1/ A quick explainer on what happened with the infrastructure bill last night:

We were on track to pass the Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment to fix the worst issues with the bill, & then Senators @RobPortman & @MarkWarner came from nowhere to blow it up.

Now the vote's tomorrow 👇
2/ As a refresher, the current infra bill draft has a provision expanding the Tax Code definition of "broker" to include:

"any person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person."
3/ This definition is wildly overbroad. It captures nearly everyone in crypto, forcing them all to surveil users in order to comply with tax reporting obligations.

We spent all week asking Congress to remove it, change it, or add exceptions for miners, developers, & many others.
4/ Thankfully, some smart Senators understood that the language in the original draft was unworkable.

It treats everyone in crypto like a traditional financial institution no matter how different they are, & forces them to report data to the IRS that they don't have & can't get.
8/ The three of them, a bipartisan group of one Democrat & two Republicans, put together an amendment fixing the worst issues with the bill.

The Wyden-Toomey-Lummis amendment clarifies that certain non-custodial actors like miners & developers aren't covered by the broker rule:
9/ The amendment was set for a vote yesterday & appeared likely to pass.

It had strong support (thanks largely to all your calls) & even Senator Portman, who led negotiations on the original crypto provision for the Republicans, suggested he was for it:
10/ Then, in a DC flip-flop so fast it'll make your head spin, Senator Portman proposed his own competing amendment, co-sponsored by Senator Warner, a Democrat.

The Portman-Warner amendment is worse than useless. It doesn't come close to passing the laugh test. It only excepts:
11/ Portman-Warner protects PoW miners & some (but not all) wallet projects.

That's it. 🤡

Not software developers, or Lightning node operators, or PoS validators, or DEX liquidity providers, or DeFi aggregators, or many other non-custodial actors who can't comply with the law.
12/ What really gets me is how Portman-Warner cuts out subsection (C) from Wyden-Lummis-Toomey, which simply protects developers who write code & don't sell anything.

This is *basic* First Amendment freedom of speech. It's jaw-dropping for two sitting Senators not to get that.
13/ Now we have two competing bills, one good & one terrible, both coming up for a vote tomorrow.

The *correct* outcome is for Wyden-Lummis-Toomey to pass & Portman-Warner to fail, assuming the Senators care about good policy & promoting US interests through innovation.

But....
14/ Good policy apparently isn't the priority here.

Instead, this looks like a continuation of the US Treasury Department's embrace of warrantless surveillance & crusade against financial privacy in crypto.

The strategy is new, but the motivation is not:
15/ Word in DC is that this whole thing was Treasury's idea. They don't like what we're building & their solution is to obtain jurisdiction over non-custodial actors.

They tried this via FinCEN's proposed rule last year & failed. Now they're trying again.
washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/…
16/ Problem is, they might succeed this time.

Portman-Warner is DC gamesmanship at its worst, but I have to give it to them: it's a nifty political trick.

Although the amendment is garbage, Senator Warner's involvement makes it "bipartisan," which means Dems can vote for it. 😑
17/ Dems can say "we fixed the crypto provision" without actually fixing the crypto provision, which requires voting for Wyden-Lummis-Toomey instead.

Even the White House jumped in (with a push from Treasury, perhaps) to give Dems cover for this strategy.
18/ But we *can* stop them.

To do that, we need to make more calls to Senators. A lot more. We need to tell them to vote YES on Wyden-Lummis-Toomey & NO on Portman-Warner.

If you're willing & able, please use the number & script here to call today:
fightforthefuture.org/actions/stop-t…
19/ Both amendments are up for a vote tomorrow.

I'm lucky to be working with all the smartest people in DC, but even they aren't sure how the process for competing amendments works. We'll just have to see how it plays out.

Yes, this is how a bill becomes a law. It isn't pretty.
20/ No matter what happens tomorrow, the fight will go on.

The infrastructure bill as a whole will very likely pass, & then it'll go to the House. Depending what happens to the crypto provision, we can push for an amendment there too.

We have a lot more friends in the House.
21/ After that, the crypto provision won't take effect until 2023 at earliest, so we can keep fighting to reverse it in Congress or overturn it in the courts.

Let's cross that bridge if & when we get there.

For now, only one thing really matters:

CALL YOUR SENATORS! 🇺🇸

[end]

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jake Chervinsky

Jake Chervinsky Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jchervinsky

30 Jul
1/ 🚨 Here's the deal with the US infrastructure bill:

A new provision has been added that expands the Tax Code's definition of "broker" to capture nearly everyone in crypto, including non-custodial actors like miners, forcing them all to KYC users.

