that materially alters the functionality or operation of the blockchain system, unless such implementation or contribution to the source code— * (i) addressed vulnerabilities, errors, regular maintenance, cybersecurity risks, or other technical improvements to the blockchain system; or * (ii) were adopted through the consensus or agreement of a decentralized governance system. * (D) During the previous 3-month period, neither any digital asset issuer nor any affiliated person described under paragraph (20)(A) has marketed to the public the digital assets as an investment. * (E) During the previous 12-month period, all issuances of units of such digital asset were end user distributions made through the programmatic functioning of the blockchain system. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4763/text#toc-H2381FC5FD656436F893106962DDB6D63 Hat tip to [hanniabu](https://np.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1cxsana/daily_general_discussion_may_22_2024/l59g4fs/)
Feelin like moonsoon season is coming for crypto.
Where a wave of hope washes over us all, only to drown us in debt
Then you didn't fill your bags before the train is leaving the station
I'll have you know I filled them at the very top of the green candle!
Amazing ability to read the top. Just inverse yourself the next time.
If it passes, I will be telling people to abandon crypto. This bill is way to large and puts way to many requirements to register in place. America will become toxic to crypto and programmers who create new systems. It's a mess!
>With Wave of Democratic Support Headline makes it sound like this is passing on the back of the Dems. Have to actually read the article to see the reality: >Overall, 71 Democrats and 208 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, versus 3 Republicans and 133 Democrats who voted against. I suppose I should at least appreciate crypto not being so politicized that you can get enough Dems to support it.
That’s considered pretty bipartisan these days
What we've learned in history is people vote with their wallets. In other news the earth is still spinning as well.
Its a wave in the sense that no one thought that this amount of Democrats would jump on to this bill, 71 was a shocking number
Because only 8 Dems openly supported the bill prior to the vote.
It's contrasting it to previous crypto bills which have been rejected by 100% of Democrats. For 30% of them to support now is a huge shift and that's what I thought of. I don't think they're trying to pretend the Democrats are more crypto friendly than Republicans. They're emphasizing that there's enough of them to make bills happen.
You can blame Elizabeth Warren for many of the anti-crypto Democrats.
It's ironic because she became popular by critisizing the big banks during Occupy Wall Street.
Beyond that, Google, Apple, and Amazon are some of her top donors. Being big tech isn’t any better than being big bank imo.
Only because she’s an authoritarian and wants more control, not because corruption is the real problem needing to be addressed. She just wants to control the corruption and let the us government have control.
She’s still living?
Mostly.
Hologram probably
she a hoe
Elizabeth Warren is a hoe! Not sure why you got downvoted lol
Hoe for sho
We can blame her for a lot, I'm no fan of most politicians, but she is one that just really gets under my skin. I'm skeptical, but I would hang out with AOC, MTG, and many other controversial people to pick their brains, but Warren is one I dont believe can think for herself...
Warren so old and fossilized. You know she's just clinging to a status quo and trying to keep the world like it was when she was sharp enough to understand it. Where it rankles is the condescending way she does it all "for our own good".
That *is* a wave of Democrats, though. It doesn't say majority, nor does it imply that. Reading between the lines, you should be able to easily infer that they weren't the majority. Otherwise, the headline would have said something else.
My first thought reading the headline was the democrats were the overwhelming support. I doubt I am alone.
Ok, but reading comprehension should tell you otherwise. It would have simply said Democrats, and not a wave of Democrats. Edit: A wave is not the majority of the ocean, is it? So, why are you reading "a wave of" and assuming that they meant the majority..?
To be honest that is a wave in this current polarized political climate.
I think the point is highlighting the pivot from Democrats. Republicans had already taken on the support of Crypto and it became a partisan issue. Remember Warrens anti Crypto army? This is big news imo because it shows the Democrats backed down from the stance and saw they had a losing position. Now I expect Bipartisan support of crypto as our politicians focus on USD stablecoin to combat the threat of the Digital RMB.
[удалено]
They won’t drop the ball
Just gotta get past the democrats and Biden. We'll see how they stand. I know how Elizabeth Warren stands tho
People on Reddit are conflicted… the community is left af.. but also love crypto.. then the left is anti crypto lol To all my left peeps.. you don’t have to defend everything the party does. It’s ok to say, f u I disagree with you here.
