Topic: Rep. Jim Himes of CT Allegedly Sneaks in Anti-Crypto Provision into Bill (Read 376 times)

Thank you. That's what I thought you were saying, I just wanted to push it further, and theorize a bit on Bitcoin's immunity to all anti-crypto moves.

I personally think that any current, or future, cryptocurrency has the right to exist, and whether to use it or not, everyone decides for themselves, but if legislators decided to treat BTC differently than other crypto, I wouldn't mind.

I hate when people do things like sneaking in short but radical clauses into legislation. It's such an unfair thing to do because the MPs can't always read everything and keep track of small changes. As for this particular power, being given by striking out some things about imposing regulation, giving one person a lot of power without checks and balances in place isn't the right thing to do.
As for the liquidity matter pointed out by Darker45, it is a vague enough phrase that at least allows restricting the exchange from maintaining the useful infrastructure for trading.

I am not generalizing as claiming anti-crypto provisions could only harm shitcoins and not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is crypto. Anti-crypto could also mean anti-Bitcoin. So it will have to be on a case-to-case basis. It depends on the particular provision. I'm afraid Bitcoin has not become so powerful it has reached an untouchable stage or a level in which it is completely immune to anti-Bitcoin actions. I don't see it that way.

I am only referring to this particular bill, which I haven't read word for word, by the way. The bill is not to shut down all centralized crypto exchanges, as being interpreted here. It only prohibits these exchanges from providing liquidity for cryptocurrencies. In this particular move, Bitcoin is least affected.

Interesting. So, you mean that that "Anti-Crypto Provision" can harm sh*tcoins, but BTC is going to be alright? And that centralized exchanges will be more regulated, and they won't be able to report fake volumes, but it won't be like all crypto exchanges will be shut down? I mean, I know it can be a dangerous oversimplification, but to me it looks like we can say that Bitcoin has become so powerful that those "anty-crypto" actions, any of them, can be a threat to anything but BTC. Bitcoin will always be least affected. Can we say that?

point 3 allowed her to make an order active even before it was set in regulation. by simply supplying a notice of proposed regulation along with the order. but that order can only last 120 days or if the proposed regulation gets promulgated(set into law) it can then continue beyond 120 days.

i initially thought it meant just the 120day part was removed (silly me for reading the blog). but then reading the actual bill and its affect its actually removing the ability to implement a order 120days before its in set regulation

the whole point 3 is removed. not just the 120day part. but the ability to make a order active before its rule is even a set regulation..
because now she can only do orders(with consultation) that are already set into regulation or law. meaning only regulations that are actually active regulations.. not proposed.

try reading the point 3. and reading what it is about. its not about transparency of an order. its about implementing an order that is not yet set into regulation...
and the bill is saying remove that clause.

your silly "public announcement"
the fed does not publicly announce it wants to shut down customer X account. it always has and always will secretly tell an exchange to close it.. because the exchange needs to be informed of what they need to do. without breaching privacy of the exchange or customer on the nightly public media news. (news media would get spammed with 1000+ an hour announcements, in your view)

if you think that its about 'publicly announcing' every order to congress/senate for every account suspension. then you really dont know what your talking about. the capital would get nothing done if it had to read every customer suspension order of every MSB (which is your view of how you think things work)

it has nothing to do with public transparency. never has. the exchange still gets informed of an order.
but that order can now (if bill passes) only be an order of a active law/regulation, not a proposed future law/regulation.

the bill removes the ability to make orders of proposed future possible/whimsy stuff not yet in regulation

It's quite clear you do not understand the language in the US legal system whatsoever (which to be honest isn't surprising given you aren't a US citizen. The problem here is that you are trying to hold court on something you don't understand). This is the last time I will respond to your willful ignorance on this matter as I am bored of repeating myself.

Once again, the government always had the powers to bring forth a federal regulation which would be subjected to due process and public scrutiny before being implemented. With this change, they will now have the power to simply declare special measure with no scrutiny whatsoever.

Federal orders and federal regulations are specific things which have specific meanings which you clearly don't understand. What you have written here doesn't even make sense.

