I just hope the regulations will favor innovation and that it would not be too restrictive and complex for companies to adhere to. We saw how the regulators in NY handled the Bit License fiasco.
Topic: The new pro-cryptocurrency bill written by members of the US Congress WILL PASS! (Read 218 times)
January 06, 2019, 03:50:55 AM
The current US government are getting a lot of flack from the opposition lately as seen with the funding of the great wall between the US and Mexico. You can also expect a lot of opposition from the other side, just because the current party is supporting Bitcoin.
I just hope the regulations will favor innovation and that it would not be too restrictive and complex for companies to adhere to. We saw how the regulators in NY handled the Bit License fiasco.
I just hope the regulations will favor innovation and that it would not be too restrictive and complex for companies to adhere to. We saw how the regulators in NY handled the Bit License fiasco.
January 06, 2019, 03:04:32 AM
It will need to be resubmitted this year. This one is specifically about what we could expect if/when that happens.
LOL so, anyone want to ruin the excitement with why they think it won't happen?
Or do you agree?
LOL so, anyone want to ruin the excitement with why they think it won't happen?
Or do you agree?
I suppose the only question to ask now is whether Democrats favor cryptocurrency or not. Do you have an opinion on that?
The Democrats are back in control of both sides of the US legislation. If they favor the crypto than we'll all do well, no?
I no longer care about US tbh. Even without US crypto can be massively adopted. ETF and etc is not important I think, it will be approved sooner or later when they wanted. EU is already crypto friendly, so no need to force US.
You should care about the US, if only because Bitcoin and cryptocurrency (in a format that succeeded) was created in the US. Hal Finney's early involvement in the project proves that fact. No need to care for any other reason though...there's way too much self centered shit coming from the US for other reasons.
January 05, 2019, 10:37:49 PM
I no longer care about US tbh. Even without US crypto can be massively adopted. ETF and etc is not important I think, it will be approved sooner or later when they wanted. EU is already crypto friendly, so no need to force US.
January 05, 2019, 06:37:16 PM
I may be wrong, but thought capital gains would still apply under this bill? I know it does make any transaction where you bought crypto with crypto (so, trades) untaxed.
But they’re still going to want a cut of any USD you sell it for.
But they’re still going to want a cut of any USD you sell it for.
January 05, 2019, 11:48:05 AM
It would be a good thing and I also agree they will pass it. Bitcoin isn't like stocks and it isn't a private investment fund. There should be no capital gains tax paid and only income tax when Bitcoins are sold or exchanged for goods.
Many countries around the world have it this way and the US shouldn't continue to stick to some ancient rules established in times when nobody knew about computers.
Many countries around the world have it this way and the US shouldn't continue to stick to some ancient rules established in times when nobody knew about computers.
January 05, 2019, 10:26:14 AM
As we've seen many times with the US congress, getting a bill to pass isn't always that much of an issue. Actually having it effect change and have content in it that accomplishes what it claims is another thing. I have not read the bill but imagine that it is not as favorable as they may be leading us to believe.
January 05, 2019, 03:42:55 AM
...well, okay nobody can say for sure - but there's some pretty solid reasoning to believe that it's at least likely!
...And just a note that this is really a followup article. The first one covered the contents of the bill, and that although it was submitted in the last days of 2018 - that was just symbolic. It will need to be resubmitted this year. This one is specifically about what we could expect if/when that happens.
LOL so, anyone want to ruin the excitement with why they think it won't happen?
Or do you agree?
Quote
Why the new pro-cryptocurrency bill written by members of the US Congress WILL PASS in 2019...
Last week Congressmen Warren Davidson (Republican) and Darren Soto (Democrat) introduced a bill that addresses, and solves the biggest issues US based cryptocurrency investors and project developers have faced over the last year.
The bill clarifies that tokens shall no longer be defined as 'securities' and therefore shouldn't have to follow the same guidelines as investments such as stocks, it also makes clear what needs to be reported for tax purposes, and what doesn't.
It officially frees the emerging technologies of blockchain and cryptocurrencies from it's current state - bound to outdated laws passed in 1945.
To put that in perspective, the first color TV was sold in 1954 - but cryptocurrencies in the United States are being regulated with laws written nearly a decade before that.
But none of it matters if the bill doesn't pass. I think it will, let me tell you why...
BIPARTISAN AUTHORS:
The bill is written by 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.
Do you ever feel like elected officials from each party just looks to see if an idea is presented by the opposing party, and if it was - then they're against it?
However, a bill authored and introduced by members of both parties will require politicians to actually look into what it's about.
