Framework to Regulate Crypto, Stablecoins Introduced in US Congress

[64K]

Legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives on Wednesday

to provide a “comprehensive legal framework” to regulate the digital asset market and possibly grant the federal government the ability to ban some stablecoins

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said the existing digital asset market structure and regulatory framework are too “ambiguous and dangerous for investors and consumers.”

Among its many provisions the measure would:

• Create statutory definitions for digital assets and digital asset securities and provide the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with authority over digital asset securities and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with authority over digital assets
• Require digital asset transactions that are not recorded on the publicly distributed ledger to be reported to a registered Digital Asset Trade Repository within 24 hours to minimize the potential for fraud and promote transparency
• Explicitly add digital assets and digital asset securities to the statutory definition of “monetary instruments,” under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), formalizing the regulatory requirements for digital assets and digital asset securities to comply with anti-money laundering, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
• Provide the Federal Reserve with explicit authority to issue a digital version of the U.S. dollar, clarify that digital assets, digital asset securities and fiat-based stablecoins are not U.S. legal tender, and provide the U.S. Treasury Secretary with authority to permit or prohibit US dollar and other fiat-based stablecoins
• Direct the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to issue consumer advisories on “non coverage” of digital assets or digital asset securities to ensure that consumers are aware that they are not insured or protected in the same way as bank deposits or securities

Framework to Regulate Crypto, Stablecoins Introduced in US Congress

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said the existing digital asset market structure and regulatory framework are too “ambiguous and dangerous for investors and consumers.”

www.coindesk.com

 

[Space Lynx]

Palit tells customers to avoid second hand graphics card used for mining

With Ethereum hovering around $2,300 per token and difficulty back to more than 7.0P, crypto-currency mining isn't as profitable as it was earlier this year. Mineable crypto...

www.techspot.com

also more evidence you should never buy used graphics cards that were used for mining. hehehehe

 

[R-T-B]

Palit tells customers to avoid second hand graphics card used for mining

With Ethereum hovering around $2,300 per token and difficulty back to more than 7.0P, crypto-currency mining isn't as profitable as it was earlier this year. Mineable crypto...

www.techspot.com

also more evidence you should never buy used graphics cards that were used for mining. hehehehe

This isn't just a "crypto hate" thread. Please keep it on topic.

I see more regulation as a good thing.

 

[qubit]

"Stablecoins". That's a new one, for me. And yeah, crypto currency has been the Wild West of money ever since it started in 2009 with fraud and crime running rampant, so I'm with @R-T-B on this one, that regulation is a good thing.

Before anyone flames me for saying this, think just how many thousands of things are regulated in first world countries that benefit us all by protecting us in one way or the other. In fact, regulation is one of the defining differences between first world and third world countries. Which would you rather live in?

 

[R-T-B]

"Stablecoins". That's a new one, for me.

They aren't a new concept. They are essentially coins without mining, backed by a local currency. USDC is probably a prime example of a well-run one (backed by USD).

If you want an example of one that needs regulation, look at USDT (better known as Tether).

The exchange rate is hardly unstable. They nearly always trade at a fixed dollar.

Honestly there is so much about crypto this community neither knows, nor desires to ever learn. It's sad.

 

[heliosgnosis]

Legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives on Wednesday

to provide a “comprehensive legal framework” to regulate the digital asset market and possibly grant the federal government the ability to ban some stablecoins

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said the existing digital asset market structure and regulatory framework are too “ambiguous and dangerous for investors and consumers.”

