New Crypto Bill Aims To Circumvent SEC's Regulation-by-Enforcement Strategy

New bipartisan crypto bill would “create a federal regulatory framework.” Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) have introduced a proposal to regulate cryptocurrency, called the “Responsible Financial Innovation Act.” It’s a reintroduction of a bill proposed last year, with some new sections added.

“This bill is a whopping 274 pages and covers most of the waterfront of crypto, from securities and commodities regulations to taxation of crypto, broad interagency coordination, and regulation of ‘payment stablecoins,'” noted Justin Slaughter, policy director at the tech investment firm Paradigm.

The likelihood of this bill passing is low, predicted Slaughter. But it could be important for “how it influences the House’s McHenry Thompson bill,” which does have a chance of passing. The latter bill is slated for a markup later this month. (See Slaughter’s Twitter thread for explainers of key parts of the Senate bill that might make it into the House measure; see a discussion draft of the House bill here.)

One key part of the bill attempts to clarify when crypto assets are securities and when they are commodities. In so doing, it “undercuts the SEC through classifying most of the fintech industry as commodities overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC),” noted journalist Matt Laslo. And this, he suggested, could be a good thing:

In the wake of crypto collapses, the SEC has used ambiguities in current law—coupled with congressional inaction—to amass sweeping new regulatory powers. Congress wants that power back; well, at least some of the most vocal, angry and well-versed crypto-concerned lawmakers in Washington.

“I think the SEC has been trying to regulate through enforcement, and that’s typically very unwise,” Gillibrand tells me.

In this sense, the congressional crypto regulation could be the lesser of evils. More from Laslo:

Even as industry leaders, investors and their congressional allies accuse the SEC of crippling crypto, what’s become clear in recent months is, if Congress fails to act, again, securities regulators will aggressively go it alone….

Like other federal agencies, senators Lummis and Gillibrand gave SEC officials seats at their re-drafting table—asking for input, running revisions by the regulators and even accepting some of the agency’s recommendations.

“They have seen it. We asked them to tweak it, and we’ve incorporated some of their changes,” Lummis told me for WIRED.

After taking the SEC’s concerns seriously over the past year, the senators have been left astounded-to-angered watching the heavy regulatory hand of the SEC clamp down on the likes of Coinbase and Kraken, et.

“The Binance thing I understand, because it is offshore,” Lummis says. “But the domestic industries really are trying to comply for the most part and they’re just getting the cold shoulder, and that’s not how we regulate in this country. You know, they’re not the enemy.”

You can find the full Lummis-Gillibrand bill here.

It seems to set up reams of regulatory hoops for digital currencies and assets and their exchanges to jump through. For instance, it requires a bunch of new mandatory disclosures to consumers. And “each year, the chief executive officer of a crypto asset intermediary shall, under penalty of perjury, certify compliance” with these consumer disclosures, as well as “applicable anti-money laundering, customer identification, prevention of terrorist financing, and sanctions laws,” and more, the bill’s text states.

“So if a company says it’s disclosing certain consumer protection information & then doesn’t do that, the CEO can be criminally charged with perjury,” notes Slaughter.

Theoretically, this is meant to deal with the Sam Bankman-Frieds of the world. But it seems like the sort of intervention that could ensnare people for simple oversights, too.

Some of the bill’s provisions certainly could have positive and protective effects for consumers. Or they could be time- and resource-wasting bureaucratic nonsense that would, at worse, give the government more leeway to play gotcha with crypto businesses and invade the privacy of crypto users. The new bill just dropped, so we’re still in the period of puzzling out what it will really mean for the crypto industry.

One red flag: The bill would change the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to make money-laundering offenses involving crypto assets punishable by up to five years in prison—which could have a big effect, considering how broad some money laundering statutes reach.

The bill’s establishment of an interagency law enforcement working group to combat illicit crypto use also seems ripe for inviting government snooping and overreach.

In other sections, the Lummis-Gillibrand bill includes tax provisions, some good and some bad. “Token sales with a gain below $200 aren’t taxed,” notes Slaughter. And “trading crypto counts as capital gains income, not regular income, just like in commodities/securities.”

“One major criticism from the [crypto] community…was the fact that the Act intends to uphold the Howey test,” notes FXStreet. “The test is used to determine whether a transaction qualifies as an investment contract in the US which in turn labels the assets involved in the process as Securities….This test has been criticized by many for being outdated and is also the subject of controversy in the ongoing SEC vs. Ripple lawsuit.”


FREE MINDS

Steep drop in confidence in higher education. A new Gallup poll finds a sharp drop in Americans’ confidence in higher education. In the most recent poll, conducted in June, just 36 percent of those surveyed said they had “quite a lot” or “a great deal” of confidence in higher education, down from 48 percent in 2018 and 57 percent in 2015.

