What political POLICY is good for Bitcoin?

[Easteregg69]

All we need is for them to be unobstructive & allow innovation to flourish. We accept regulatory rules but the Biden administration has been obstructive to cryptocurrency throughout their term. They had to be forced by a judge to bend the knee to Spot Bitcoin ETFs. The likes of Gensler & Elizabeth Warren have been a real pain in the butt. So hopefully whichever party wins in November, just allows crypto to flourish & doesn’t make things difficult for us.

We need the police to die first.

[franky1]

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 way i see things, many people that just want to quick exchange fiat for crypto then withdraw sameday (like travel agent exchange money services) they can escape insurances.. but the proper wall street custodian day traders that lock value in for months, those need insurance

as for 'regulations' the current set up is behind the scenes most regulations these days are about policing the customers but the businesses are irresponsibly internally, yet pretends its regulated as some gold badge of responsible operator..
..yet these regulated businesses need to have the business being policed. so we need to reform regulations to be more about consumer protections and not giving businesses a sheriffs badge

and with that said yes we should have more services that jsut take in a fiat deposit and ask for a btc withdrawal address to quick exchange, but most of the time the barriers of entry to offer this makes businesses just prefer to become full custodian day trader services because the quick exchange bar is equally high like the day trader portfolio custodian style, thus more profitable to just operate as a custodian day trade operation

[Odusko]

The cryptocurrency space is still very young and growing, and what we need right now are regulations that aim at wider adoption and usage of this alternative technology call cryptocurrencies on the individual level, consumer protection is much More desired at this point because we have tons of custodial services that have violated the right of their consumers without any government regulations that check such an abuse, more policing is needed on crypto services provider's like exchange and other gateway cryptos systems that are custodial, we need more cryptocurrency forsic agents that could expose scam more and help in the recovery's of cryptocurrency scams most especially those carried out by exchanges and extended to fake crypto investment frauds, this will help to weed out the bad actors in the cryptocurrency community.

[kryptqnick]

I agree with the sentiment that it shouldn't be a partisan issue and that policies themselves are what matters. I don't know the exact details, as planning good legislation is complex. But I'd say that the sort of regulation that recognizes Bitcoin, allowing its usage as a form of payment, allowing mining and holding, and reaffirming legality of noncustodial wallets is good legislation. Ideally, the tax burden also should not be too high compared to what's the case with other assets in the US. It can be regulated alright as an asset, but it's much better (for tax reasons) if it becomes a legal tender and thus is not taxed as such (in a way that the USD is not taxed, but some operations with it are).

[peter0425]

I know it might be difficult to preserve decentralization with the government being involved but if the government could just respect the nature of cryptocurrencies and at the same put the best interests of their citizens then that would result to a peaceful and I think a much more productive society.

I would love the government to implement a clear policy regarding the safety and the rights of their citizens against scams or hacks when it comes to exchanges, wallets and other platforms usually used in crypto.

Another thing I would like for the government to create a policy of is tax regulations. Some governments file crypto incomes as very complicated and part of a gray area which confuses a lot and creates unnecessary hostility.

In my country, crypto does not have definitive rules which creates complications. The government should be clear about the policies they want to implement regarding crypto to protect their citizens while allowing them the option of freedom.

[legiteum]

What would this change to the law look like then? And would this apply to all digital currencies, not just Bitcoin? How would the government define it, exactly?

Just remove it without define what's Bitcoin for them.

In order for lawmakers to write... a law, they need to get very specific or the law will never hold up in court. And you can't write a law about "Bitcoin" anymore than you could write a law about "the Apple iPhone". You need to describe a product in legal terms, and it can't be specific to any single product.

- Friendly Tax: the current administration had plans to increase crypto mining tax by 30%. If not for the lawsuit by Texas Blockchain Council and Riot Platforms that halted survey by US Energy Information Administration, the tax law would have been implemented. After all the tax was already included in the 2024 budget. Crypto-related businesses should be taxed like other industries.

There is definitely a recurring theme here about energy taxes for crypto miners. While I think this is important, it's just one aspect of the overall digital currency business, and Bitcoin obviously doesn't care what country it's mined in.

In other words, I wouldn't call the mining energy tax issue a broad "crypto issue" but rather one that only effects US miners. You could say that this might slightly increase prices for Bitcoin end-users, but I still don't think it's anywhere near the issue as KYC regulations are, etc.

All that said, the miners have lots of money to give to politicians and its clear that most of the money being poured into this election cycle is coming from the mining industry. So even though this isn't a huge issue for end-users, it's a bigger deal politically.

-Sensor-free law: The government should stop attacking privacy tools like privacy tools. Assuming that Bitcoin is used mainly to sponsor terrorism and promote money laundering is wrong. Fiat is the best money for criminal activities. The present administration is attacking these privacy tools with draconian laws.

There have been many, many very serious attacks in the US and elsewhere using ultra-private crypto. Hackers in Georgia cannot attack a US children's hospital in Texas using paper bills. The crypto industry is going to need to compromise around this issue, I think.

-Friendly business laws: Centralized platforms should be regulated but the government shouldn't consciously suppress them. Any exchange that breaks the law should be punished but the government shouldn't make laws to make their business difficult or just to make money from the through fines. Recently, the president of the US said he would veto an anti-crypto law proposed by SEC chairman Gary Gensler that would have deterred banks from handling crypto customers. This is a good move by the present administration.

I agree that we need to keep working to make a safe environment for consumers. This sometimes goes against the "libertarian" theme of the original Bitcoin community, but the reality is that if we want this business to be BIG, it needs to be idiot-proof .

All we need is for them to be unobstructive & allow innovation to flourish. We accept regulatory rules but the Biden administration has been obstructive to cryptocurrency throughout their term. They had to be forced by a judge to bend the knee to Spot Bitcoin ETFs. The likes of Gensler & Elizabeth Warren have been a real pain in the butt. So hopefully whichever party wins in November, just allows crypto to flourish & doesn’t make things difficult for us.

The idea behind this thread was to get specific. When people just complain about one political party or another without mentioning any specific policies, it sounds like they are just pulling for that political party, not advocating for Bitcoin. The US election is going to be decided over things that are far, far more impactful to every American, e.g. abortion laws. They are deciding on whether or not to implement radical changes to our economy and society this November. Crypto means absolutely nothing in this context.

And the way to actually get things done in politics is to get specific and lobby both sides about what to do. Many Democrats have been the recipient of crypto lobby money just like many Republicans have. That's the way to change things, not taking a side in America's incredibly divisive culture wars.

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 way i see things, many people that just want to quick exchange fiat for crypto then withdraw sameday (like travel agent exchange money services) they can escape insurances.. but the proper wall street custodian day traders that lock value in for months, those need insurance

I agree completely. I have written extensively about something I call the Anon Paradox: that people want anonymity for "small" amounts of money and personal identity for "large" amounts.

I think this bifurcation will solve a lot of problems for consumers and the industry. The only reason somebody wants to keep a million dollars secret is to avoid their government--which is a problem that most people do not have. On the other hand, almost everybody had a need to keep a few hundred dollars secret, because it makes small commerce safer.

as for 'regulations' the current set up is behind the scenes most regulations these days are about policing the customers but the businesses are irresponsibly internally, yet pretends its regulated as some gold badge of responsible operator..
..yet these regulated businesses need to have the business being policed. so we need to reform regulations to be more about consumer protections and not giving businesses a sheriffs badge

Totally agree. Businesses need to be given some rules, and if they follow those rules, they can't be held liable for something going wrong. That's the only way you can run a business for the long term.

But I'd say that the sort of regulation that recognizes Bitcoin, allowing its usage as a form of payment, allowing mining and holding, and reaffirming legality of noncustodial wallets is good legislation.

This is all already legal in the USA. I think we're good there. I don't see anything changing in that area.

Ideally, the tax burden also should not be too high compared to what's the case with other assets in the US. It can be regulated alright as an asset, but it's much better (for tax reasons) if it becomes a legal tender and thus is not taxed as such (in a way that the USD is not taxed, but some operations with it are).

"Legal tender" is not what you think it is, as it is simply a law allowing you to use that payment method to pay your taxes, and also forces all citizens to accept that form of payment whether they want to or not.

The US Dollar is used, for tax purposes, as a measurement mechanism to determine if the value of your investment increased in value or not. While I personally don't see any reason to change it (sorta like changing the Metric System--why do it?), but it also wouldn't make any difference: laws taxing capital gains would still apply, no matter how you measure it.

I would love the government to implement a clear policy regarding the safety and the rights of their citizens against scams or hacks when it comes to exchanges, wallets and other platforms usually used in crypto.

Another thing I would like for the government to create a policy of is tax regulations. Some governments file crypto incomes as very complicated and part of a gray area which confuses a lot and creates unnecessary hostility.

In my country, crypto does not have definitive rules which creates complications. The government should be clear about the policies they want to implement regarding crypto to protect their citizens while allowing them the option of freedom.

I think a lot of people here are saying the same thing as this.

Taxes... suck. Every year we hear politicians say they are going to "simplify taxes", but then then also say they are going to have "a special exception for XYZ" and the tax code gets even more complicated.

For me, the solution to complicated taxes is... software. (But then again I would say that since I'm a programmer ).

[franky1]

Taxes... suck. Every year we hear politicians say they are going to "simplify taxes", but then then also say they are going to have "a special exception for XYZ" and the tax code gets even more complicated.

For me, the solution to complicated taxes is... software. (But then again I would say that since I'm a programmer ).

the solution is simpler then that
a. have the treasury do better accounting of budgets, ensuring money is earmarked/directed to actual frontline services that help those in the country in need whom cannot support themselves (not give away funds to profitable businesses, nor other countries not even neighbouring the domestic country*)

b. have a flat rate ALL pay(say 15%). and not the 40% for rich whom then get exceptions to then effectively only pay 5%

the government is too involved in 'trade deals' however you as an individual cant walk into a town hall and ask for a gallon of car fuel, because car fuel comes from profitable businesses. so its the businesses that should be doing trade deals and working privately with suppliers. and if a business wants to get oil to refine for fuel from a distant country. the business should hire its own hitmen to invade other countries and steal land to then take the oil. and not ask us tax payers to fund the DOD as a businesses private army at a huge expense to us

*EG if blackrock wants to help ukraine, so be it. but lets not spend tax funds to then make private contractors profit, especially if profitable companies then dont even pay 15%-40% tax rates

[legiteum]

Taxes... suck. Every year we hear politicians say they are going to "simplify taxes", but then then also say they are going to have "a special exception for XYZ" and the tax code gets even more complicated.

For me, the solution to complicated taxes is... software. (But then again I would say that since I'm a programmer ).

the solution is simpler then that

a. have the treasury do better accounting of budgets, ensuring money is earmarked/directed to actual frontline services that help those in the country in need whom cannot support themselves (not give away funds to profitable businesses, nor other countries not even neighbouring the domestic country*)

Almost all of the money the treasury spends goes to three things: Social Security, Medicare and the Army. There's always money to be squeezed out of a system if you are careful, but we're talking about only a few percentage points at best.

b. have a flat rate ALL pay(say 15%). and not the 40% for rich whom then get exceptions to then effectively only pay 5%

Politicians have talked about "flat tax" for decades in the US, and... the devil is always in the details. And raising the taxes on a single mother making $30k/year is... not going to be very popular . But that's what a flat tax would do if it truly stayed... flat. (So yes, then add this exception, and.... and.... ...you start to see the problem).

But back to the topic at hand, I think crypto gains should be taxed in the same way any other kinds of gains are taxed. You can debate the taxation for gains, but that's a different conversation: crypto shouldn't be treated special.

[fullhdpixel]

The cryptocurrency business should be treated the same way as any other business. No "special crypto taxes", because "the crypto miners are polluting the environment" or any other BS excuse. No business should be discriminated by the law.
I hate KYC, but there's no way to get around this. Any person, who opens a bank account must verify his/her ID, there shouldn't be any exclusions. The crypto industry is a part of the financial system, so KYC must remain(even though ID verification can be faked).
The idea of cold wallet owners verifying their ID is beyond stupid and I believe that the people in the US congress aren't stupid enough to impose such regulation.

If crypto will be treated like any other business then it can also have a tax because other business are being taxed as well. If you really mean ''special tax'' I think you are right since I haven't heard that others have a special tax as well. Maybe it is only possible in crypto because they are really special. By that, I don't mean the same to what you said that crypto miners are polluting the environment but anyways it's not the whole crypto but it was only Bitcoin due to its difficulty now.

If it's about this, then they better be clear and just said that they want to penalize the BTC miners and not that they will indirectly use the tax term because it can be misleading. Of course there is still business that can be discriminated and they are the illegal one. If you hate KYC then don't do it. You can. What about using a decentralized counter part of those who are centralized ones?

[Zoomic]

Why is it difficult for the government to let bitcoin be? The best policy the government will ever do for bitcoin is to allow bitcoin be used the way it was originally created to be used without seeking for means to interfere by trying hard to regulate it and be in control.

