Devastating "Infrastructure" bill in US - contact your representatives

[franky1]

no where in the bill does it mention that nodes, devs or miners will be brokers

and there is too much crying in this topic from people that cant understand anything beyond ELI-5 to understand what the wording actually does say

You need an "Explain like I'm in my thirties, but have all the social awareness of a 5-year-old".  

Your interpretation of what the bill mentions or not is irrelevant to the matter at hand.  You have no influence.  Any thoughts you may have on the subject have zero impact.  What matters is how the largely uninformed and often corrupt politicians interpret what the bill mentions or doesn't mention.  

So if you could take a break from trying to be the centre of attention and boasting "lOoK hOw SmRt I aMs", whilst simultaneously grossly missing the point, that would be great.  

im not playing social drama games. your obsession with social drama is what confuses YOU when you see other people write stuff.. you think its all about drama queens because thats your obsession is..
grow up..

anyways..
to all other readers:

people should learn stuff about how politics and how regulations work. for their own learning.

politicians. are not the guys that enforce regulations. thats for things like the SEC and courts. so like i said before, learn the SEC interpretations of a broker. such as learn about MSB. then you will learn how the SEC will enforce the regulations.
how the SEC will register brokers and get them to comply. who the SEC will get to comply, etc

because if this bill passes it wont be a congressman or a senator handling the bureaucracy of it all. its not politicians interpretations that matter. its the SEC's interpretation. as they are the ones that enforce it.

so learn who is going to be doing what. learn what is going to be doing who. then you may start to have some thoughts about what should be amended.. instead of playing ignorant and just wanting to shout that 'goberment are bad men' with memes(facepalm)

because all i can see is people crying "old man made me angwy. mummy hit the bad man' even though they cant even work out what their suppose to be angry about. or who

FACT: old guy in all the memes shown is not going to be the guy heading up the broker registration applications.. so learn who is and what it takes to be a broker..
if you stil dont know.. LEARN then have an opinion. and stop the social drama of having an opinion without learning

again a hint: MSB

while all you lot are pointing fingers and making chidlish means of an old guy politician. you are not learning about what the SEC are going to be interpreting as it will be them that will be doing the actual regulation stuff.
so go learn, and dont waste time making memes

and if over the last 10 days of this topic creation. if you have

• made atleast 5 posts in this topic
• you still dont know words such as 'series 7'.. 'MSB' and how they relate to this topic..
• you have only read the truncated tweet/o_e_l_e_o version of bill

     "any person who (for consideration) is responsible for and regularly provides any service effectuating transfers of digital assets."[missing part tweet/o_e_l_e_o omitted 'for another person']

• yet you DO know about a meme seen on twitter involving an old politician
• whereby you know his name and his age and all that drama..

.. then your research has been wasted in the wrong direction for the last 10 days... probably take a few days away from twitter and reddit and use your time more wisely on better sources of info.

[1714291523]

1714291523

[1714291523]

1714291523

[1714291523]

1714291523

[1714291523]

1714291523

[JayJuanGee]

If you think you understand the bill better than the entirety of the US Congress, then great for you. But as far as they are concerned, this wording allows miners, nodes, and devs to be classified as brokers. It doesn't matter how stupid you think that is - that is the conclusion they have reached, and so that is the conclusion that the government and IRS will work on unless we get the bill amended.

The bill is clearly being revoked by the crypto enthusiast in the USA because more than 46 million Americans now owns bitcoin and percentage is being grown at rapid pace but these demotivational and anti crypto bills in the name of trillion dollars infrastructure bills are clearly not good for most of us but if someone believes it then having prejudice mind of knowing everything then we can't say anything to them or make clarifications to them.These government puppets who only wants to make decisions for their bank rolls will also come to one point where inflation will end up all their bad moves because crypto is not going to be ignored now.

Holy shit.

You believe that 46 million Americans own bitcoin?  Would those be significant and meaningful levels of ownership or some kind of token ownership of 10,000 satoshis?  How would they own such bitcoin?  on robinhood?  From where do you get that kind of a number of bitcoin owners?

Seems that 46 million would be something like 15% of the quasi-adult USA population, no? - if we considered that maybe there are about 300 million Americans over the age of 12 (presuming that NOT too many Americans below 12 own significant amounts of bitcoin - even if there are anecdotal cases of such happenings).

I would suspect that there could be 10% of Americans that have some exposure to bitcoin (not likely much if anything), but still probably less than 1-2% that have any kind of significant and meaningful stake in bitcoin - such as up to 5% or more of their investment portfolio (however they quantify their investment portfolio - or even have one).