In the most recent poll, 40 percent of those surveyed had “some” confidence in higher education, while 22 percent said they had “very little” confidence. In 2018, just 15 percent of folks surveyed had very little confidence and, in 2015, just 9 percent said the same.

Confidence has dropped across the board, “but Republicans’ sank the most—20 points to 19%, the lowest of any group,” notes Gallup. “Confidence among adults without a college degree and those aged 55 and older dropped nearly as much as Republicans’ since 2018.”

The drop is part of a larger disillusionment with U.S. institutions. Gallup’s June poll “also found confidence in 16 other institutions has been waning in recent years. Many of these entities, which are tracked more often than higher education, are now also at or near their lowest points in confidence,” Gallup points out. And, “although diminished, higher education ranks fourth in confidence among the 17 institutions measured.”

Institutions with the highest confidence rankings were small business (65 percent), the military (60 percent), and the police (43 percent). People had the least confidence in television news (14 percent), big business (14 percent), and Congress (8 percent).


FREE MARKETS

What The Bear can teach us about dynamism and “the regulatory nightmare of opening a restaurant.” Hulu TV series The Bear centers on a talented chef named Carmy Berzatto who returns home to Chicago after his brother’s* death to help save his family’s flailing sandwich shop. It’s also a testament to dynamism and “the regulatory nightmare of opening a restaurant,” Scott Lincicome writes. Owning a restaurant is challenging in many ways, but “the industry brings many benefits for those willing to put in the work—and, importantly, regardless of their background.”

That mobility’s owed in part to the industry’s common prioritization of results over credentials – for restaurants and their staff. A nice (expensive) degree from culinary school can open some doors and hone some skills, but the real litmus test is talent, experience, and dedication (just ask these famous chefs). And, while starting and even median compensation often isn’t great, excellence pays off: Top performers—waiters, bartenders, chefs, etc.—can make surprisingly good money, even if they never went to college or end up on TV or a shiny cookbook cover.

Having some family in the biz, I’ve seen this all firsthand: a head waiter who started as a Spanish-only busboy, an award-winning sommelier who dropped out of college and learned wine while waiting tables at a suburban bar & grill, an owner who started as a host, and multiple food trucks that have become packed brick-and-mortar establishments. The work (and the livin’) was hard, and plenty of folks burned out, but for those who could hack it—even ones with sordid pasts or messy presents—the rewards were solid.

The Bear nails this dynamic.

It also nails how “public policy can make success even harder,” notes Lincicome:

Of everything standing in our heroes’ way—the menu, the construction, the staff, the personal stuff—it’s the government that’s their biggest and most omnipresent threat. The crew estimates (optimistically) that just “permits, the inspections, and the licenses” will cost them $10,000, but the bigger cost is time: In seemingly every scene inside the restaurant, their actual work is interrupted by a deflating mention of some new bureaucratic hurdle.

More here.


QUICK HITS

• “Inflation fell to its lowest annual rate in more than two years during June,” reports CNBC, “the product both of some deceleration in costs and easy comparisons against a time when price increases were running at a more than 40-year high.”

• The Federal Trade Commission is appealing a judge’s order denying the agency’s request for it to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

• Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa are suing over Iowa’s new fetal heartbeat bill. “By banning the vast majority of abortions in Iowa, the Act unlawfully violates the rights of Petitioners, their medical providers and other staff, and their patients under the Iowa Constitution and would severely jeopardize their health, safety, and welfare,” states their complaint.

• Meta doesn’t want Threads to be the new Twitter. “If Meta executives have their way, Threads will not be where people turn to debate policy issues, or catch up on local political developments and learn about breaking news that could affect their lives,” reports NPR.

• “In April, Idaho lawmakers passed legislation requiring any person under 18 to get permission from a parent or guardian before traveling out of state to get an abortion,” notes The Guardian. A new lawsuit claims this statute is unconstitutional.

• Get your politics out of my pickleball, writes Reason‘s Jason Russell.


*CORRECTION: This post previously misstated which The Bear character had died.

Elizabeth Warren's Crypto Bill Targets Financial Freedom, Not Fraud

Beyond politically connected scammers and frothy valuations, the attractiveness of cryptocurrencies lies in their potential for doing what cash does, but across distances. When governments inflate money, people turn to other stores of value, including crypto. When politicians and their financial-sector accomplices block transactions of which they disapprove, people look for alternative means of doing deals without permission, crypto among them. So, when officials talk of stripping privacy and autonomy from cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, you know they would do the same to cash if they could.

“Rogue nations, oligarchs, drug lords, and human traffickers are using digital assets to launder billions in stolen funds, evade sanctions, and finance terrorism,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) huffed this week. “The crypto industry should follow common-sense rules like banks, brokers, and Western Union, and this legislation would ensure the same standards apply across similar financial transactions. The bipartisan bill will help close crypto money laundering loopholes and strengthen enforcement to better safeguard U.S. national security.”

