Clarity act stalled by Trump himself, Democrats

[legiteum]

https://www.theblock.co/post/403083/crypto-champion-trump-may-be-jeopardizing-the-industrys-landmark-legislation

A very interesting bit of US politics here is playing out in this landmark crypto bill.

Just for some background, the US senate is majority Republican, but Democrats have enough votes to stall a bill like this, basically forever.

The Democrats have executed a very shrewd bit of politics: they are saying they will block the bill unless there are provisions that prevent corruption, e.g. US federal politicians directly trading crypto, profiting from it, and so on. (Note that for years, politicians on both sides have advocated banning the direct ownership of stocks, so this is nothing new).

Of course, such a provision would screw over Donald Trump personally since he is so deeply vested in crypto. And Democrats know very well that the overriding priority of Trump's party is to... enrich Trump personally .

Hence there's no way Republicans will vote for a bill that includes limits for what elected officials can do with crypto.

Meanwhile, Democrats love this since it highlights Trump's corruption of the US government in order to serve himself and his family personally.

Long story short, based on this, I don't see this bill going anywhere until Trump* leaves office (most likely in 2029, but possibly before, and possibly never).



(* Note that I didn't say "Donald J. Trump Sr." since Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., is a front-runner since the nomination for his party after Trump Sr. leaves the office, and Trump Jr. would have the exact same stance as his father in this regard since he too is deeply involved in the crypto business).

[skylerclooney]

https://www.theblock.co/post/403083/crypto-champion-trump-may-be-jeopardizing-the-industrys-landmark-legislation

A very interesting bit of US politics here is playing out in this landmark crypto bill.

Just for some background, the US senate is majority Republican, but Democrats have enough votes to stall a bill like this, basically forever.

The Democrats have executed a very shrewd bit of politics: they are saying they will block the bill unless there are provisions that prevent corruption, e.g. US federal politicians directly trading crypto, profiting from it, and so on. (Note that for years, politicians on both sides have advocated banning the direct ownership of stocks, so this is nothing new).

Of course, such a provision would screw over Donald Trump personally since he is so deeply vested in crypto. And Democrats know very well that the overriding priority of Trump's FNF party is to... enrich Trump personally .

Hence there's no way Republicans will vote for a bill that includes limits for what elected officials can do with crypto.

Meanwhile, Democrats love this since it highlights Trump's corruption of the US government in order to serve himself and his family personally.

Long story short, based on this, I don't see this bill going anywhere until Trump* leaves office (most likely in 2029, but possibly before, and possibly never).



(* Note that I didn't say "Donald J. Trump Sr." since Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., is a front-runner since the nomination for his party after Trump Sr. leaves the office, and Trump Jr. would have the exact same stance as his father in this regard since he too is deeply involved in the crypto business).

In my view, a crypto market bill is much more likely to gain lasting bipartisan support if it includes clear conflict-of-interest rules. Whether those rules affect Trump or anyone else shouldn't matter; the standards should apply equally to every elected official.

[NotATether]

Personally, this bill doesn't really affect me, so I don't really care.

I'm sure a lot of businesses and banks who wanted to have an easier time making money off of crypto are not going to be happy about this, but that's not really our problem.

[hugeblack]

We are talking about draft bills (not laws), and their wording may be changed according to political changes, or some clauses may be amended in exchange for Republicans agreeing to clauses for another draft, and so on. Therefore, there is still a chance of passing it if Trump wants to do so, and with pressure from the Republican Party.

[legiteum]

In my view, a crypto market bill is much more likely to gain lasting bipartisan support if it includes clear conflict-of-interest rules. Whether those rules affect Trump or anyone else shouldn't matter; the standards should apply equally to every elected official.

Exactly. And that would mean Trump needing to disclose all of his dealings, which he would never do. So for now, this bill is probably dead.

We are talking about draft bills (not laws), and their wording may be changed according to political changes, or some clauses may be amended in exchange for Republicans agreeing to clauses for another draft, and so on. Therefore, there is still a chance of passing it if Trump wants to do so, and with pressure from the Republican Party.

You could be right, but Democrats can do a lot of blocking right now, and there are a few Republicans in the Senate who are actually standing up to Trump's corruption when it's really extreme.

And most likely his party will be in the minority in Congress next year. Since Trump can veto bills, that will create a stalemate.

[Smartprofit]

I'm confident that Democrats and Republicans won't be able to reach an agreement on this issue until 2029.

Both parties are fighting for power.

Meanwhile, laws already passed in the US are gradually undermining the possibility of anonymous and confidential financial transactions in the country. 🙋

Given the near-total lack of globalization in the modern world, most forum participants are completely indifferent to whether Republicans and Democrats can reach an agreement on this issue. In my opinion, no, they won't be able to... On the other hand, what difference does it make? It won't affect my financial situation in any way, for better or worse.

Countries are building high fences to completely isolate themselves from their neighbors. Financial, information, and technological flows will not be able to pass through these fences. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the most valuable tools are those that make these fences permeable. These include, for example, Bitcoin, Monero, USDT (with caveats), VPNs, etc. But the Clarity Act is not such a tool.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The CLARITY act actually stalled because the crypto industry itself turned against it. Brian Armstrong and other crypto players pulled their support earlier this year after the traditional banking lobby pushed for a stablecoin rewards ban.

Less about a partisan standoff and more about the bankers trying to block crypto competition.

[_act_]

Who cares if the bill is passed or not passed, all I know is that bitcoin is a commodity. Without the clarity act, bitcoin price has continued to increase after long time period, that is what should matter most to us.

Also bitcoin adoption is at its highest level always.

Some people think the bill may increase the price of bitcoin, but I do not think it will increase the price of bitcoin like how ETF did during bull market.

[Donneski]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a Republican vs Democrat issue as much as a politician issue? If the US lawmakers are drafting bills that can potentially affect the assets they personally own, I don't think there's anything wrong with the conflict of interest concerns irrespective of their parties.

At the end of the day, both sides will most likely use this as a political weapon while we continue to wait for the regulatory clarity the bills are supposed to provide.

[KingsDen]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a Republican vs Democrat issue as much as a politician issue? If the US lawmakers are drafting bills that can potentially affect the assets they personally own, I don't think there's anything wrong with the conflict of interest concerns irrespective of their parties.

At the end of the day, both sides will most likely use this as a political weapon while we continue to wait for the regulatory clarity the bills are supposed to provide.

I feel that US senators as a whole are being so careful about the clarity bill. That is a sensitive bill that doesn't need to be rushed. The industry is still new and things are still evolving, a country can make some rules that will contradict themselves in the future. Instead of always going back and forth, it's better to take enough time to make the right decision.

I know that there is a political undertone in every bill raised in the house of law. But there's one thing I like Americans about. They know when to keep sentiments aside and project America first.
In the crypto industry, I think they are considering America first and also ensuring continuity of the crypto positivity even after Trump's administration. This should be a good reason for calmness and not to make hasty decisions.

I am just talking like an outsider. I know that right inside the power room, there is more.

[Alphakilo]

Who cares if the bill is passed or not passed, all I know is that bitcoin is a commodity. Without the clarity act, bitcoin price has continued to increase after long time period, that is what should matter most to us.

Also bitcoin adoption is at its highest level always.

Some people think the bill may increase the price of bitcoin, but I do not think it will increase the price of bitcoin like how ETF did during bull market.

It won't definitely be volatile enough to cause a dip or pump of Bitcoin, but if the bill is being passed, Trump would be affected most, since  he has family and his businesses built around crypto currency and own it in large amounts.
He wants the bill to not affect personal restrictions to own crypto currency as a political figure am sure and the law makers want what they want and which of course would affect Trump and other politicians and leaders in government who own crypto currency too.

[Cryptohygenic]

Personally, this bill doesn't really affect me, so I don't really care.

I'm sure a lot of businesses and banks who wanted to have an easier time making money off of crypto are not going to be happy about this, but that's not really our problem.

And I am also skeptic about the mentalities of the Trump opposition who are debating and arguing about how the bill was going to enrich Trump himself for a government bill. All these insights are just coming in simply because Donald Trump and his family are strongly pro bitcoinaires and crypto.
Probably they don't know what the government will be missing in the market on their delays of signing in the bill.
Moreover, the crypto market is opened for any individual to buy theirs just as Trump's family are investing. So I wonder how they think signing the bill signifies enrichment to the Mr President.
Like my people will say, every Muslims with their own kettles.

[X-ray]

The CLARITY act actually stalled because the crypto industry itself turned against it. Brian Armstrong and other crypto players pulled their support earlier this year after the traditional banking lobby pushed for a stablecoin rewards ban.

Less about a partisan standoff and more about the bankers trying to block crypto competition.

The yield ban is really something and Coinbase is making serious bank from yield and them pulling their support means they want to prevent from losing such huge revenue stream.

The bankers are pushing for yield ban to protect their deposit from outflowing and doing senate negotiation to ban yield for stablecoins completely. The bill went from harmless to very restrictive at this point.

Now we get this stalling. There is simply too much interest in this one bill.

[Donneski]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a Republican vs Democrat issue as much as a politician issue? If the US lawmakers are drafting bills that can potentially affect the assets they personally own, I don't think there's anything wrong with the conflict of interest concerns irrespective of their parties.

At the end of the day, both sides will most likely use this as a political weapon while we continue to wait for the regulatory clarity the bills are supposed to provide.

I feel that US senators as a whole are being so careful about the clarity bill. That is a sensitive bill that doesn't need to be rushed. The industry is still new and things are still evolving, a country can make some rules that will contradict themselves in the future. Instead of always going back and forth, it's better to take enough time to make the right decision.

I know that there is a political undertone in every bill raised in the house of law. But there's one thing I like Americans about. They know when to keep sentiments aside and project America first.
In the crypto industry, I think they are considering America first and also ensuring continuity of the crypto positivity even after Trump's administration. This should be a good reason for calmness and not to make hasty decisions.

I am just talking like an outsider. I know that right inside the power room, there is more.

Well, I concur with your point that it's better to take time instead of rushing through a bill that has the potential of shaping the industry for years. However, I still feel that too much delay can as well cause uncertainty mindset among investors and probably businesses who are depending on the final outcome of the Clarity bill to make their decisions.

It's okay to take their time in other to get it right but it's also important to find a balance with timing so it doesn't take too long for everyone to know their stand.