Among its many provisions the measure would:

• Create statutory definitions for digital assets and digital asset securities and provide the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with authority over digital asset securities and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with authority over digital assets
• Require digital asset transactions that are not recorded on the publicly distributed ledger to be reported to a registered Digital Asset Trade Repository within 24 hours to minimize the potential for fraud and promote transparency
• Explicitly add digital assets and digital asset securities to the statutory definition of “monetary instruments,” under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), formalizing the regulatory requirements for digital assets and digital asset securities to comply with anti-money laundering, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
• Provide the Federal Reserve with explicit authority to issue a digital version of the U.S. dollar, clarify that digital assets, digital asset securities and fiat-based stablecoins are not U.S. legal tender, and provide the U.S. Treasury Secretary with authority to permit or prohibit US dollar and other fiat-based stablecoins
• Direct the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to issue consumer advisories on “non coverage” of digital assets or digital asset securities to ensure that consumers are aware that they are not insured or protected in the same way as bank deposits or securities

Framework to Regulate Crypto, Stablecoins Introduced in US Congress

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said the existing digital asset market structure and regulatory framework are too “ambiguous and dangerous for investors and consumers.”

www.coindesk.com

Short and simple in plain words, we the US government want to be able to ban any stable asset that can maintain a value of 1 US fiat dollar in good or bad market conditions because we want to be able to be at the top by force with our soon to be forced unto the pubic USD stable coin and nope we cannot have any competition so therefore we must be in control and spit lies and BS about all the bad things everyone naïve to crypto already think is true to get our way and force this out one way or another. Heck even when it is about digital money that OLDDDDDDDDD saying "It is ALWAYS about the money" still rings true through yet another generation of potential debt slaves aka citizens. Not being negative or trollish, being plain and simple honest as possible, this is what the government is saying. If we cannot be top dog we will force ourselves to the top by removal of anything that hinders it, beyond screwed up. Crypto is about you the person holding your wealth, you hold the keys to the vault to which none can enter but you and those you allow, this aspect alone is what sparked government interest into it in the first place even before the surface net heard the name bitcoin, it is not about crimes or tax evasion, heck the biggest criminals and tax evaders are the very men and women who are the very government of any nation, any person alive for more than 15 years knows that truth. Wealth they cannot take or freeze or get a share of for doing zero, zip, nada is not okay to them and thus why this is happening, they needed a reason to make it appear like it was something else other than we want to be able to steal from you like we always have "you know that tax that is taken from a paycheck before you get it" yeah btw that is the definition basis of stealing, what they do all day everyday just with payroll tax, never once did the EVER give the citizen the choice to pay those taxes instead they assume most will not so they steal it by default. I am all for taxes and understand their need, what I am not for is stealing from the people who make a ruling body have any money and any power whatsoever taking advantage of those citizens by doing what they do and always have, control us, steal from us, and make personal choices for us, not okay no matter where you are on earth. Crypto makes that impossible to do for them, Crypto is a threat so unless they can control it fully they will hack at it until it goes back underground or evolves into what they want, another even better more accurate system of debt enslavement and control of the masses wealth, the opposite of Crypto's essence, this is WHY every privacy coin they cannot track, trace or steal from those wallets by force are going up more and more as each day passes, any reading this would be wise to look into that aspect of crypto and mitigate assets into it and vaults "wallets" to which not even the NSA can steal your personal wealth way before that is the only resort left to so resort to and have personal private wealth the way it is suppose to be, you earned it it is your wealth, just because you live in so and so nation or so and so district does not give a piece of your personal "cake" to the rulers of that place, it is yours and you need to keep it that way because they are coming for control only not taxes.

 

[R-T-B]

soon to be forced unto the pubic USD stable coin

Ignoring the humourous mispelling, I'd be genuinely shocked if this happened.

Your whole post is full of what I am going to term "crypto-driven paranoia" that I cannot claim to share.

 

[Bones]

Ignoring the humourous mispelling, I'd be genuinely shocked if this happened.

Your whole post is full of what I am going to term "crypto-driven paranoia" that I cannot claim to share.

I too as you and others know already I'm no fan of crypto.
There are some things in that legislation that bothers me too, such as the term "Digital Assets".
I know it's understood this is to be in reference to digital currency BUT it also depends on what a "Digital Asset" is defined to be legally.