Again this doesn't make sense because you don't understand what orders and regulations are. Paragraph 3 said that whenever a federal order was issued, it would be issued alongside a public notice. This has now been scrapped, meaning the orders can be issued in secret.

no it does not
the bill removea.. the ability to impose orders that had not yet become regulation... because now she has to only do orders that fit within the law and regulation


this exception before allowed her to implement a rule before it was even put into regulation.. now she can only impose orders that are already in regulation.

meaning she has to make it a regulation before then ordering a MSB to abide by it,

yea even on my first read i too thought it was only about removing the time limit. and yep i read it again and realised it actually removes her ability to impose a rule before it is promulgated(put into regulation/law)

meaning she cant (if bill passes) just make an order simply because she proposes it might become law.. she has to order something that already is within regulation/law from now on

this is not about pro-government. this is about your exaggeration.

its funny how you say you dont know what it may mean, that its ambiguous and might mean something else. but then you try your hardest to say it means X.

sorry but she has no whimsy, she has to consult on all orders.
there is no new powers to freeze accounts. even you admit now they always had powers to request MSB's freeze accounts.

i told you months ago at the last twitter campaign exaggeration that if you are that interested in how it affects money service businesses you should try researching the regulations and laws imposed on them (which now yellen has to follow without whimsy)

Maybe try reading my entire reply before foaming at the mouth. I literally said exactly that:

Currently allowed to be used. That sounds pretty much synonymous with "already have this power".  

Incorrect. (a)(2)(C) is striken, removing the clause "subsection (b)(5) may be imposed only by regulation" and replacing it with the much looser "by order, regulation, or otherwise as permitted by law".

Incorrect. This quite clearly states that any special measure must be accompanied by an announcement of that special measure and can only last 120 days. This is removed, which gives the government the ability to implement special measures indefinitely and without announcing them publicly.

Incorrect. It says so right in the text you have quotes. "May prohibit, or impose conditions upon certain transmittals of funds". She's not asking anything. She's telling. And given that pretty much every cryptocurrency exchange provides a service for foreign users as well, then they all fall in to this category.

And even if you are right (which you blatantly aren't), but even if you were the fact that the language is ambiguous enough that sitting lawmakers can interpret it in the worst possible way is enough of a concern that this needs fixed.

Still don't understand why you are pro-government interference.

wow i said one example. and o-e-l-e-o by-passed how he had been proven wrong in that example, to then cry that i did not explain more examples..

anyway.. moving on..
THEY ALREADY HAVE THE POWER TO FREEZE ACCOUNTS!!!

before

after

read it again. and this time read the parts in both the new 5 and 6 that require "in consultation with"

so the summary
a2 is changed where she now cant just 'may require' and instead 'may by order, regulation or permitted in law require' thus depowering her from whimsy

a3 by removing not just a 120day rule for whimsy rules not yet in regulation, but the entire rule 3 meaning not even whimsy is allowed and she can only make orders that are by regulation or otherwise permitted by law

b5 allowed her to order both domestic services servicing foreign institutions to be told to freeze accounts of such customers. now she can only tell domestic institutions but only after consulting other agencies

b6 if a out of jurisdiction transactions/entities is deemed a money laundering concern. she can ask (ONLY) the domestic institutions to stop serving out of jurisdiction transactions/entities

and all of 2 4 5 6 all involve her consulting with other agencies and the courts before doing anything

..
some people have read it as if it gives her power to ask other nations to freeze their services. wrong
some people have read it as if it gives her more whimsy power.  wrong
some people have read it as if it gives her more whimsy power to freeze for any reason.  wrong


yes points 5&6 now read as being.. instead of only looking at foreign BANKING institutions as a laundering concern, it is now looking at any out of jurisdiction types of transactions as a laundering concern, can (by consultations and authorisation if imposition does not cause undue cost, time, impedance on business) ask a domestic service to stop supporting such transactions

but there is no whimsy about it. and it has to be within regulation or by law. LAWFULLY prove, for instance that bitcoin as a whole is a money laundering concern, to then tell a domestic service to stop supporting bitcoin, otherwise she has to show that for instance certain ransomware addresses are illicit and to ask a domestic business to stop servicing addresses(customer deposits) that have ransomware taint.
but again for emphasis, only after(in both exampled instances) consulting other agencies to calculate the risk/reward impact of an orders imposition on a domestic money service business..
..
this is not just about bitcoin. this also can be about ransomware/blackmailers/scammers that use apple/google giftcards to get value to the scammer too.

the aim is to stop scammers being able to cash out through american money services

The whole system of government in America is a mess, it seems to work for vested interests and against the public good in so many situations. The fact that these mega bills which start out targeting one specific thing, get loads of totally unrelated amendments and provisions tacked on is a disgrace to governance really. Every single law should be debated separately, but politicians are incredibly lazy and build these monstrosities in the name of compromise. You can just tell there is all sorts of back room dealing going on - like, we want this bad thing added, so we'll let you add one bad thing in return or the whole bill will be voted down by our team type games.

