Agreeing with the above 100%
Adding: connect with policy makers who are at least attempting to be cryptocurrency/tech literate.
That's the problem though. The number of Reps or Senators who are attempting to be crypto literate can be counted on one hand, and are vastly out-numbered and out-voted by those who don't care. Given that most receive tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars from various fiat dependent banks, business, companies, etc., then there is no incentive for them to challenge the status quo. The only thing vaguely comparable to these huge centralized fiat lobbying platforms and companies for bitcoin are centralized exchanges, and I've not seen a single one step up in any meaningful way and commit to spending even a tiny fraction of their profits to help promote bitcoin or educate lawmakers.
We can contact House Reps and Senators all day long (and everybody should!), but the sad fact is most will ignore us because our concerns don't come backed with money.
I have a bunch of 2013-2015 regulatory meeting links saved on an old hard drive, when I fire it up again I'll try to put the lot of them in a post--> maybe in Legal since it'd probably get drowned out in P&S. I'm accustomed to belonging to things like associations and chambers of commerce, where your collective ideas regarding those respective interests are represented. I don't belong to any of the current digital chambers but get emails from some, couldn't speak to their effectiveness in policy making.
Most of the time when policy is being discussed it is in the framework of "consumer protection" and taxation which is kind of sucky for those who know that using it as peer to peer cash doesn't need ANY government oversight.
Jared Polis ( current Colorado governor) is how I came across the proposed amendment.
And I spend way too much time reading through policy on the .gov sites