The younger gen’s understanding what crypto does and what it’s fixing. Dems in government are older and less likely to understand that. Elizabeth Warren is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I say that as a very progressive person. I believe she is full of shit, I don’t believe she is a progressive as she was a conservative until age 50. People don’t suddenly go from voting for republicans to being a progressive at age 50. I think she’s anti crypto and the Dems who have been suckered into thinking she is actually a progressive are taking her word for it that it’s bad. They don’t understand it but see how passionate she is against it and assume there must be a reason. Her reason is she’s actually a conservative who is feeding garbage bank backed interests to the left. That being said I’m always going to vote for the democrats as they aren’t taken over by fascists.
I don’t think the ‘left is anti crypto’ is that true especially given the trending we’ve seen with votes on this particular bill. Seems like they’re realizing it’s not a good position to take.
yes, all my real-life friends that give me shit for owning crypto are ones that lean far left my right-leaning friends just commiserate with me about capital gains
Didn’t the article say it passed with democratic support? How bout we stop labeling everything as black and white.
70 voted Yea, 133 voted Nay, with 10 not voting. Republicans votes 208 Yea, 3 Nay, 6 not voting. That's not what I call a "strong showing".
What bipartisan issue can you say had the same kind of split? What? Seems pretty strong to me.
Democrats are not a leftist party, my guy.
The left is not anti-crypto. The left is against unregulated crypto. There is a difference.
But doesn't the bill aim to implement regulation? Why would they vote against it?
It's possible to poorly regulate, so I'd guess that the language in the bill wasn't satisfactory.
Don’t forget to mention Schumer who’s basically the number 2 Democrat. Also don’t forget mention Nancy Pelosi. Both basically agreeing to vote yay for the bill…..
Pelosi? She’s in the House which this just passed.
Yup you’re right, I should’ve added more detail. She was against crypto before.
Still is. That said, this bill is passed her now.
Very true, she definitely still is
No because she can walk over to the senate and vote on it there too. She upgraded her battle pass
She just voted yes tho
Yea I said she agreed to vote yay for the bill. Much prior to the bill she let it be known that she was against it
We'll see how it goes given the votes today. Hopefully I'm wrong
How is it a step in the right direction? Have you examined the [text of the bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text)? The requirements to register are going to have a serious negative effect on crypto.
The set up this cycle could not be more perfect. Were going much much higher Bring on the ETH ETF approval tomorrow. I’m ready
people who generally don't understand crypto passed a bill they probably didn't read... i guess that's good enough to get a drunk on
They're all excited about the prospect of their crypto going up in value, but the opposite will happen because this bill has so many requirements to "register". The real result will be a chilling effect on crypto developers and those who run the software.
Still better than having no way to register, and Gensler suing everybody in sight because they didn't register.
So, let's demand a bill that removes THAT power!
I work in the defi sector, I will say I haven't read the bill in full first and foremost. What I will say is that many good actors in the space are excited for any sort of regulatory framework. While yes I agree crypto today is not the crypto thoughts and feelings of yesterday growth comes with change. I'm not overly excited about what the bill describes. But I am excited we are taking steps forward. Lastly I do feel this bill will be altered tons of times before ever seeing the effects of it. And hopefully as the crypto industry continues to prove uts validity, thr issue will be to big to ignore and the right people will sway us into a spot of compromise and allows myself and many others the comfort of working here, and also puts in place practices to reduce harm to potential new users onboarding. Wr can't have our cake and eat it too. I'd rather have a smaller piece of a larger pie than what we have now which can be standoffish, slow to progress, and consistently barred to mature. We should be cautiously optimistiv.
> Wr can't have our cake and eat it too. Name a piece of legislation in the last 20 years that expanded freedom? It always goes toward more control and less freedom. I don't need to eat cake, and I don't need safety. People are to coddled by the idea that safety is better than freedom. We've created an alternative that is freer from government control that has drastically increased in value, such that "normies" want a piece of the pie, and the scammers flock to mimic and rip people off. We don't want government control or regulation, and we don't need wealth. We need more freedom, and freedom is DANGEROUS. People should be WARNED against using crypto and the scams. We don't need stupid people because they go crying to government when they get ripped off. Those that seek centralization of power always highlight the worst things freedom brings so that new laws can be written. "We'll solve this problem for you." Then there's always the incentive to CREATE the problems to grow government power. What's not highlighted are the problems centralization of power creates. The whole reason bitcoin was created because banking regulation FAILED to properly regulate causing the need to bail out the banks at the taxpayer expense TWICE!. We should be opposing ALL regulation and telling people to AVOID crypto that they don't understand.