The bipartisan bill to which Warren refers sports the tendentious moniker, Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2022. Stripped of grandiose claims, it attempts to extend the financial surveillance state cooked up by drug warriors and anti-terrorism fearmongers to cryptocurrencies. Warren and company picked an opportune moment to do just that, while the public is occupied with a headline-grabbing financial scandal that taints crypto’s already sketchy reputation.

In fact, Sam Bankman-Fried’s shenanigans at FTX, perhaps concealed by generous political donations, look old-school, including mingling personal and corporate funds in ways that would have raised red flags long before digital tokens. But they cast further shade over a crypto sector that had yet to gain acceptance by the American mainstream. After years of breathy warnings that cryptocurrency is shady, and speculative values detached from reality, many people are prepared to believe the worst.

“Crypto is an interesting technology that had one terrible piece of bad luck: its standard-bearer, bitcoin, went up in value 10,000x over a few years,” wide-ranging commentator Scott Alexander wrote earlier this month. “When something goes up in value 10,000x, it’s hard to think of it in any other context. Whatever it was before, now it’s ‘that thing which went up in value 10,000x’.”

Alexander points out that, despite the shellacking the crypto sector is taking in the press and from politicians, it remains popular in countries where it’s used for its intended purpose as a store of value and a means of exchange in defiance of authoritarian controls. “Vietnam uses crypto because it’s terrible at banks,” he notes. “There’s a history of the government forcing banks to make terrible loans, and then those banks collapsing.” In socialist Venezuela, “cryptocurrency provides a hard-to-ban alternative which has caught on among Venezuelan hustlers and small businessmen.”

This played out in Turkey when the government got serious about turning the lira into toilet paper and people bought gold, foreign currency, and bitcoin. Bitcoin also became a means for Canadian protesters to work around government attempts to financially isolate their protest movement.

“Of course a technology centered around avoiding governance and banking failures will be centered in the countries with the most governance and banking failures!” Alexander adds.

But any technology that can be used by good people can also be used by bad people. That’s as true of window curtains as it is of crypto (or cash). The same privacy sought by a family going through evening routines might serve a terrorist building bombs, just as businesses and activists evading a hostile state might use the same currency that purchases bomb parts. Politicians love playing up potential abuses.

“Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, our government enacted meaningful reforms that helped the banks cut off bad actors’ from America’s financial system. Applying these similar policies to cryptocurrency exchanges will prevent digital assets from being abused to finance illegal activities without limiting law-abiding American citizens’ access,” insists Sen. Roger Marshall (R–Kan.), co-sponsor of the Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2022.

When politicians hold up the post-9/11 panic that supercharged the surveillance state as their model, take them seriously. The legacy of that time is widely recognized as an over-powerful government that intrudes into Americans’ lives, subjecting our activities and communications to monitoring and diminishing our liberty. With their bill, Warren, Marshall, and company want to extend that surveillance to financial technology that was explicitly developed to empower individual liberty and privacy.

“The bill first seeks to classify self‐​hosted wallets as money service businesses,” cautions the Cato Institute’s Nicholas Anthony. “For those unfamiliar, self‐​hosted wallets are merely the digital equivalent of a wallet in your pocket or purse. … Where much of the financial surveillance in the United States depends on what’s known as the third‐​party doctrine, self‐​hosted wallets offer individuals protection from government surveillance and censorship. Yet Senator Warren’s bill would put an end to that protection.”

The bill, says Anthony, would “classify cryptocurrency miners, validators, and network participants as money service businesses.” It “also sets its sights on cryptocurrency mixers” who “offer individuals the opportunity to enhance their privacy when using cryptocurrencies on public blockchains.”

In fact, the bill’s language specifies that “the Secretary of the Treasury shall promulgate a rule that prohibits financial institutions from … handling, using, or transacting business with digital asset mixers, privacy coins, and other anonymity-enhancing technologies.”

Senators Warren and Marshall talk about “terrorism” and “drug lords,” but their clear goal (whether or not its within their reach, which is another matter) is to strip crypto of its ability to be used privately and without permission in the same way we use cash. Their objections to digital money also apply to banknotes and coins. Ultimately, it’s not crypto they fear, but our liberty to earn, purchase, save, and donate without being impoverished, scrutinized, or stopped by government officials.

Bitcoin and other digital tokens have their flaws, but they’re an attempt to fulfill a widespread desire for reliable stores of value and means of exchange independent of control. And while all such forms of money are vulnerable to fraud and theft, that’s already illegal. The Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2022 doesn’t even attempt to address such crimes, instead, it’s an attack on financial privacy and liberty. For all the reasons politicians are coming after crypto, you can bet that cash is next.