And we're clear about the part where that's your interpretation and that you believe there aren't any other valid interpretations.  You haven't actually raised any new points, though.  You're just repeating things as though we haven't understood what you're saying.  We know that's what you think.  But we don't care what you think.  You can't give us the assurances we are looking for.  I'm sorry your ego can't accept that.

At this point one must wonder why franky1 is so keen to give the US government more and more ability to meddle in your private affairs and transactions.

Deliberately missing out the most important part.

Subsection (b)(5):

This is the section that gives the government powers to freeze accounts.

This is how this section is currently allowed to be used:

This is how this section will be allowed to be used should this bill pass:

It is obvious for even a 5 year old that the way that this can be implemented has been made significantly wider. "Otherwise as permitted by law" absolutely means the government can now implement this unilaterally without any public process, as would be required if they wanted to pass it as a regulation instead. They even entirely scrapped the 120 day time limit. If you want to go looking for some other part of the US Code which restrict them from doing so, then please be my guest. You won't find it. You might also want to read up on the process of how federal regulations are issued, since you don't seem to understand the difference between that and the government being able to simply declare that x is going to happen as long as they don't break any other laws.

doomad. your still social dramatising.. you really are getting pety and boring. and your insults lack any substance. so here have a (yawn)
i know you dont understand the actual bills wording so you play around by saying 'its a draft' and 'no one can know', as your defence for you not knowing or wanting to know..
.. but i edited my last post to show you one short sharp example of the exaggeration by your team mates. of the actual words in the bill

heck ill quote it here..

oh and if you want to still pretend that yellen can do anything, at a whim.. i should quote this

so yea, she cant decide anything by herself

If the legislation has not been finalised yet, no one can really say with any certainty exactly how it can or cannot be exploited.  And even once the legislation is finalised, it would require a decent amount of foresight to say with certainty that no one will be able to find a loophole to exploit.  If people have legitimate concerns about the potential for someone to abuse it, then it's only sensible to request the wording to be changed to leave as little room for ambiguity as possible. 

Most people aren't fond of ambiguity when it comes to rules.  It leaves room for interpretation.  I can see why someone like you loves ambiguity, because you can just believe whatever the hell your vivid imagination wants to believe.  But that's not good enough for the rest of us.  We desire a degree of certainty.  And we don't see that in the current proposal.  So, unless you can show me evidence that you've mastered time-travel, please stop treating everything like a foregone conclusion and acting as though only you know how this is all going to unfold.  You are not in a position to make any guarantees about who can do what.

Just because you act confidently that this isn't an issue, none of us hold you in high enough regard to have any faith in your assessment of the situation.  As usual, you'll blame us for that.  And, as usual, we'll tell you that you're the one failing to present a compelling argument.  All you do is say "I'm right because I interpret something I read this way.  That means I've researched it.  If you don't interpret it the same way I do, that means you haven't researched it".  Funnily enough, that doesn't assuage our concerns.  We want clarity from those involved in the drafting of this bill, not the bewildering commentary of a deranged freak like you.   

doomad. the funny part is that i am reigning in o-e-l-e-o's confirmation bias and his exaggerations..
but your insults are boring when you pretend someone else is doing what your buddy is doing.. such a lame rebuttal.
if you cant work out who is doing the exaggerating and saying things not wrote in the bill.. then thats your problem

whats next, slap someone. and then cry by pretending you got slapped. sounds about right.

and if you think that not being a hugging ass-kisser is sociopathy. then you really need to so some research.

anyway dont reply with more social drama. just go read the bill.. not your friends summary, and not some twitter or blog post summary

incase anyone is interested, here is one example of the changes that some have EXAGGERATED
here is an edit the bill asks for:

so lets do the edit
before bill:

after bill

as you can see.. its actually made it so that they have to do it within the law. meaning its not just on a whim. which was the before case.
but o-e-l-e-o thought that this addition made it easier to require domestic financial institution to take special measures.