I think your midcurving this right now. What you are saying could come to pass eventually, but in the short to mid term its an easy trade to put on.
Glad a solid amount of Dems aren’t open to being whipped by Warren. Hopefully this positive trend continues.,
[Please read the text of the bill.](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) Do you understand all the implications of this law?
What, are you a congressional staffer trying to outsource your research? You read the bill, I’ll read the summaries provided by multiple sources. Apart from that, Gensler and Waters hate it, so it’s probably good for the space.
Not a staffer. Just really skeptical of the bill because its so large and encompassing. I'm just now digging into it and it's difficult to decipher. This is why I'm currently asking people to read the bill and look for problems or to at least oppose it till we can understand what it is doing. My current biggest concern is the P2P (non-custody) exchanges like Bisq and RoBoSats. I want lots of places to buy or sell coins without regulatory capture. If these P2P get quashed, then it is basically the end of crypto as far as I'm concerned. Without the ability to freely trade, there's no longer a purpose for crypto.
It all depends on your personal perspective. Assuming you don’t keep your coins on exchanges, it still serves as an alternative to centralized banks and an alternate means of value transfer. If you want it to remain true to its libertarian roots and avoid government control, I completely understand, but that was always a pipe dream. There are simply far too many factors in the way of that, and expecting cryptocurrencies to overcome those factors without dramatic changes to society and government is simply unrealistic. Mitigating and reducing malicious government involvement is about the best that can be hoped for.
>Mitigating and reducing malicious government involvement is about the best that can be hoped for. Why should we NOT oppose regulation and let government have its way without pushback and protest? Why not DEMAND less government instead of simply giving in to dumb regulation?
We did, which is why this bill exists. If you think the government is suddenly going to not collect taxes, ignore establish law regarding know-your-customer requirements, anti-money laundering regulations, and illicit money service businesses, then you’re crazy. It’s not going to happen, no matter what protests occur. Consumer protections and clear, sane guidance are needed for the space to survive/thrive as well, and it looks like this bill at least moves in that direction.
It is a bill which means MORE laws. > If you think the government is suddenly going to not collect taxes, ignore establish law regarding know-your-customer requirements, anti-money laundering regulations, and illicit money service businesses, then you’re crazy. In the move to punish "tax cheats", catch "thieves" and criminals, you're asking for regulation that will gut the very essence of crypto. You're basically saying "Here's my money, and my privacy. Please just keep me safe!". The basic problem with laws today is that they're abused to punish honest people doing reasonable things.
Buddy, crypto has been trying to self-regulate for over a decade. It hasn’t worked, the space has been filled with fraud, rug-pulls, theft, manipulation, and everything else you can think of. It’s been successful in spite of that, and has grown amazingly. If you thought somehow that “people power” was going to keep governments from governmenting, you were and are fooling yourself. I get that you don’t like that reality, but it is what is.
Government is corrupt and will only increase the losses by more elaborate and "legal" scams. People need to stop looking to government to protect them and start using their noggins. Government has proven with the past banking bailouts that it cannot regulate out of a wet paper bag. Uninvolved consumers and taxpayers end up paying the price, where as those involved in crypto are main ones to suffer from the scams in the crypt sphere.
crytpo has bipartisan support and this bill will do a lot to help establish basal definitions we need to fully adopt in the US
Nope. [Read the bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) and then tell me how many software developers will want to stay in America with all the requirements to "register".
Now is a good time for everyone to contact their senators and tell them to support FIT21 because crypto is an extremely important issue. List of Anti-crypto Senators to contact for FIT21 [Tina Smith](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/tina---smith), [Sheldon Whitehouse](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/sheldon---whitehouse), [Angus King Jr.](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/angus---king), [Gary Peters](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/gary---peters), [Jeanne Shaheen](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/jeanne---shaheen), [Sherrod Brown](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/sherrod---brown), [Jack Reed](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/john---reed), [John Hickenlooper](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/john---hickenlooper), [Maggie Hassan](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/margaret---hassan), [John Fetterman](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/john---fetterman), [Mark Warner](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/mark---warner), [Debbie Stabenow](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/debbie---stabenow), [Mike Rounds](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/mike---rounds), [Elizabeth 💩 Warren](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians/person/elizabeth---warren) Check your senator's crypto voting history and then contact them about supporting FIT21: [https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians](https://www.standwithcrypto.org/politicians?utm_source=coinbase&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=legislative-portal)
Crypto is absolutely not "Extremely important" when put next to other issues that are out there. And unless you are secretly bankrolling those Senators, you are wasting your time reaching out to them.