And I'll be right to it here, some of that language seems to be pointing toward setting up the foundation of a cashless society. They (Of course) would be in control of it, effectively taking control over all crypo in this country period which I suspect has been the plan all along.
By saying "Our digi-coin is legal tender" would mean all other digi-coins will be banned with all having to go with the one they make and would also do away with mining in the legal sense of it.

 

[TheEndIsNear]

TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX. Yup got out before this bs. They have to get their grubby little hands on any income so they can waste it on transgender studies in Pakistan. I hate what this country has become. Nothing against any transgender person, you do you, but paying my tax money to study it in pakistan? Is there even any? Don't they stone people to death for being gay or something. I'm just an ignorant american I know nothing outside this cluster country.

 

[Chomiq]

Palit tells customers to avoid second hand graphics card used for mining

With Ethereum hovering around $2,300 per token and difficulty back to more than 7.0P, crypto-currency mining isn't as profitable as it was earlier this year. Mineable crypto...

www.techspot.com

also more evidence you should never buy used graphics cards that were used for mining. hehehehe

Gpu manufacturer saying that you shouldn't buy used cards. They totally don't have any interest in selling you brand new gpu, just like they weren't selling to miners directly when it was benefitting them.

As for market regulations - it was bound to happen sooner or later. Just look at recent cases when money loundering schemes were revealed. China and India are planning to release their own digital coins which will make tracking citizens much easier. Taxes are the least of people's problems right now.

 

[R-T-B]

I too as you and others know already I'm no fan of crypto.
There are some things in that legislation that bothers me too, such as the term "Digital Assets".
I know it's understood this is to be in reference to digital currency BUT it also depends on what a "Digital Asset" is defined to be legally.

And I'll be right to it here, some of that language seems to be pointing toward setting up the foundation of a cashless society. They (Of course) would be in control of it, effectively taking control over all crypo in this country period which I suspect has been the plan all along.
By saying "Our digi-coin is legal tender" would mean all other digi-coins will be banned with all having to go with the one they make and would also do away with mining in the legal sense of it.

It's more that a cashless society is the way we are going whether they like it or not and they don't want to be left it the dust (especially in regards to taxes). In some ways, they already ARE way behind the curve on this.

I'm just going to say it like I feel: any theory above that is unsubstantiated paranoia as of now.

I could be wrong of course. Time will show us the truth.

TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX. Yup got out before this bs. They have to get their grubby little hands on any income so they can waste it on transgender studies in Pakistan. I hate what this country has become. Nothing against any transgender person, you do you, but paying my tax money to study it in pakistan? Is there even any? Don't they stone people to death for being gay or something. I'm just an ignorant american I know nothing outside this cluster country.

[Citation needed]

Of course there are transgendered people in Pakistan but this is completely OT.

The only part of this that is on target is that they are doing this for taxes, which you will eventually pay one way or another. That's life.

By saying "Our digi-coin is legal tender" would mean all other digi-coins will be banned

Why? That's a big leap you make there from one to the other.

 

[Bones]

1: It's more that a cashless society is the way we are going whether they like it or not and they don't want to be left it the dust (especially in regards to taxes). In some ways, they already ARE way behind the curve on this.

2: I'm just going to say it like I feel: any theory above that is unsubstantiated paranoia as of now.

I could be wrong of course. Time will show us the truth.

3:Why? That's a big leap you make there from one to the other.

1: I'm aware of that and have suspected for a long time crypto would probrably be "How" it's done.
One of the "Benefits" of crypto that made it so popular will be history at that point, ANYTHING you'd do with any money you have from that point on would be a matter of record no matter how mundane it is.

• Require digital asset transactions that are not recorded on the publicly distributed ledger to be reported to a registered Digital Asset Trade Repository within 24 hours to minimize the potential for fraud and promote transparency
• Explicitly add digital assets and digital asset securities to the statutory definition of “monetary instruments,” under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), formalizing the regulatory requirements for digital assets and digital asset securities to comply with anti-money laundering, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements

I know what the proposal says about it ATM but we all know that can change, either now or even after it's made into law.
Definition of what it is can and probrably will be modified at some point, according to need or whim.
A dollar bill is a monetary instrument for example by legal definition and I can guarantee any digi-coins mined by individuals will become the same per legal definition.
There is also the banana peel to it, stated as "Reporting Requirements" which can be anything at this point they've have in mind about it.