I'm sure he would if they'd listen to him.  The moment he completes his "research" (otherwise known as conclusion shopping, confirmation bias and taking things so far out of context to the point where it means something completely different), it absolutely does mean (in his mind) that he's the only person in the whole wide world who knows the truth.  Then he moans about social matters and emotions because his brain isn't able to process those concepts like other people can.  Such is the nature of sociopaths.

i have to laugh.
o-e-l-e-o quoting twitter as his 'back-uo' argument

did you even read the stuff
firstly jerry britto wrote a exaggerated blog piece, which he presented to tom emmer who just parroted it out in a version of the exaggerated blog piece, without actually reading the bill.

the exaggerated blog piece basically said: everyones transactions are going to a criminal records investigation(face palm) and that the treasury can do anything on a whim(facepalm).

yet the bill:
is not criminally investigating all transactions. nor is the treasury allowed to do things on a whim.
the exchange needs to record keep(locally). as all MSB always have. but they only REPORT activities that flag up as being suspicious. as all MSB's always have
also the treasury still needs to consult courts, and other agencies. so not on a 'whim' nor 'unilaterally'

but hey.. because o-e-l-e-o can quote 4 people on twitter, it must be as o-e-l-e-o believes..
this is the same social games i detest the most. where people believe things because of social conversation groups. not because they done any actual research.
it happens alot. someone informs you in social media of an opinion you should have, and then you foolishly only search for people that agree with the opinion you have. and then use the group as your proof of opinion..

again the only big deal thing that has significant change is the 120day rule.

YOUR method of backing up your opinion is the same confirmation-bias  method flat-earters and covid conspiracy nuts do.. find 4 people that agree and use them as quotes, and then get buddies like doomad to come chiming in to add a few worthless boring insults.. very sad effort ob both of your chummy social games. if only you spent more time reading the bill and less time reading twitter blogs and friends opinions, you all might see beyond the social drama

Yeah yeah. This is all on me. Let's ignore the people like Jerry Brito (CEO Coin Center) and Jason Brett (former FDIC regulator) who are saying what I'm saying. Let's ignore Brian Armstrong (CEO Coinbase) who is saying what I'm saying. Let's ignore the actual sitting representatives who are saying what I'm saying, such as Tom Emmer - https://twitter.com/RepTomEmmer/status/1486384340238053377 - or Cynthia Lummis - https://twitter.com/SenLummis/status/1487077010052730889. Do you maybe want to jump in to the next House session via Zoom or Skype and let them know you and you alone have got it all figured out, and the entire US government and the rest of the bitcoin world are wrong.

There is always the possibility to get another candidate to oust him at the primaries.

Hopefully people are contacting their representatives to get this nonsense amended or voted against.

'alot of people on twitter'
well alot of people on twitter were retweeting to donate to a tonga disaster relief,.. but only 400 donated..

try not to use twitter as a view of the sentiment or view of fact
twitter is 1000x more of a troll box of exaggeration and  mis-information compared to this forum.
twitters whole pretence is to exaggerate the info to try getting people emotional enough to make a message go viral

A lot of the guys on Twitter are eager to donate to whoever runs against him, Democrat or Republican. Come to think about it, the crypto community needs a website with a report card of politicians as well as to help bring crowdfunding money to support politicians who are running against specifically anti-crypto ones.

they tried that with the bitlicence. it allowed them to then request money service businesses in NY to get licenced or not be allowed to operate. by august 8th 2015.
there was from june 24th 2015 a 45day grace period to apply for a licence or be banned from operating in NY. the ban started on august 8th 2015 for non licenced crypto businesses.

most countries dont actually want to perma-ban crypto. they just want to ban it just long enough to then legislate the use of it under their conditions(licence/permit)

EG china banned all crypto but now wants to licence NFT services to chinese businesses.


well the EU managed to get world wide websites to do the 'cookie' policy.

there are many things that can be done to prevent us customers using foreign services. like legislation to demand google not list a site breaking the rules in search results and report the site to their ISP, thus not actually shut down the website. but just make it difficult to be seen by US customers looking for the site.
these days you dont need to invade a premises and unplug their network connection. you simply need to ask a isp/dns service to not list them, thus remove traffic accessing the service.

much like ISP's block movie streaming services and torrent sites

In case, this proposed bill will eventually be a law, centralized exchanges operating in the territory of USA can be affected and they would have no choice but to follow the guidelines in the implementation of the law. I am then waiting in case Coinbase will be issuing statement on this bill in the House since if this can be a law then their millions of customers can be affected. Surely, a bill like this can be a big deterrent factor why no one in his right mind would be basing in USA if the business is a centralized crypto exchange so they better be based in El Salvador instead. And then this can be another big reason why DEX is a lot better than CEX.