I understand that the government might be particularly interested in the income they should be generating from bitcoiners through taxation or the money they would lose if majority of the population choose to carry out transactions with bitcoins. If that be the case, Value Added Tax (VAT) on every good and service purchased with bitcoins should be able to solve the problem so both the bitcoin community and the government can be at peace. No need for further regulations from the government.

[legiteum]

Why is it difficult for the government to let bitcoin be? The best policy the government will ever do for bitcoin is to allow bitcoin be used the way it was originally created to be used without seeking for means to interfere by trying hard to regulate it and be in control.

I think that's the policy the US and most developed countries have right now. I really don't see any government trying to control Bitcoin itself.

Obviously when you cross over into sovereign currencies and physical purchases, then the government steps in, but this isn't different than anything else.

If that be the case, Value Added Tax (VAT) on every good and service purchased with bitcoins should be able to solve the problem so both the bitcoin community and the government can be at peace. No need for further regulations from the government.

I think VAT can be collected regardless of how an item was purchased. That Bitcoin or whatever digital currency was used shouldn't matter.

[o48o]

-cut-
I also want them to see them to treat Bitcoin as a fungible coin instead of non fungible coin, any Satoshi is same to each other, instead of add some nonsense like "dirty Bitcoin", "Bitcoin from Laszlo Hanyecz" etc.

Dollar bills are considered to be fungible as well, but that doesn't mean that they can't be traced. They have serial numbers and some of it can be considered dirty money. That's why money laundering even exists. And especially these days value needs to have traceable origin because of AML laws, and those aml laws cover most of the world.

It benefits most the countries in the world to track down criminals and work together, so it's not really about political parties either. It just makes sense for countries to fight against crime, and tracking money / value changing hands is one of the best tools for it.

[Helena Yu]

Dollar bills are considered to be fungible as well, but that doesn't mean that they can't be traced. They have serial numbers and some of it can be considered dirty money. That's why money laundering even exists. And especially these days value needs to have traceable origin because of AML laws, and those aml laws cover most of the world.

It benefits most the countries in the world to track down criminals and work together, so it's not really about political parties either. It just makes sense for countries to fight against crime, and tracking money / value changing hands is one of the best tools for it.

Yeah every cash has different serial numbers, but do you always paying attention with the serial numbers when you get a change from cashiers or someone? do you know which serial numbers are dirty money and which one isn't?

Cash is actually the most dangerous currency, you can achieve a complete privacy and it's legal. Compared to Bitcoin which can't achieve a complete privacy and legal in most countries. While Monero can achieve a complete privacy, but it's not legal.

[fuguebtc]

The cryptocurrency space is still very young and growing, and what we need right now are regulations that aim at wider adoption and usage of this alternative technology call cryptocurrencies on the individual level, consumer protection is much More desired at this point because we have tons of custodial services that have violated the right of their consumers without any government regulations that check such an abuse, more policing is needed on crypto services provider's like exchange and other gateway cryptos systems that are custodial, we need more cryptocurrency forsic agents that could expose scam more and help in the recovery's of cryptocurrency scams most especially those carried out by exchanges and extended to fake crypto investment frauds, this will help to weed out the bad actors in the cryptocurrency community.

Government regulation and oversight will protect us from fraud and scams in the marketplace, but the price we pay is loss of privacy and more taxes. You can't expect them to protect you while still ensuring your privacy and not making you pay taxes. Everything has its price, nothing is free in this world.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies emphasize privacy and freedom, we can protect ourselves from scams and fraud without the help of the government. If you know how to control your greed, don't be greedy, don't participate in projects that promise high interest rates, don't leave money on centralized platforms...no one will be able to scam you.

[o48o]

Yeah every cash has different serial numbers, but do you always paying attention with the serial numbers when you get a change from cashiers or someone? do you know which serial numbers are dirty money and which one isn't?

Cash is actually the most dangerous currency, you can achieve a complete privacy and it's legal. Compared to Bitcoin which can't achieve a complete privacy and legal in most countries. While Monero can achieve a complete privacy, but it's not legal.

In some cases it is, and that's why criminals have prefered cash money. But those days are soon over. We need to prove the origin and money trail for larger amounts and criminals are probably busy laundering it, because i am assuming that's going to be near impossible, in few / ten years. Soon money that is from drug trading or laundering stolen money will become so expensive that it's easier and more profitble just make money legally than hassle with criminal underworld.