I believe even if they don't understand the technical aspects, the core concept is quite simple: using regulations written in 1945 and applying it to technology invented in 2008 is absurd. They don't need to understand much more than this to know this bill is vital to keeping America competitive in the global marketplace.
THEY'VE GATHERED WIDE SUPPORT FOR CRYPTOCURRENCY ONCE BEFORE:
The first move in the right direction began with these same congressmen issuing an official letter to the SEC requesting their clarification regarding how they will regulate ICOs, back in September of this year.
It used bold language, clearly stating their concern that the SEC was using "a heavy-handed regulatory approach that could stall innovation" when it came to cryptocurrency.
They submitted this letter with 14 signatures in total, from a variety of both Democrats and Republicans. I think it's reasonable to assume we can expect these same officials to also be supporters of this bill when it comes time to vote.
THE BITCOIN BOOGIEMAN IS DEAD:
The days of people hearing "bitcoin" and thinking it's just the official currency of everything evil are behind us.
With companies such as Bakkt, owned by the New York Stock Exchange, Starbucks, and Microsoft entering the cryptocurrency space, and 99% of news stories being on the topic of it's price and fundamentals, not drugs purchased online - the public perception has changed drastically.
Before casting a vote, government officials may even want to check with other agencies to see if this new perception is true.
If they do, they'll find reports from people like Special Agent Lilita Infante of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The report states that in the 5 years of monitoring illegal activity using cryptocurrencies - they've seen a dramatic drop.
Those 5 years began with them suspecting up to 90% of cryptocurrency transactions were for illegal purchases. Today that's 10% and still dropping.
NO LONGER JUST WATCHING FROM A DISTANCE:
I clearly remember the feeling I would get when I heard there would be any kind of hearing that included the topic of cryptocurrency. Wondering if anyone has ever actually sat down with our elected leaders and given them at least a basic overview of what cryptocurrency even is.
Finally, now roaming he halls of congress are people representing the cyptocurrency and blockchain industry.
The US Blockchain Association is backed by funding from the top exchanges and blockchain startups, and it's only existed since September of this year.
If a member of congress expresses their opposition to the bill, it's their job to set up a meeting, to help guide them in the right direction and correct any misconceptions.
Those who vote in support of bills that fuel the industry's growth can likely expect some help when it comes time to funding their next campaign.
Like it or not, this is how the game is played. Many people, myself included see this as long overdue. We may not be in the position we are now if these efforts began earlier.
IT ALL ENDS ON THE DESK OF A PRESIDENT, WITH A CRYPROCURRENCY ADVOCATE AT HIS SIDE:
If what i've said so far turns out to be correct - the final step is the bill arriving to the White House where it needs it's final signature of the President before becoming law.
Once again, there's reason to believe the bill will pass this final step.
That's because 2019 kicks off with cryptocurrency supporter Mick Mulvaney as President Trump's new Chief Of Staff.
Mulvaney is a former congressman - actually, he's the first member of congress to accept Bitcoin campaign donations.
He was also the author of two bills - 1108 and 7002, which urged officials to take a reasonable regulatory approach to the cryptocurrency markets, and make smart contracts legally binding equal to a signature on paper.
IN CLOSING:
There's one final point I always try to mention when writing on the subject of regulations, because there's a common misconception that things like this bill would suddenly turn the cryptocurrency markets into a lawless wild west for investors, and somehow make things easier for the bad apples and scam ICOs. That is not the case. It always has, and always will be illegal to lie in order to get other people's money - that's called fraud.
With that said - I just cannot look at all of the factors above and come to any other conclusion - the odds are in our favor!
Most importantly is the the simple fact that a vote against it is a vote to push the next generation of innovators out of a country that once claimed to be home to those who had bold ideas on how to shape the future of not only America, but the world.
SOURCE: http://www.globalcryptopress.com/2018/12/the-new-pro-cryptocurrency-bill.html
Author: Ross Davis / Silicon Valley Newsdesk
Last week Congressmen Warren Davidson (Republican) and Darren Soto (Democrat) introduced a bill that addresses, and solves the biggest issues US based cryptocurrency investors and project developers have faced over the last year.
The bill clarifies that tokens shall no longer be defined as 'securities' and therefore shouldn't have to follow the same guidelines as investments such as stocks, it also makes clear what needs to be reported for tax purposes, and what doesn't.
It officially frees the emerging technologies of blockchain and cryptocurrencies from it's current state - bound to outdated laws passed in 1945.
To put that in perspective, the first color TV was sold in 1954 - but cryptocurrencies in the United States are being regulated with laws written nearly a decade before that.