Please correct me if I got it all wrong.

Should the prevention of crypto exchanges providing liquidity for cryptocurrencies be equated with shutting them down? I don't think so. That's probably going too far in its interpretation. If at all, it will probably just cleanse trading platforms of fake orders and volumes. If such prevention is implemented, thousands of shitcoins might lose liquidity and die. Well, it's going to be a problem to many but will also be a sort of a protection to a lot at the same time. After all, we all have an idea how huge of these centralized exchanges' reported volumes are fake.

And it's not about privacy. As a matter of fact, the death of centralized exchanges might preserve privacy more than jeopardize it.

How, indeed.  I've long wondered how the US would go about implementing a complete ban on crypto if they were ever inclined to do so, and the only answer I could ever think of was by simply passing a law outlawing the use of it.  I'm not sure how a US law would prevent off-shore exchanges from providing service to US customers.  Some might not give a shit, some might comply, but I think only places like Coinbase, Gemini, and other US-based crypto exchanges would be truly affected by a law like this.

Do you live in Connecticut?  If not, there's no way for you to do anything about this jackass being in office.  And CT has been a blue state (majority Democrats) for as long as I can remember.  Hopefully this piece of shit provision will never see the light of day.  Hopefully the Winklevoss twins are doing something about this (and other crypto gazillionaires, too).

Another aspect to this debate is market or industry sentiment. Thus, while policy specifics can be debated - and there is certainly room for that in bills - it's also important to take into account investor psychology. If legislators are perceived as hostile to an industry - again we are talking about mere perception - it can potentially hinder investment and hence innovation, since we can roughly equate them. Thus, bad language in bills is harmful aside from the very practical aspects of their enforcement. So the wording of legislation is important to foster innovation.

funny part is

i procrastinated that segwit would activate due to mandated bips.... it happened
i procrastinated that LN is being labelled as bitcoin 2.0 for everyone to use instead of using bitcoin daily.. it happened

yep i am cynical, and critical thinker. but my thoughts come with references and data to back them up. not emotion
i actually pulled out a key thing to campaign over.. the 120 being removed. and explained how 0-e-l-e-o thought it was a grace period before an order is activated, when infact it was a limit to how long an order can last. which has been removed meaning orders can now last longer.


i dont rely on twitter/blog influencers to form my opinion by them handing me a script to recite. i read the source data, i then check it out and verify. 0-e-l-e-o seems to have just jumped straight into the same script recited on the blog found in the tweet. and then his buddy(you) defend him without you checking if o-e-l-e-o is right or not..
sorry but social drama does not make things fact just because 2 people can poke emotion into a discussion.

try spending more time researching and less time crying and social dramatising then crying more when someone bites back

after all
atleast i dont go full utopia of altnets and full bitcoin doomsday exaggeration("100mb by midnight, or broke")

but it is funny how you have not even bothered to read the topic or add substance to the topic content but just came here to start social drama .. as you always do

I think times have changed, and today exchanges are making much more money than in the past, and therefore we can expect more activity in lobbying against anti-crypto provisions in the future.

In the meanwhile something is already being done.


^^ This is a quote from an article written 3 months ago. So, let's hold our breath, guys. Let's hope that exchanges, who have made so much money thanks to their customers, will do something to defend the rights of those customers and their own right to make even more money.

And without a hint of irony.  Priceless. 

How is it when you're the one who sees a problem, you can engage in as much hyperbole and far-flung fairy tales as you like, but the moment anyone else sees a problem with anything, you act as though they're just being dramatic and it's not as bad as they think?