Of course, there is geographical disproportionalities in bitcoin (whether we are referring to the USA or other parts of the world), and likely the worldwide levels of bitcoin adoption are even way smaller than they are in the USA.. , and even though I am kind of shooting my own numbers out of my ass, I tend to get a bit irritated when I see members suggesting that bitcoin adoption is at any kind of significant and meaningful levels, even if there is truth that there seems to be decent willingness for the bitcoin (and perhaps crypto, too - those shitcoining/scamming fucks) to be pretty damned vocal and influential in recent times, but the vocal activism and influentialness of bitcoin, to the extent it exist, is surely NOT coming based on widespread adoption of bitcoin, and in that regard, we quite likely remain early as fuck in terms of actual broader levels of popular bitcoin adoption, whether referring to the USA or other parts of the world which is even likely lower levels of bitcoin adoption, as I already mentioned.

[Srikanth Varma]

Did you catch yesterday's roundup of the 10 sides of the raging crypto regulation debate?

If you didn't, start there by clicking the link. If you did, let's continue today with a contrarian pro-regulation view that intelligent crypto-enthusiasts like us can hold.

1. So far, the advantages of crypto - like decentralized finance, censorship resistance, and inflation hedges - are based off theory and very little empirical evidence.

So far, governments have treated crypto like a fad, but now they are fighting it. If the whole point of crypto was the ability to withstand this fight, surely regulation is the best test of its capabilities? Maybe regulation will cause the crypto fiat value to drop, but it cannot touch the underlying code and logic networks.

Individual crypto businesses might fail due to regulation, but whatever survives in spite of regulations will have demonstrated the consumer value, network resilience, and competitive advantage of decentralized finance, and truly bring into reality all the advantages we currently only read about in whitepapers.

[Lucius]

Holy shit.
You believe that 46 million Americans own bitcoin?  Would those be significant and meaningful levels of ownership or some kind of token ownership of 10,000 satoshis?  How would they own such bitcoin?  on robinhood?  From where do you get that kind of a number of bitcoin owners?

He only believes in what he has read in the media, and the US media have been publishing just such information for several months now. Although the sample of 1050 consumers for me personally is not something that can give even relevant results. I really don't know where they all got BTC from, maybe stimulus checks helped them with that, or they were very active on faucets

A new study estimates that about 46 million Americans now own at least a share of Bitcoin -- or about 17% of the adult population. What’s more, a high percentage of those people are open to adding cryptocurrency to their personal financial plans...The survey included a national sample of 1,050 U.S. consumers with an annual income of at least $50,000. And it used the standards of the Census Bureau's American Community Survey to weigh its data based on the demographic composition of the United States.

[JayJuanGee]

Holy shit.
You believe that 46 million Americans own bitcoin?  Would those be significant and meaningful levels of ownership or some kind of token ownership of 10,000 satoshis?  How would they own such bitcoin?  on robinhood?  From where do you get that kind of a number of bitcoin owners?

He only believes in what he has read in the media, and the US media have been publishing just such information for several months now. Although the sample of 1050 consumers for me personally is not something that can give even relevant results. I really don't know where they all got BTC from, maybe stimulus checks helped them with that, or they were very active on faucets

A new study estimates that about 46 million Americans now own at least a share of Bitcoin -- or about 17% of the adult population. What’s more, a high percentage of those people are open to adding cryptocurrency to their personal financial plans...The survey included a national sample of 1,050 U.S. consumers with an annual income of at least $50,000. And it used the standards of the Census Bureau's American Community Survey to weigh its data based on the demographic composition of the United States.

Oh gawd.... 

What's worse?  Coming up with your own number or quoting a lame study without employing any critical thinking?

I am not opposed to small sample sizes, but surely the outcome of this survey shows that the sample is not even close to representative if they are concluding that 17% of adult americans own "at least a share" of bitcoin whatever that means? - (it could mean owning 1 satoshi, no?)...

I surely would not poo poo if most Americans bought bitcoin with their stimulus checks, or even if 10% of them had, but we know that did not happen, even if some (maybe 1% or 2% may have)...

Seems like you and I may well be on a similar page, Lucius, yet I will just repeat that there seems to be an agenda in terms of overstating the level of adoption of bitcoin, and surely frequently there are desires to treat bitcoin like a mature market (asset class) or to suggest that it's run has already happened and minimize the actual fact that bitcoin is in the midst (more likely early stages) of exponential s-curve adoption, and there is still a lot of room to go.. and also in terms of portfolio size, there are very few people who likely have even 1% or even better yet 5% of their portfolio allocation in bitcoin... and we are even lucky if we can find more than 10 million people who actually know what bitcoin is even amongst current owners.... but whatever.. people can believe whatever they want to believe, and it is not even any kind of actual facts that I am able to gather either regarding actual levels of bitcoin ownership/adoption, so anyone of us who are trying to estimate bitcoin ownership/adoption levels do have to rely on a variety of sources including things like surveys, address sizes, exchange information and things like that.

[stompix]

Seems like you and I may well be on a similar page, Lucius, yet I will just repeat that there seems to be an agenda in terms of overstating the level of adoption of bitcoin, and surely frequently there are desires to treat bitcoin like a mature market (asset class) or to suggest that it's run has already happened and minimize the actual fact that bitcoin is in the midst (more likely early stages) of exponential s-curve adoption,.......

You went way too fast way too far..
No, it's not a complicated scheme, those numbers are simply a product of two things, sometimes combined, sometimes independent
- paid articles by exchanges or wallet or other solutions providers that want to boost their numbers
- researches done to justify the exitance of some research groups and the price they ask for polling information

Would an article mentioning the fact that there are only 15 million addresses with more than 100$ worth of bitcoin make the headlines? And it is addresses, not users! "Less than 0.5% of the world population owns more than 100$ in Bitcoin", nope, not clickable!
It's the common thing when it comes to news nowadays, if you die in a crash in a pile-up on the highway with 50 others you will have a hundred articles about you, if you die alone hitting a pole you won't get even a line, big numbers and big claims it what matters, that's why you see journalist switching between the increase in price from cents to percentages, to give you the impression that something really really extraordinary is happening.

Across Europe we have a 10% so-called crypto adoption, every 1 in 10 should own some crypto, I really want to know where the fword are the supposed 200 thousand crypto owners in my metropolitan area cause I'm not seeing them anywhere, real-life, forums, Facebook, nowhere! Not even in one of the coffee shops that takes crypto where the owner always tells us that if it were for just for us same four guys that pay like that once a month he wouldn't be able to pay even the power bill for his laptop.

Anyhow, enough venting, where are we with this bill as I'm seeing a lot of articles running around in circles?
There was an amendment by Wyden, it was supposed to be adopted and then I read it was blocked(!?), so what is the current situation?

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I’m pleasantly surprised there wasn’t a weak handed sell off when Shelby decided to be an asshole & handicip bitcoin in the US (from 2023). Maybe it’s not as serious a blow as I initially thought. I’m from the UK so not directly affected any way but it would have annoyed me if we had a big dump because of it.

I know there are multiple ways the language in the bill can still be altered before it becomes law in the US. I iust thought it was interesting (and obviously good) that the price didn’t suffer.

[DooMAD]

I’m pleasantly surprised there wasn’t a weak handed sell off when Shelby decided to be an asshole & handicip bitcoin in the US (from 2023). Maybe it’s not as serious a blow as I initially thought. I’m from the UK so not directly affected any way but it would have annoyed me if we had a big dump because of it.

Bit of a rare occurrence, yeah.  If I had to guess, it's because there's still a reasonable element of uncertainty about it.  And it hasn't been given a huge amount of media coverage.  Then again, I try to avoid the futility of trying to guess what the market is going to do next.  Doesn't usually take much to prompt a big swing in prices.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Anyhow, enough venting, where are we with this bill as I'm seeing a lot of articles running around in circles?
There was an amendment by Wyden, it was supposed to be adopted and then I read it was blocked(!?), so what is the current situation?

Wyden's amendment was the same one as discussed earlier in this thread - the Wyden/Lummis/Toomey amendment. It was blocked by Senator Shelby. It was then absorbed in to the combined Toomy/Warner/Lummis/Sinema/Portman amendment which was also blocked by Shelby. The bill has now passed the Senate with the original terrible wording.

The next step is that the bill will go to the House of Representatives to be debated and potentially amended there. The House is supposed to be on recess until September 20, but Steny Hoyer has said they will likely return much earlier, as early as August 23, to consider this bill. So everyone's got another 10 days to start contacting your Representative.

There is certainly some movement in the House regarding amending this bill. There was the tweet from Tom Emmer (co-chair of the Blockchain Caucus) which I linked to above, and earlier today there was this tweet from Anna Eshoo, who apparently is a close friend of Pelosi: https://twitter.com/RepAnnaEshoo/status/1425854869122998273