For the gov (Particuarly the IRS) that's a wet dream come true, no denying it. It could also tie into something that has been proposed, namely the "Guaranteed Income" ideal some are throwing around.
I mean it's the gov - Whatever they decide to do, they can do if they want.

2: And I'll say what I'm feeling too - It's a thought but at the same time read the last part of what I posted right above this in italic. I do hope I'm wrong, but at the same time you must consider the possibility, esp with what we do know as fact concerning such as all the weirdness we know they've done before with about anything you can put a name to.
Again, I hope I'm wrong and you are correct, time tells all and we'll see but at the same time it's nothing I want to see happen because if I do, then it's reality instead of just theory.

3: Not as big of a leap as you'd think.
Do remember the gov says it's money and only it's money is legal tender for anything, crypto being a form of money and what they are proposing would indeed be money they'd make. Once an official digi-currency comes to be, at that point mining would amount to the same basic thing as printing your own money and we all know that's a huge No-No.
Our own definitions or ideas about it doesn't matter - It's their definition and word that does.

I'm not aware of any gov in the world that tolerates folks making their own currency regardless of what form it takes or is in.

Provide the Federal Reserve with explicit authority to issue a digital version of the U.S. dollar, clarify that digital assets, digital asset securities and fiat-based stablecoins are not U.S. legal tender, and provide the U.S. Treasury Secretary with authority to permit or prohibit US dollar and other fiat-based stablecoins

I seriously doubt their stance on this concept will ever change no matter what form it takes;
Bills, coins, digital coins.... Rocks..... Doesn't matter.

 

[eidairaman1]

"Stablecoins". That's a new one, for me. And yeah, crypto currency has been the Wild West of money ever since it started in 2009 with fraud and crime running rampant, so I'm with @R-T-B on this one, that regulation is a good thing.

Before anyone flames me for saying this, think just how many thousands of things are regulated in first world countries that benefit us all by protecting us in one way or the other. In fact, regulation is one of the defining differences between first world and third world countries. Which would you rather live in?

Im not a fan of crypto regardless due to how people abuse hardware and waste electricity.

 

[Space Lynx]

Gpu manufacturer saying that you shouldn't buy used cards. They totally don't have any interest in selling you brand new gpu, just like they weren't selling to miners directly when it was benefitting them.

As for market regulations - it was bound to happen sooner or later. Just look at recent cases when money loundering schemes were revealed. China and India are planning to release their own digital coins which will make tracking citizens much easier. Taxes are the least of people's problems right now.

there is one critical flaw in the regulations plan from all nation states on bitcoin/ethereum.

people who won't ever register their wallets with an exchange, they will remain anon and can do business with others, wallet to wallet, anon. it's only when you register an exchange or buy directly from a business you become registered.

the governments of the world don't seem to understand this. so the main problem still is not fixed, which is, bad actors who refuse to play by the rules and pay their share fair of taxes. sure it limits what they can buy. but still, government doesn't understand this it seems.

 

[TheEndIsNear]

It's more that a cashless society is the way we are going whether they like it or not and they don't want to be left it the dust (especially in regards to taxes). In some ways, they already ARE way behind the curve on this.

I'm just going to say it like I feel: any theory above that is unsubstantiated paranoia as of now.

I could be wrong of course. Time will show us the truth.


[Citation needed]

Of course there are transgendered people in Pakistan but this is completely OT.

The only part of this that is on target is that they are doing this for taxes, which you will eventually pay one way or another. That's life.


Why? That's a big leap you make there from one to the other.

Well it was all over the news when they passed our latest budget. I pay 40,000 in taxes for nothing in return. F the government especially the U.S. government. I got a trip to vegas out of the crypto during the first big boom. I ain't doing anything more to pay taxes on.