You've prognosticated dozens of doomsday scenarios in your time on this forum, so maybe check to see how rickety your greenhouse is before you start casting stones.

just quoting again to emphasise the exaggerations, mainly for comedy but to summarise how its all silly fear from those that took more time reading a conspiracy blog as their opinion rather than reading the actual wording of the bill (without said conspiracy leaning preset-bias)

1. its not yellen simply saying so, its not on a whim.
2. she cant just write an order on a post-it note. there are processes and things inplace that she needs to go through
3. she still has a process of consulting multiple agencies and assessing the negative impacts, and the lawfulness.
4. she cant just say 'close account X' for no reason

even that is a bit of a exaggeration..
the exchange has to record keep (locally within the exchange(same as usual)). and only report users that flag up as potential money launderers, criminals, terrorists, ransomware(same as usual)

EG if yellen tells an exchange that some ransomware used address bc1qransomwareretirement
then the exchange could check the taint of its users deposits and if a deposit was tainted with that ransomware funds. THEN that users records would be reported.

this does not mean that the users funds are frozen at the time of the report. the exchange then needs to receive an order once fincen/nat sec does an investigation

its not the case that all users are reported for every transaction all because they had transactions in the same block or blockchain that a ransomware transaction occured in.
only the user with ransomware taint would be reported if a order was to report ransomware related transactions[/list]

I read through the documents, though many of the things there were speculated and not actually facts. There is not major threat to exchanges. I sense some kind of media hype.
The major thing propose there was to extend  bank secrecy act to cryptocurrency. This means exchanges will be compelled to remit every details of customers transactions to the state's  criminal investigation file.
My take:

• The provisions will grossly go against people's privacy. So, such attempt will not work
• The major clause there about account freezing was just a speculation of the writer I think.
  

• Anyone using an exchange should expect anything of this nature, so it is not something so strange.

im going to have to laugh here.

o-e-l-e-o is taking a context of still requiring that she doesnt go against any law/regulation.. to make it sound like she can do as she pleases at a whim..
ignoring things like she still needs to consult many other agencies and assess the burden/legality any action she takes might have..

but hey. instead of arguing about the removal of the 120 limit of action. he wants to argue that yellen is an outlaw and can do anything for any reason. totally ignoring how the representatives would quote back to o-e-l-e-o that yellen cant just do as she pleases. listing the reasons

You would have thought so, but the big centralized exchanges have shown absolutely zero interest in spending some of their fortunes to defend bitcoin in the past or to campaign against other pieces of damaging legislation. I wouldn't be holding my breath they'll step up now.

I don't disagree, but most of DeFi isn't actually decentralized at all, and is ran from centralized exchanges and services hosted on centralized servers and owned and operated by a small number of individuals, or operating on smart contracts with a small number of people holding editing privileges, and so on.

As permitted by law. And this law permits her to do it without order or regulation.

The old law quite clearly states that subsection (b)(5) (this is the subsection allowing accounts and transactions to be frozen) "may be imposed only by regulation."
The new law quite clearly states that this subsection may be imposed "by order, regulation, or otherwise as permitted by law."
Even if you don't understand what this means (as you evidently don't), anyone can clearly see it is a loosening of requirements. She no longer needs an order or regulation.

Here's some more info: https://www.coincenter.org/new-bill-would-hand-treasury-blank-check-to-ban-crypto-at-exchanges/

firstly. what o-e-l-e-o misses out on is that yellen cant decide what she wants and freeze any account as she pleases on a whim

because she is restricted by:

meaning she has to get a court order.. (means she has to explain why, and a judge has to agree)
its a reason already listed in regulation or law. (she is not creating law, she has to follow the law.. as fincen does)

she has to obide by the laws. and can only request a account to be frozen if its deemed to have broken the law.

its not that she has new powers that fincen do not. its that she has the SAME powers as fincen.
the removal of (3) 120days. is not about any grace period before something becomes new law. its that any current order used to only be active for 120 days. but now can last longer.

where she and fincen both have to actually provide proof and reasoning for requesting a account to be frozen
..
as for the rest of the twitter rant and attached blog about shutting down an exchange purely for confirming a block that was made by some foreign asic farm.. thats just pure BS crazy nonsense

if people like o-e-l-e-o actually read it and campaigned for "dont allow special measures to last beyond 120 days!"
instead of his conspiracy "does this mean new laws can happen without notice"

he might actually have a more realistic campaign

old (3)

new (3)

as seen she still needs to seek authorisation from governors of the FRS, banking agency, secretary of state, SEC, CFTC NCUA. and assess any impact she makes.

the only difference is those orders can only last 120 days prior revision, but now has no end point.

What he would effectively be doing is destroying the centralized cryptocurrency exchanges but also giving more incentive and a much larger boost to the DeFi sector. I see that as a good thing. Centralization has no place in crypto! Sooner or later, we will phase it out with privacy coins and Defi. Even if there is a fiat disconnect, the crypto world is already much too large to be destroyed. So basically it will become a split paradigm with crypto slowly becoming the real money and Fiat becoming extinct.

