What political POLICY is good for Bitcoin?

[legiteum]

As I have said here many times, the crypto business taking a side in the US partisan divide is a really bad thing for the business.

While there is a lot of discussion about US politics here, the discussion is mostly about people and parties, which, in the end, doesn't make that much difference to any real business--and drags in a ton of baggage since our business is at best 1% of what these parties and candidates actually do, and they are otherwise associated with a ton of very divisive things like abortion, immigration, religion and war.

So instead talking about parties and candidates, I think an actual constructive conversation for the community would be to talk about the actual policies that will be good for Bitcoin and the broader digital currency business.

So without mentioning people, parties or candidates, I invite people here to answer the question: what are the specific policies that people think would be good for our business, and why?

What specific laws in the USA would people like to see changed? What specific policies would help grow the business? I am sure there must be a lot of opinions about this, and a lot of counter-opinions too, I hope.

And let's keep this conversation limited to just policy: if you mention a person or a political party (or use some stand-in term to connote those things e.g. "the fascists" or "the commies"), then you are off-topic in this conversation. This thread is for policy only.

[franky1]

governments should not get involved in who owns certain electronic devices(hardware wallets/asics)
governments should not get involved in who owns certain software(wallets/nodes/pool stratums)

any custodial business should be regulated but with regulations concerning more so consumer protections, where the authorities police the business via asking for audits and accounting regularly of the business to protect the consumer/customer..

we shouldnt be using regulations where the authorities defer their responsibility by delegated it over to the business to then police the customers whilst no one polices the business itself

as for things like barriers of entry. governments should not impose barriers of entry for small individuals/businesses to start up. there should not be a single large wall barrier of entry requiring individuals/businesses to need to reach a high bar of entry just to get involved. but instead have a tier system whereby a small business can effectively compete against a large institution, but at both levels have to atleast be accountable if they are handling peoples value

[legiteum]

governments should not get involved in who owns certain electronic devices(hardware wallets/asics)
governments should not get involved in who owns certain software(wallets/nodes/pool stratums)

any custodial business should be regulated but with regulations concerning more so consumer protections, where the authorities police the business via asking for audits and accounting regularly of the business to protect the consumer/customer..

we shouldnt be using regulations where the authorities defer their responsibility by delegated it over to the business to then police the customers whilst no one polices the business itself

as for things like barriers of entry. governments should not impose barriers of entry for small individuals/businesses to start up. there should not be a single large wall barrier of entry requiring individuals/businesses to need to reach a high bar of entry just to get involved. but instead have a tier system whereby a small business can effectively compete against a large institution, but at both levels have to atleast be accountable if they are handling peoples value

This is a great start. Let's take the points one at a time and discuss.

governments should not get involved in who owns certain electronic devices(hardware wallets/asics)

Sounds sensible enough. Are there any laws like this anywhere? Is anybody proposing such a thing?

governments should not get involved in who owns certain software(wallets/nodes/pool stratums)

Again, sounds simple enough. Again, any examples of existing problem laws here?

any custodial business should be regulated but with regulations concerning more so consumer protections, where the authorities police the business via asking for audits and accounting regularly of the business to protect the consumer/customer..

Totally agree. I would wonder where we would draw the line at "custodial" though. Would a Bitcoin node be considered a "custodian" of a consumer's value? What about more centralized (PoS) nodes like those in Ether?

As somebody who runs nodes that hold value, I personally wouldn't mind being licensed and getting certified, as long as the regulations are reasonable. Ideally this would be voluntary, but something a business could advertise as an advantage over fly-by-night operations.

we shouldnt be using regulations where the authorities defer their responsibility by delegated it over to the business to then police the customers whilst no one polices the business itself

Sounds correct--but are there example(s) of laws that violate this principle right now?

as for things like barriers of entry. governments should not impose barriers of entry for small individuals/businesses to start up. there should not be a single large wall barrier of entry requiring individuals/businesses to need to reach a high bar of entry just to get involved. but instead have a tier system whereby a small business can effectively compete against a large institution, but at both levels have to atleast be accountable if they are handling peoples value

Again, this sounds very reasonable.

I also think you could create tiers based on dollar volumes: businesses that hold only small amounts of people's money should have light regulation and the ones hold people's life savings should have a lot more.

