2/ I've always thought he would eventually come around to supporting crypto, & even now, I'm still as hopeful about that as ever.
As senators go, he understands technology far better than most: he himself was a successful entrepreneur & tech investor before taking public office.
3/ In the past, he's shown great curiosity about what we're building & he's made positive comments showing an open mind about crypto innovation.
For example, here he is in 2018, saying "I think we may be on top of something that is transformational...."
4/ Also, unlike certain other members of Congress who've made a point of being outwardly hostile, I can't recall Sen. Warner ever taking a strong stance before.
Even now, despite the issues with the amendments he's offered, he hasn't come out swinging as a critic or antagonist.
5/ It's easy to assume anyone who supports one bad bill is an enemy of crypto, but that's not true.
Most senators still haven't learned much about this complex & rapidly changing industry. A silver lining of this week's fight is that they're all getting a crash course on it now.
6/ I say this mostly for my own benefit: while it's good to fight hard for smart crypto policy, we should be patient with folks who are still learning & might make for great future allies.
I hope to work with Sen. Warner soon on advancing innovation in Virginia & the USA.
[end]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.
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-…
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.
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.