No problems there.

I suspect a lot of lobbying to be done by the exchanges against this provision since this would ultimately put them out of business. And they're not exactly your average joe campaigner - these are private and publicly held companies with billions of dollars of revenue between them all.

Once again, franky1 has completely misinterpreted the bill and has decided that he and he alone has the only true meaning of it, despite the people whose entire jobs it is to read and write such bills think the opposite.

Here is the text in question (page 1485 of this document: https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR4521RH-RCP117-31.pdf)

The important points to note are "(B) by striking paragraph (2)", and "(C) by striking paragraph (3)". Let's head over to see what Section 5138A of the US Code says in paragraphs (2) and (3) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5318A):


So this is all getting wiped. So yes, the special measures franky1 has outlined have always existed, but could only be implemented by regulation. Now they can be implemented by Janet Yellen (who's not exactly friendly to bitcoin) simply saying so, with absolutely no formal notice, due process, public involvement, legal challenges, etc. They used to have a time limit associated with them - that's been scrapped too.

If Yellen decides she wants to, she can now make any exchange freeze your account or even freeze all accounts (i.e. stop the exchange from operating) on a whim, and there is no process by which she can be stopped, delayed, challenged, etc.

This needs challenged. Call your representatives. And get your funds off centralized exchanges before it's too late.

seems like another over exaggeration of the wording.. much like the crazy nutjob conspiracy of the 'devs are broker' thing last year that spread on twitter

seems someone thinks that asking an exchange to record keep its customers trades.(in the bill) is now sounding like destroy exchanges in a tweet

sorry but the bill does not say anything about unilaterally shutting down exchanges

the special measures in the tweets linked exaggeration blog are said like this

reality is 4of 5 special measures ask an exchange to monitor and record keep customers transactions
and report activities deemed as possibly money laundering/criminal
the 5th allows the secretary to send an order to freeze a customers account if deemed illegal activity has occured

this is not new powers. this is the same powers as all money exchanges have to be regulated by

so here is the rational view of the bill
firstly every transaction is not put on a 'criminal investigation file'  fincen and SEC are not going to be given reports every millisecond of every transaction.
an exchange just has to record keep. and build a policy to notice certain flags that appear as laundering. and only report those. and its then the authorities who investigate and if deemed illegal(laundering/terrorism/ransomware) related the authorities get a court order to then ask the exchange to freeze the account

this is the same policy as any fiat exchange for the last few decades

..

the exaggeration blog also tries to make it sound like if a exchange even has a node confirming blocks where a block is from russia, the exchange can be charged as a money launderer(facepalm)

seems someone wants to go to crazy town and misinterpret the actual wording to make it sound crazy, and then blame the crazy on the bill. (like the crazy exaggeration of devs are brokers' exaggeration last year by twitter nuts)

personally i dont want to see any government over-reach that goes beyond consumer protection.. but when there are people exaggerating what is included in a bill. it makes it that much harder to fight any real problems, becasue when a bunch of conspiracy people are trying to get a bill repealed for non existent crazy reasons they made up. bill representatives think any campaign against a bill are just conspiracy loonies. thus the bill representatives close their ears to any real campaign treating real campaigns if they are also the conspiracy crazy ones

if only these people thought rationally and actually looked for real flaws in a bill instead of making up crazy exaggerations/conspiracies, then campaigns to get representatives of a bill to listen might get some more attention when real flaws come up.

Jim Himes, a Democratic congressional representative of Connecticut, has allegedly masterminded sneaking in a provision into the America Competes Act that potentially gives the Secretary Treasury the unilateral power to stop cryptocurrency exchanges from providing liquidity for cryptocurrencies - essentially shutting them down. Here is Jerry Brito of Coin Center on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/jerrybrito/status/1486349099314130952

"Included in the America COMPETES Act just introduced in the House, and which will very likely pass in some form, is a provision that would be disastrous not just for cryptocurrency but for privacy and due process generally."

[...]

"The so-called 'special measures' provision (proposed by @jahimes) would essentially give the Treasury Secretary unchecked and unilateral power to ban exchanges and other financial institutions from engaging in cryptocurrency transactions. How would it do this?"

He should be voted out!