But none of it matters if the bill doesn't pass. I think it will, let me tell you why...
BIPARTISAN AUTHORS:
The bill is written by 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.
Do you ever feel like elected officials from each party just looks to see if an idea is presented by the opposing party, and if it was - then they're against it?
However, a bill authored and introduced by members of both parties will require politicians to actually look into what it's about.
I believe even if they don't understand the technical aspects, the core concept is quite simple: using regulations written in 1945 and applying it to technology invented in 2008 is absurd. They don't need to understand much more than this to know this bill is vital to keeping America competitive in the global marketplace.
THEY'VE GATHERED WIDE SUPPORT FOR CRYPTOCURRENCY ONCE BEFORE:
The first move in the right direction began with these same congressmen issuing an official letter to the SEC requesting their clarification regarding how they will regulate ICOs, back in September of this year.
It used bold language, clearly stating their concern that the SEC was using "a heavy-handed regulatory approach that could stall innovation" when it came to cryptocurrency.
They submitted this letter with 14 signatures in total, from a variety of both Democrats and Republicans. I think it's reasonable to assume we can expect these same officials to also be supporters of this bill when it comes time to vote.
THE BITCOIN BOOGIEMAN IS DEAD:
The days of people hearing "bitcoin" and thinking it's just the official currency of everything evil are behind us.
With companies such as Bakkt, owned by the New York Stock Exchange, Starbucks, and Microsoft entering the cryptocurrency space, and 99% of news stories being on the topic of it's price and fundamentals, not drugs purchased online - the public perception has changed drastically.
Before casting a vote, government officials may even want to check with other agencies to see if this new perception is true.
If they do, they'll find reports from people like Special Agent Lilita Infante of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The report states that in the 5 years of monitoring illegal activity using cryptocurrencies - they've seen a dramatic drop.
Those 5 years began with them suspecting up to 90% of cryptocurrency transactions were for illegal purchases. Today that's 10% and still dropping.
NO LONGER JUST WATCHING FROM A DISTANCE:
I clearly remember the feeling I would get when I heard there would be any kind of hearing that included the topic of cryptocurrency. Wondering if anyone has ever actually sat down with our elected leaders and given them at least a basic overview of what cryptocurrency even is.
Finally, now roaming he halls of congress are people representing the cyptocurrency and blockchain industry.
The US Blockchain Association is backed by funding from the top exchanges and blockchain startups, and it's only existed since September of this year.
If a member of congress expresses their opposition to the bill, it's their job to set up a meeting, to help guide them in the right direction and correct any misconceptions.
Those who vote in support of bills that fuel the industry's growth can likely expect some help when it comes time to funding their next campaign.
Like it or not, this is how the game is played. Many people, myself included see this as long overdue. We may not be in the position we are now if these efforts began earlier.
IT ALL ENDS ON THE DESK OF A PRESIDENT, WITH A CRYPROCURRENCY ADVOCATE AT HIS SIDE:
If what i've said so far turns out to be correct - the final step is the bill arriving to the White House where it needs it's final signature of the President before becoming law.
Once again, there's reason to believe the bill will pass this final step.
That's because 2019 kicks off with cryptocurrency supporter Mick Mulvaney as President Trump's new Chief Of Staff.
Mulvaney is a former congressman - actually, he's the first member of congress to accept Bitcoin campaign donations.
He was also the author of two bills - 1108 and 7002, which urged officials to take a reasonable regulatory approach to the cryptocurrency markets, and make smart contracts legally binding equal to a signature on paper.
IN CLOSING:
There's one final point I always try to mention when writing on the subject of regulations, because there's a common misconception that things like this bill would suddenly turn the cryptocurrency markets into a lawless wild west for investors, and somehow make things easier for the bad apples and scam ICOs. That is not the case. It always has, and always will be illegal to lie in order to get other people's money - that's called fraud.
With that said - I just cannot look at all of the factors above and come to any other conclusion - the odds are in our favor!
Most importantly is the the simple fact that a vote against it is a vote to push the next generation of innovators out of a country that once claimed to be home to those who had bold ideas on how to shape the future of not only America, but the world.
SOURCE: http://www.globalcryptopress.com/2018/12/the-new-pro-cryptocurrency-bill.html
Author: Ross Davis / Silicon Valley Newsdesk
...And just a note that this is really a followup article. The first one covered the contents of the bill, and that although it was submitted in the last days of 2018 - that was just symbolic. It will need to be resubmitted this year. This one is specifically about what we could expect if/when that happens.
LOL so, anyone want to ruin the excitement with why they think it won't happen?
Or do you agree?
Jump to: