In a 60 to 38 vote, United States senators passed H.J. Res. 109, a resolution nullifying the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SECs) Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121. The commission’s rule requires banks to keep customers’ digital assets on their balance sheets, with capital maintained against them — a measure many lawmakers and industry leaders have criticized as stifling innovation.
However, before the resolution passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, President Joe Biden said he intended to veto the bill to “protect investors in crypto-asset markets and to safeguard the broader financial system.”
However, Perianne Boring, founder and CEO of the Blockchain Trade Association Digital Chamber, believes that support from 21 Democratic Party senators could force the White House to “rethink its strategy and position.” In her opinion, “the tides are turning for crypto in Washington.”
SEC is now an enemy of the cryptocurrency industry instead of working with it as a good partner while at the same time fighting scammers and fraudsterVery true, SEC's recent actions against cryptocurrencies has been pretty aggressive but I believe their real intention may be something that we aren't understanding fully.
If Biden says he'll veto the bill, he'll probably keep his word. I don't understand the Congress' resistance of the SAB 121 because they've been pushing laws that furthers financial transparency. It seems the stifling innovation is not the main reason why they don't like it. I am guessing they are afraid that their personal involvement with crypto will be revealed.
This is a big good news as finally the Senate (and the House before it) intervened on SEC and put things as they should be. Let's hope the dementia-filled Joe Biden will not instead veto this bill as this is also supported by his fellow Democrats. This is just one of the proofs that SEC is enjoying its time and power of overreach...putting things on the cryptocurrency industry a lot worse and not making things better as it should be. SEC is now an enemy of the cryptocurrency industry instead of working with it as a good partner while at the same time fighting scammers and fraudster, as it should be doing.I did not get the point here, so the SEC wants to implement a rule that would force Banks to reserve some funds from their own capital to back up the risky assets (digital assets) that's what they called it. This means for every digital asset like for 1 million dollars of digital assets banks have to save some reserve from there own capitals to manage the volatility risks. If this is what they want, they what's bad in this for crypto users, they might have to pay some extra fee to banks like in terms of taxes etc.
However, before the resolution passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, President Joe Biden said he intended to veto the bill to “protect investors in crypto-asset markets and to safeguard the broader financial system.”I always laugh when I hear this phrase “to protect investors in crypto asset markets”!! This phrase is really funny because are investors protected by preventing them from working in cryptocurrencies? Or by banning cryptocurrencies completely? This is stupidity.
If Biden says he'll veto the bill, he'll probably keep his word.
~snip~
If Biden says he'll veto the bill, he'll probably keep his word.
~snip~
I sincerely doubt that he understands what this is really about - but it is not only about decisions concerning cryptocurrencies, but more or less everything that should concern him. He functions with a bunch of counselors and people who whisper in his ear, but that's unfortunately the reality of people suffering from dementia.
As for the SEC and their views on cryptocurrencies, it seems to me that GG is a bit angry because they practically forced him to approve the spot BTC ETF, and what they are trying to do now is just a small revenge that they are not succeeding in so far.
However, before the resolution passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, President Joe Biden said he intended to veto the bill to “protect investors in crypto-asset markets and to safeguard the broader financial system.”I always laugh when I hear this phrase “to protect investors in crypto asset markets”!! This phrase is really funny because are investors protected by preventing them from working in cryptocurrencies? Or by banning cryptocurrencies completely? This is stupidity.
For example, if you wanted to protect people from the dangers of riding in cars, would you prevent them from riding in cars at all? Or do you ban the use of cars entirely? Or must he warn them of the dangers while providing appropriate safety measures to protect them from the dangers of cars?