US Senate overturns SEC’s anti-crypto resolution

[TomPluz]

Taken from Cointelegraph crypto news site.

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.”

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.

[Zed0X]

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.

[SamReomo]

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

Very 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.

Sometimes I think SEC might be taking those actions to fight scammers, fraudsters, rug pullers, and all those people and services that might be honey pot to rug the money of the investors.

But, when I see their recent actions that disrupted the crypto world and has created fear in the minds of many crypto services and crypto investors and holders, I sometimes think that they're doing that willingly to stop the progress of crypto investors and crypto market.

[Captain Corporate]

To be fair, trying to make sure that you can get whatever you want from people and be fine isn't the way to gain votes. And if you dehumanize all these crypto people and just bash them constantly, even if it is not directly Biden that does it, even if its SEC, its during his presidency and that means that a lot of crypto people will dislike the path. Doesn't mean that someone who would vote for Biden can change to Trump that easily, which it may happen too, but more commonly it is known that people just won't go voting and be absent. That would equally hurt and Biden should thank that this was overturned.

[Baofeng]

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.

True, but with this resolution it will pressure SEC Chair Gary Gensler to withdraw SAB 121. If Gensler is not going to do that, then the Biden will have to make a decision here.

As far as his veto goes, yeah it's possible, that he will do it. And if in our best case scenario, him not doing anything means that this law is going to be signed into law in 10 days.

[Jeffy112]

The recent Senate resolution to nullify the SEC's rule requiring banks to account for digital assets on their balance sheets signals a shift towards supporting innovation in the cryptocurrency industry. This move is seen as crucial for fostering growth and cooperation rather than stifling innovation. SEC's offense is perceived as overreach and stifling innovation within the cryptocurrency industry. The specific offense mentioned is the SEC's rule, known as Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121, which requires banks to keep customers' digital assets on their balance sheets with capital maintained against them. Critics argue that this rule is burdensome and hinders innovation rather than fostering a cooperative environment between regulators and the cryptocurrency industry.

[Faisal2202]

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.

But still it only impose more burden on banks, and you know when there is a burden on banks, political leaders don't bear it, that's why Biden might have veto this resolution by SEC. Please correct me If I am wrong, but AFAI understand, that's what they (SEC) want. Overall, IMO this act by Biden have not good impact on crypto like he did go against SEC but no good impact on crypto sector.

[yhiaali3]

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?

[Lucius]

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.

[TomPluz]

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.

After Biden vetoed this resolution which is actually bipartisan, there is an expressed anger among many cryptocurrency enthusiasts and supporters and I am sure that come November this anger can be translated into a big NO vote against him. He is using the name of protecting the people in not allowing this resolution be implemented under his watch so he is siding more with Gary Gensler than the industry and the lawmakers who already saw something is really wrong with how the SEC is being run. Time and time again, the Biden administration and the Democratic Party all have shown that they are not open, friendly and supportive of the cryptocurrency industry using flimsy grounds and laughable pretexts as basis for those acts. So sad...as sad as Biden lost in the stage and handshaking non-existent people.

[Jomisa]

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?

They're all out for their pockets though

[bhadz]

I'm still in the air with this resolution, so does this mean that the banks will start to recognize people telling them that their source of income is coming from crypto and there won't be any misjudgment and prejudice for every person that might use their banking services?
Anyway, any news, resolutions and laws that are in favor of crypto, there we go and we'd like to see that happen on how it will affect entirely the community from that jurisdiction.