Overall, the McHenry-Thompson bill (which actually has no name yet) is a strong effort at crafting a comprehensive regulatory regime for crypto.
There are some key issues, but per others, it’s clear the staffs of both committees really tried to square some of the hard circles about regulating crypto. That’s to be commended. 3
The bill lays out a process for getting networks deemed decentralized but it is complicated. 4
The main outstanding questions I have are:
- What part of this bill applies directly to DeFi?
- Can a network be deemed decentralized at launch?
- How will Democrats in Congress respond to it (they weren’t that involved in drafting it)?
6
Now, it’s clear that this bill won’t clear 60 votes in the Senate in its current form.
So this bill is probably lighter touch than can actually become law this Congress.
This is, almost certainly, the bill with the best chance of becoming law before the 2024 presidential election scrambles the board. Even in its current form, it’s not everything the industry wants, and the SEC will likely oppose it, as they are now opposing all legislation.
8
So we all face a time of choosing. For the industry, Congress, and regulators. This bill will have a tough path to become law, as all bills do. 2025 may result in a more favorable Congress to crypto of course, but elections are always uncertain.
9
Democrats should also be thinking that this may be their best chance to legislate on crypto.
If courts do find against key agencies in some key cases, this bill may end up being far tougher than anything that could pass into law in the next decade.
10
The next step for the bill is stakeholder engagement - the authors will likely be seeking comments from industry participants, academics, non-profits, and even ordinary users.
11
Following that, there will be a mark-up of the bill in committee, then passage on the House floor. As noted at the top of the thread, a lot of Democrats will need to support the bill for it to have a chance in the Senate. 12
I’ll be watching the list of sponsors closely. If a decent number of Democrats say they support the bill before the markup, this bill could really become law.
13
Anyway, thanks for reading and the kind remarks. It’s always a privilege to do this for the community, those of you that are pro, neutral, and anti crypto alike. 14
These kind of analyses are the closest thing in policy to open-source contributions and a chance to provide some illumination on the misty process of DC is a real joy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's Friday night, the kids are in bed, the biggest piece of crypto legislation for this year has dropped—the McHenry-Thompson bill on market structure— so let's get this party started.
Here’s a deep dive into the bill’s contents. Thread
Overall, this bill strikes me as a positive sign for crypto, though the bill clearly needs to be improved on major points. NY AG James and her staff really seem to have put in a decent amount of work on this legislation and research into crypto.
For the last six months, at least since FTX collapsed, a lot of progressives have seemed to adopt a posture of strong hostility to even the idea that crypto will or can exist. To quote one notable thinker “why do we need rules for an industry that won’t exist in six months?”
This position was, to me, incredibly short-sighted. If people have issues with crypto, that’s what regulation is for. And progressives especially represent the idea that the government doesn’t stand back and let people get hurt but takes action to make things better.
So, another day, another piece of draft legislation on crypto. This one is from NY Attorney General Letitia James and represents an effort to create a regulatory framework for crypto in NY state.
First, New York already has a registration regime of sorts for digital assets, the BitLicense introduced in 2015. It’s been a mixed bag: it’s been very hard/time-consuming to get approved, so many companies have simply opted to not do business in NY. 2 dfs.ny.gov/virtual_curren…
How the new legislation interacts with the BitLicense regime isn’t clear - the legislation doesn’t appear to mention it. Presumably this bill won’t pass without some discussion of how this either complements or replaces the BitLicense though. 3
To wrap up, the SEC staff is making clear that it doesn’t think Bitcoin is uniquely resistant to fraud/manipulation, dismissive of arguments & data that Greyscale ETF is adequately linked to a large market, and unmoved that an ETF would be better than status quo for investors.
It’s hard to see the staff coming down differently on any of these prongs for any realistic product that could come before them in the next few years. If you need a connection to a national securities exchange and Bitcoin isn’t a security, we’re all stuck.
And in fairness, a lot of advocates of the SEC have said it’s not the responsibility of the SEC to find a way to answer the issues that crypto poses, but on the industry. Which is true, to a point.
Reading through the SEC’s disapproval of the Greyscale ETF in the clear light of day, the major takeaway is that the SEC will probably reject any other Bitcoin/crypto ETF absent new legislation. Short thread.
Clarifying point to start: these decisions are handled by the staff not the Commissioners (though there can be a role for the Chair in broad strokes). This isn’t like rules where the five Commissioners vote on a proposal.
Anyway, the SEC staff, whenever it is asked to approve a new product, goes through and judges whether its regulations and authorizing legislation (mainly through Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act of 1934, and the Advisors Act of 1940) mandate the product be approved.
Most people don’t realize that the American governmental bureaucracy - slow, byzantine, obsessed with process, & inscrutable to vast majority of citizens - is a post World War II development.
Reasons for why it came about were pretty simple - growth in government but also, per @mattyglesias, population was getting more educated.
Even more important was that there were few checks on executive branch government action.
During 1910s-1940s, federal government decisions could be done really fast and with little process. President or Secretary of a department could say “we’re going to spend some money we have in our budget on a project” and it could announced in days.