This is not a drill 👇
2/ The bill expands the definition of a "broker" to include "any person who (for consideration) is responsible for and regularly provides any service effectuating transfers of digital assets."

Earlier drafts said "even if non-custodial" & explicitly included DEX & P2P markets.
3/ This definition is so broad, it could apply to nearly every economic actor in the US crypto industry, if read literally.

That includes PoW miners & PoS validators, since "providing a service to effectuate transfers of digital assets for consideration" seems to fit both.
Read 21 tweets
27 May
1/ I'm thrilled to announce that I'm joining the @variantfund team as a strategic advisor!

@jessewldn & @spencernoon are two of the most insightful, hardworking, & effective investors in crypto. I'm beyond excited to help them & their founders build out the Ownership Economy. 🔥
2/ I've been a huge fan of Jesse's work for a long time, especially since he wrote the definitive playbook on "progressive decentralization" in January 2020.

This piece has become a cornerstone of protocol development strategy across the entire industry:
a16z.com/2020/01/09/pro…
3/ When he started Variant, I was deeply impressed with his Ownership Economy thesis—the idea that the *users* of a network should be the *owners* of that network, instead of being productized & exploited by rent-seeking companies (the typical Web2 model).
variant.fund/the-ownership-…
Read 5 tweets
24 Mar
1/ One interesting piece of Uniswap v3 is its use of Business Source License (BSL) 1.1, which restricts production use for two years.

I see people asking if @Uniswap can really use BSL 1.1 against v3 forks. Answer: yes, mostly, at a cost.

The DeFi + copyright situation 👇 Image
2/ NOT LEGAL ADVICE

(sorry, couldn't resist the reference)

But seriously, I'm not your lawyer. If you have a DeFi copyright issue, hire your own. Don't try to get legal advice from Twitter.
3/ For reasons that I hope are obvious, it's crucial for DeFi protocols to be free & open-source software.

As a result, most DeFi protocols are launched with fully open-source licenses like MIT, BSD, & GPL. Uniswap v2 was released under GPL.

Then Sushi & Pancake happened....
Read 14 tweets
24 Dec 20
It's extremely unlikely that changes in SEC leadership will have any impact on the Ripple case.

Given Comm'r Peirce's conspicuous silence, I'd guess the vote was unanimous in favor of filing.

Regardless, the case is being prosecuted by enforcement lawyers who are here to stay.
To clarify the point re: Comm'r Peirce, she's often vocal when she disagrees with her colleagues on enforcement (e.g., Kik, Unikrn).

That she hasn't commented may suggest she approved. OTOH, it may be inappropriate to speak up while charges are pending, so it might mean nothing.
Even so, she's the only one who's shown interest in voting not to approve crypto enforcement actions. You can see the results of Commission votes on district court actions here (after they're resolved): sec.gov/about/commissi….

You'll struggle to find "no" votes other than hers.
Read 5 tweets
23 Dec 20
1/ FinCEN is now accepting public comments on its proposal to extend AML regulation to non-custodial wallets.

The deadline is January 4. We have an unfairly (maybe illegally) short time for this, so we have to use it wisely.

Here's your ultimate guide on submitting a comment 👇
2/ I'll link to the comment form at the end of the thread, but I really want you to read through this first.

Writing a bad comment is worse than none at all. If you don't have time to take this seriously, use a pre-filled form instead (also linked below).
3/ First, let me assure you that public comments do matter.

A LOT.

Agencies have to read & respond to the substance of every single one. Your voice will be heard. It might change minds on the other side. Even if not, it still might slow them down.

This is worth your time.
Read 15 tweets
19 Dec 20
1/ After a long wait, FinCEN has finally issued its new proposed rule extending AML regulation to non-custodial wallets.

It could've been worse (really), but it's still a terrible rule in both process & substance.

Here's what it says, what's wrong with it, & what we do next 👇
2/ The rule would impose new obligations on virtual asset service providers (VASPs) like exchanges & custodians.

For deposits & withdrawals > $3k involving a non-custodial wallet, VASPs would have to record the name & physical address of the wallet owner.
home.treasury.gov/news/press-rel…
3/ VASPs would also have to report any deposit or withdrawal > $10k to FinCEN in the form of a currency transaction report (CTR).

FinCEN says these requirements are necessary to "combat the financing of global terrorism," "address transnational money laundering...." You get it.
Read 21 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(