[darkangel11]

Politicians have talked about "flat tax" for decades in the US, and... the devil is always in the details. And raising the taxes on a single mother making $30k/year is... not going to be very popular . But that's what a flat tax would do if it truly stayed... flat. (So yes, then add this exception, and.... and.... ...you start to see the problem).

You're always about that socialist bullshit with single mothers, poor crying children and similar arguments.
A flat tax should decrease to the minimum, meaning that if a single mother is paying 15% right now, everybody should pay 15%. I'd like to remind you that it used to be like that long time ago, but governments found new ways of spending tax money, so they had to find new taxes as well.

On topic, The best and the simplest thing for bitcoin would be a law that protects privacy and treats a bitcoin transaction similar to how cash transactions are treated. When you exchange cash at a store, the owner doesn't have to ask for your name and you don't have to show your ID. It's the same when you do a small job for someone like paint your neighbour's fence and they pay you, you don't have to tell the government about it and it should stay like this.

[legiteum]

On topic, The best and the simplest thing for bitcoin would be a law that protects privacy and treats a bitcoin transaction similar to how cash transactions are treated. When you exchange cash at a store, the owner doesn't have to ask for your name and you don't have to show your ID. It's the same when you do a small job for someone like paint your neighbour's fence and they pay you, you don't have to tell the government about it and it should stay like this.

You are absolutely required to report all income to the IRS regardless how much and how you are paid. Lots of people do cash transactions (usually for "small" stuff) in order to avoid paying taxes on it, but that's certainly not legal, technically speaking.

Cash transactions are basically overlooked until they reach $10k, which I think is a reasonable threshold, more or less. As I have written about before, I think most people want "small" transactions to be anonymous and untracked, and "big money" to be held in their own name and tracked so they don't get in trouble with their government. In other words, there's a big difference between the worker you have do some yard work--and Walter White. The law can deal with that using a threshold like this.

[coolcoinz]

Full privacy of any crypto-crypto transactions.

No need to declare crypto assets as long as they aren't being exchanged into fiat money.

No unrealized gains taxes for both crypto and traditional investments.

Tax rate for long term holders similar to what Germany did. It wouldn't even have to be 0% like in Germany, but anything below 10% would seem fair.

Right to mine bitcoin accepted in every state.

No lies and baseless attacks like calling people who run nodes money transmitters.

[legiteum]

Full privacy of any crypto-crypto transactions.

Isn't this the case now in the US? I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure it is.

No need to declare crypto assets as long as they aren't being exchanged into fiat money.

Ditto. This would be the status-quo. No need to change the law.

No unrealized gains taxes for both crypto and traditional investments.

That's certainly the case for stocks and ETFs and so on. I think it's that was for digital currency assets. Again, the status quo is what we want here...

Tax rate for long term holders similar to what Germany did. It wouldn't even have to be 0% like in Germany, but anything below 10% would seem fair.

Today in the US digital currency gains are no different that any other gains. Adjusting the capital gains tax is always a hot-button issue in the election, but it's definitely not specific to crypto

Right to mine bitcoin accepted in every state.

Are there states where mining is illegal?

No lies and baseless attacks like calling people who run nodes money transmitters.

I wouldn't know what "lies" would mean in the context of government regulations. I would assume this means that we wouldn't want technical nodes to be regulated as if they are money transmitters like PayPal or Western Union. That should be reserved to those trading digital for sovereign, or purchasing hard goods. That certainly makes sense. But is this a live issue right now? I personally haven't seen it, but maybe I missed it?

[franky1]

No lies and baseless attacks like calling people who run nodes money transmitters.

I wouldn't know what "lies" would mean in the context of government regulations. I would assume this means that we wouldn't want technical nodes to be regulated as if they are money transmitters like PayPal or Western Union. That should be reserved to those trading digital for sovereign, or purchasing hard goods. That certainly makes sense. But is this a live issue right now? I personally haven't seen it, but maybe I missed it?

to be a money transmitter you need to facilitate a payment on behalf of someone else for a fee
(EG you receive funds. and then pass on funds to someone else minus a fee)

a bitcoin node is not a money transmitter nor has it ever been deemed even in any draft proposal to call a bitcoin node a money transmitter
however subnetworks like lightning nodes facilitate payments differently to how bitcoin nodes relay transactions, and because the model of lightning facilitate payments on behalf of others for a fee (their routed onion payment method) makes lightning nodes a money transmitter when working as a payment router

in short because bitcoin does receive funds and then sends out funds minus a fee to each peer relay node, the bitcoin nodes are not money transmitters