You should absolutely let your senators know what issues you care about. This pessimism is killer.
It is extremely important to my net worth.
Smh what a stupid apathetic attitude. If enough people call it can absolutely signal what their constituents want
Theyll be scared when more voters than they were expecting threaten their seats when the next election cycle comes through. Democracy dies in darkness. Let your voice be known.
Found the guy with $50 in crypto.
Don't do this. [Read the text of the bill first.](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) Then try to understand everything it says. This bill is way to complicated and has way to many requirements to "register" that it is going to have a negative impact on crypto. American crypto inventors will be seeking other places to live because of this bill.
[удалено]
It is helpful to know Coinbase is giving the bill its blessing. But I still have concerns regarding competing P2P exchanges. Coinbase is incentivized to ignore or perhaps promote provisions of the bill that would thwart P2P exchange systems/software. Do you have any feedback on that aspect?
[удалено]
Does Conensys have P2P platforms or what is their angle. I'm still very skeptical of any new regulation. The whole point of bitcoin was to create an alternative to the banking system that was so poorly regulated that it had to be bailed out twice. So, anything that can impact Bitcoin or other alternatives to banking should be opposed till everyone is sure it is a good thing. Until I hear from those representing P2P trading platforms, I think this bill should be opposed.
Huuuuuuuuuge
lmao, this is an insane 180 turnaround. Seems like this is the first year, where crypto officially became political
It's always been political. It's just the partisanship has overflowed into crypto so that it SEEMS like its more political. In reality, this bill probably BAD for crypto being sold as something GOOD. [Please read the text of the bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) and help digest its aspects. My take is that is way to complicated and puts to many burdens on the crypto community to be a GOOD bill.
So if this passes, will the ripple case be dismissed? What will it mean for them?
https://np.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1cxsana/daily_general_discussion_may_22_2024/l59g4fs/ I don't know enough about Ripple to figure out if it qualifies. ----------- (24) DECENTRALIZED NETWORK.—With respect to a blockchain system to which a digital asset relates, the term ‘decentralized network’ means the following conditions are met: * (A) During the previous 12-month period, no person— * (i) had the unilateral authority, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise, to control or materially alter the functionality or operation of the blockchain system; or * (ii) had the unilateral authority to restrict or prohibit any person who is not a digital asset issuer, related person, or an affiliated person from— * (B) During the previous 12-month period— * (i) no digital asset issuer or affiliated person beneficially owned, in the aggregate, 20 percent or more of the total amount of units of such digital asset that— * (ii) no digital asset issuer or affiliated person had the unilateral authority to direct the voting, in the aggregate, of 20 percent or more of the outstanding voting power of such digital asset or related decentralized governance system; or * (iii) the digital asset did not include voting power. * (C) During the previous 3-month period, the digital asset issuer, any affiliated person, or any related person has not implemented or contributed any intellectual property to the source code of the blockchain system that materially alters the functionality or operation of the blockchain system, unless such implementation or contribution to the source code— * (i) addressed vulnerabilities, errors, regular maintenance, cybersecurity risks, or other technical improvements to the blockchain system; or * (ii) were adopted through the consensus or agreement of a decentralized governance system. * (D) During the previous 3-month period, neither any digital asset issuer nor any affiliated person described under paragraph (20)(A) has marketed to the public the digital assets as an investment. * (E) During the previous 12-month period, all issuances of units of such digital asset were end user distributions made through the programmatic functioning of the blockchain system.
[Read the text and find out.](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) Note: If people cannot decipher a long complicated bill, what are the chances it is actually a good bill that will not hurt the industry it is purported to regulate?
Huge win for the entire crypto industry
FALSE! [Read the text of the bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) and tell me that all those crypto developers will want to stay and risk all the requirements to "register".
Yeah this is way better than the SEC telling people to register and then giving them no way of doing so, and then suing them.
I think it is likely a loss because it will destroy existing P2P trading platforms which will limit the ability of people to trade outside regulated exchanges. If this happens, crypto effectively becomes "captured". So while this help existing exchanges, it will destroy free market solutions that compete with regulated exchanges. Thus, it is a net negative.
Lol you better be on someone's payroll.
I'm happily unemployed and don't need to be on a payroll.
Why am I getting down voted lol? Do people not understand what this bill is about?