There is precedent for this: the $10,000 trigger you get when you deposit more than that in cash in a US bank. Also, there is the FDIC insurance, which covers a limited amount. I would love to see the equivalent of "FDIC insured" for say $1000 maximum, that would be easier to get.

[franky1]

in regards to owning wallets/asics

china and russia outlawed mining and even america went on a exploratory investigation wanting to send out questionnaires to asic owners and pool owners in regards to regulating miners.
different draft idea's were about outlawing miners in regions of high fossil fuel energy

as for custodial. its the same as MSB where a business is operating by handing other peoples funds in exchange for a fee
its more about CEX and not about self custody wallets of own funds

as for FDIC
asking the government to back bitcoin ends up with them controlling it.. so lets not follow that path. instead government should ask custodial businesses to secure x% of their held value in a private insurance(which claims are more straight forward than say how MTGOX and japanese government are handling things)

i know insurance becomes in of itself a barrier of entry, much like trying to get a bankers charter to start a bank and be insured has a huge burden on any start-up, especially if trying to get the government backed insurance... so what should be done is in the auditing part of policing custodians, the auditers check that customers funds are 95%multisig coldwallet protected so hackers cant raid the funds from the server side. and the business then protects the 5% hotwallet via the fee's they generate for offering the service. because if you add up all the fee's greyscale or binance or coinbase make from their $billions in trade (millions in fees per day) they can create a insurance pot quite fast, and have a independent separate insurance company hold that amount to cover claims should the business have problems with the hotwallet

what there needs to be is stuff to prevent future mtgox's and such where it takes 10 years to make settled claims

[BIT-BENDER]

The best political policy that would suit Bitcoin and crypto-currency in general is freedom, and the government knows this. Bitcoin is not dependent on any nations economical status or strength. Bitcoin is the strong foundation of a financial system that thrives on anonymity. The government doesn't need to do anything but just stop being against crypto-currency. I think everyone should have the opinion be a Crypto-currency enthusiast without harassment from the government.

[legiteum]

in regards to owning wallets/asics

china and russia outlawed mining and even america went on a exploratory investigation wanting to send out questionnaires to asic owners and pool owners in regards to regulating miners.

different draft idea's were about outlawing miners in regions of high fossil fuel energy

Sounds like for now at least, nobody in the US has outlawing ASICs even remotely on the agenda...

as for FDIC
[...]
what there needs to be is stuff to prevent future mtgox's and such where it takes 10 years to make settled claims

My hope would be that things would be voluntary: that you can pick a "gypsy cab" broker and maybe get a better deal, but you are taking your chances, or you pick a player with various insurances and certifications that costs more.

My theory would be that, somebody putting $150 of spending cash into a broker would take their chances with a cheap and simple one, and somebody putting their life savings into something would pay the money and/or inconvenience to make sure it's protected.

The best political policy that would suit Bitcoin and crypto-currency in general is freedom, and the government knows this. Bitcoin is not dependent on any nations economical status or strength. Bitcoin is the strong foundation of a financial system that thrives on anonymity. The government doesn't need to do anything but just stop being against crypto-currency. I think everyone should have the opinion be a Crypto-currency enthusiast without harassment from the government.

"Freedom!" is a not a policy that can be written into law, or even advocated by a government .

Also, Bitcoin is not anonymous, and you shouldn't use it that way.

And what specifically do you mean by "being against cryptocurrency"? In the US at least, digital currencies are legal to own, buy and sell. Nobody "harasses" owners of digital currency here. No US politician is proposing anything remotely close to that.

[pooya87]

What specific laws in the USA would people like to see changed? What specific policies would help grow the business?

I don't care about businesses, I care about Bitcoin itself.

The only law in the US that needs to change is the one that is basically an attack on one of the Bitcoin's main principles called Censorship-Resistance. The US government, for a very long time, has been forcing American miners to censor transactions. This is through OFAC sanctions and other nonsense like that.
Unlike the regulations of centralized services like CEXes and the censorship there through arbitrary concepts like "taint", This is an attack on Bitcoin itself which is why it is much more harmful and needs to be fought.

As an example of a case that went viral I can mention MARA pool, but others like Foundry USA are performing the same attack.