1) Live now: senate.gov/legislative/fl…
talking about the ultimate compromise amendment. A live thread!
context:
talking about the ultimate compromise amendment. A live thread!
context:
https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1424608615814422531
2) @SenToomey pitching the amendment, doing a pretty good job.
3) ok I'm sure this is a complete coincidence but this speech shares a bit of language with my threads on the bill.
AGAIN THIS IS A COINCIDENCE AND I'M ONLY SAYING THIS BECUASE A MAN CAN DREAM, RIGHT???
AGAIN THIS IS A COINCIDENCE AND I'M ONLY SAYING THIS BECUASE A MAN CAN DREAM, RIGHT???
4) the amendment isn't prefect, but it helps a lot.
It removes people "validating distributed ledger transactions" without needing to specify which consensus protocol the chain uses.
It also makes it clear that the word "broker" is just a tax analogy and not a broader statement
It removes people "validating distributed ledger transactions" without needing to specify which consensus protocol the chain uses.
It also makes it clear that the word "broker" is just a tax analogy and not a broader statement
5) @SenLummis also taking a pretty reasonable approach here --
a) don't stop innovation
b) this is a messy process, let's do the best we can here and then address other questions later when we have time
a) don't stop innovation
b) this is a messy process, let's do the best we can here and then address other questions later when we have time
6) Cruz going a lot harder in his speech. Agree with what he's saying in this case but also feel like there might not be a need to be this strong -- the goal here is unanimous consent in order to get it through committee.
7) Shelby not yet objecting, but asking to get _his_ amendment as well, threatening to object otherwise.
He's asking to tack his amendment on.
Now Sanders threatening to object if Shelby's amendment is tacked on.
He's asking to tack his amendment on.
Now Sanders threatening to object if Shelby's amendment is tacked on.
8) Alright now it looks like Sanders is about to ask to tack on yet _another_ amendment, this one probably related to climate change.
Sanders objecting.
Sanders objecting.
9) Alright, now Shelby and Toomey going back and forth on this.
Shelby wants a defense spending amendment.
Shelby wants a defense spending amendment.
10) Shelby objecting (!!!).
So, after all of that, it looks like Shelby, R-Alabama, might be the one to kill the common-sense crypto amendment, because he wants _his_ military spending amendment...
So, after all of that, it looks like Shelby, R-Alabama, might be the one to kill the common-sense crypto amendment, because he wants _his_ military spending amendment...
11) Ok, I have to say, it's beautiful how bi-partisan this particular excursion ended up being, _both_ in its backing and in its possible downfall.
Toomey now responding say 'wtf how are we killing this complete consensus because of other irrelevant stuff, damaging innovation.'
Toomey now responding say 'wtf how are we killing this complete consensus because of other irrelevant stuff, damaging innovation.'
12) ....... Toomey yields.
And, it seems, that's a wrap.
And, it seems, that's a wrap.
13) ok here we go again
Cruz now suggesting an amendment.
Shelby asks to include his language.
Cruz.... looks like he's going to try saying no to including it and seeing what happens. Giving a speech aimed directly at Shelby, saying he agrees, but c'mon man, don't kill this.
Cruz now suggesting an amendment.
Shelby asks to include his language.
Cruz.... looks like he's going to try saying no to including it and seeing what happens. Giving a speech aimed directly at Shelby, saying he agrees, but c'mon man, don't kill this.
14) ok so this answers the question of 'what happens if someone just re-suggests the amendment under a different name'
15) No luck, Shelby objected about as quickly as he could.
16) Now Sinema is probably taking a shot!
But this will probably end the same way as the others.
But this will probably end the same way as the others.
17) well maybe, we'll see, it's a long speech, and hasn't gotten to the punchline yet.
18) Nope, nevermind, this is the actual bill, seems like discussion of the amendment is over.
19) Whelp, not a lot to say about that one.
It was a good attempt! It got bipartisan support.
But it needed to get there a few days ago, when it only needed majority support; unanimous consent is really hard.
It was a good attempt! It got bipartisan support.
But it needed to get there a few days ago, when it only needed majority support; unanimous consent is really hard.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