 

[Vya Domus]

I knew stablecoins will eventually come under fire since they have been proven to be literal scams. This isn't me saying it, Tether's legal team admitted that the coins aren't even close to being backed up by an equivalent amount of US dollars. And I have no reason to believe that other groups behind similar projects aren't lying through their teeth as well despite them claiming otherwise.

It's difficult to bring crypto in general into question from a legal point of view since they're not tied directly to any concrete asset. But when you flaunt your product as being fully backed in the world's reserve currency and that turns out to be a lie, that's going to be a big no no.

 

[Space Lynx]

I knew stablecoins will eventually come under fire since they have been proven to be literal scams. This isn't me saying it, Tether's legal team admitted that the coins aren't even close to being backed up by an equivalent amount of US dollars. And I have no reason to believe that other groups behind similar projects aren't lying through their teeth as well despite them claiming otherwise.

Crypto in general is difficult to be brought up into question from a legal point of view since they're not tied directly to any concrete asset. But when you flaunt your product as being fully backed in the world's reserve currency and that turns out to be a lie, that's going to be a big no no.

I can't remember but don't the Winkelvoss billionaire twins own a stable coin? I wonder how they plan to cash out before it all comes crashing down. lol

all crypto is pathetic imo. the ancient Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius would never allow dishonorable men in his highest ranks, and that includes all crypto users if he lived today.

LONG LIVE! MARCUS AURELIUS!

 

[Aquinus]

I pay 40,000 in taxes for nothing in return.

I assume you don't drive on public roadways? Also, if that's your federal withholding, I'm not shedding any tears for someone who makes between a quarter and a half million a year. I pay over 10k in federal alone, but you don't see me whining about it. I expect you to pay more if you earn more. That's called your fair share and I'm sorry that you feel disadvantaged over it.

 

[Space Lynx]

I assume you don't drive on public roadways? Also, if that's your federal withholding, I'm not shedding any tears for someone who makes between a quarter and a half million a year. I pay over 10k in federal alone, but you don't see me whining about it. I expect you to pay more if you earn more. That's called your fair share and I'm sorry that you feel disadvantaged over it.

I wonder how he would like going to the grocery store, stepping over 80-90 year olds begging for food because he didn't want to pay into Social Security. Would be a fun world to live in. (sarcasm)

 

[R-T-B]

Well it was all over the news when they passed our latest budget.

Which news? Friggin lol.

I knew stablecoins will eventually come under fire since they have been proven to be literal scams.

Some are (like Tether). Many aren't.

 

[Vya Domus]

Many aren't.

Really ? How do you know that ? I mean not even actual banks are fully backed.

 

[R-T-B]

Really ? How do you know that ? I mean not even actual banks are fully backed.

Centre consortiom (USDC) and several others have open books.

Ushering in the next chapter for USDC

USDC will be launching on 6 new blockchains between September and October, bringing multi-chain access of USDC up to 15 chains.

www.centre.io

 

[Vya Domus]

Circle consortiom (USDC) and several others have open books.

Most recent information I could find puts USDC at 61% cash and "cash equivalents", whatever that means. No matter how you look at it, stablecoins are deep into murky waters. Tether looked pretty good as well, until it didn't.

 

[R-T-B]

Most recent information I could find puts USDC at 61% cash and "cash equivalents", whatever that means. No matter how you look at it, stablecoins are deep into murky waters. Tether looked pretty good as well, until it didn't.

Cash equivalents means non-liquid cash things that earn interest like savings bonds.

And yes a lot of them are. That is why I am FOR this bill. Clear the crap away.

 

[Vya Domus]

Cash equivalents means non-liquid cash things that earn interest like savings bonds.

Yes, amongst other things, such as commercial paper which they list separately. So the question remains, what else could they mean by cash equivalents ? Still looks like a sort of "mystery meat" to me.

Also, why don't they just say outright how much capital there is ? Why do they feel the need to keep it under one obscure umbrella.