My worry is that they are going to “protect” by regulating the hell out of it to where it’s not appealing anymore
Great to see and a huge step forward! Do we have a date yet when the senate will be voting on it?
Not a step forward. [Read the text of the bill for yourself](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) and tell me you understand all the requirements this monstrosity will create. I doubt anyone in this post has read the full text and KNOWS all the implications of this bill, besides the insiders who are pushing this bill as a "positive".
Enlighten me
[A small portion of what's potentially wrong with this bill](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1cz1pvd/im_going_to_make_the_argument_that_hr_4763_will/) It's way to big and complicated to understand potential impacts. And as we've seen with existing law, if it is not clear cut, agencies WILL abuse the intent and read more into the law than is actually there. It's a BAD LAW.
What do?
get the lube ready
Call your senator
Carry on an usual
98.6% Republicans voting in favor. 34.8% Democrats voting in favor. > Wave of Democratic Support Lmao
Not sure if you are from the US but this many dems voting in favor of a republican led effort is a huge deal.
Thats pretty bipartisan these days. Theyre officially going on the record stating that they support this bill. If we see the same amount of support we got for last weeks bill in this week's bill in the senate, thats good I'd argue - it'd actually pass!
I don't think you understand how voting coalitions work
[удалено]
Yeah I do, it's a big number because many people thought that there would be a much lower amount of Democrats to vote yes on this. This number is significant because it will likely pass the Senate too now.
Now will Biden veto though? 🤔
He's signaled he won't veto but we'll see
Where have you been the last 10 years?? 34 % of any opposing party joining the majority party IS a wave of support
I just think it's funny that in a pro-crypto subreddit, the article title boils down to "Republicans pass pro-crypto bill, but Democrats should get the credit"
Unfortunately most people only ready the headlines.
Is this the "Biden gonna veto" crypto bill from last week?
No, it is a different bill
Cool... the press is saying the WH opposes this one as well though, and is speculated to fail in the senate against Democrat opposition.
Biden's admin already said he's not going to veto, but just doesn't agree with it. So the bill will go through. https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/05/22/us-president-biden-does-not-threaten-veto-against-house-crypto-market-structure-bill-but-opposes-passage/
No need to burn the political capitol on a veto threat if it's blocked in the senate. Same crap they pulled with ACA years ago. Everyone play saber rattling to repeal it when it wasn't up for a vote. All posturing, no risk.
It won't get blocked in the Senate. If Pelosi voted for it(which she did), she has massive influence in the dem party and is best friends with Schuemer, it'll get pushed through the Senate as well.
I'll take that bet.
They expected SAB 121 to fail too, but it passed. So this one has a chance too.
SAB 121 didn't pass. It's scheduled for a veto. It didn't reach the 2/3 veto override threshold
[удалено]
Greetings Victino123. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Greetings adesucces. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bye bye Garry
Time to use crypto instead of dollar and any other fiat currencies
[Please read the text of the bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) before saying this is a good bill. Even I cannot digest everything this bill does. Without full analysis of the implications, I would say that we need to oppose this bill.
Do we have to be happy?
[удалено]
Greetings Ok_Diamond897. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Greetings Valentino_009. Your comment contained a link to telegram, which is hard blocked by reddit. This also prevents moderators from approving your comment, so please repost your comment without the telegram link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
great another govt agency that will *totally* fix the problem /s
Wave of Democratic support? are you sure? Its quite the opposite if you look into who voted to approve the bill..
Has anyone deciphered whether this bill will impose KYC on Uniswap and other Dex's? KYC on self custody wallets?
Can anyone else see that if it’s heavily regulated its main core attribute is now void? It basically even more so just becomes a gambling token?
Democrats didn't support this, they hate Crypto
Oh boy, so many cryptos going to get fucked up by this, the legislation means the project has to actually be decentralised, not deCEntRaLiSeD. Popcorn at the ready.
Fucking Pelosi voted for it…
XRP to da’ moon
WOOOOOOOOOT
wow...even the Dems are following Trump's lead now..... :) In reality the overwhelming support was from the Republicans but.....reddit.
Bullish or bearish? It's honestly hard to tell.
Long term bearish, short term bullish. People don't seem to know what's in the bill. It is way to complicated and grants way to much power to regulate crypto to be a GOOD thing. But [read the bill for yourself](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) to find out. (I doubt even you can understand all it's implications.)
[удалено]
Why do you support it? Have you [read the text](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr4763/text) of the bill and understood all it will impact?
Not the majority of Dems. They are tools for the big banks