fbpx
Connect with us

Bit Coin

How the Democratic Party didn’t stop worrying and fearing crypto in 2021

Published

on

How the Democratic Party didn’t stop worrying and fearing crypto in 2021

As 2022 is kicking off, America nears the first anniversary of Joe Biden’s presidency. Following the tenure’s ambitious start, the last few months witnessed some serious tumult around the overall health of the United States economy, the administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the tense debate around Biden’s opus magnum — the $1.7 trillion Build Back Better infrastructure legislation plan.

But even as the Democrats’ ability to maintain undivided power after the 2022 midterm elections can raise doubts, the party’s prevailing view of crypto has become more consolidated than ever. The incumbent president’s party will be setting the tone of the regulatory discussion for at least three more years, so a thorough look at the fundamental premises and potential directions of its emerging crypto stance is in order.

The narrative arc

The path that mainstream Democrat thinking on crypto has traveled over the last three years is perfectly captured by an anecdote featuring two crypto-related public statements made by a Clinton. One is by the 42nd U.S. president, Bill Clinton, then 72, who said at Ripple’s Swell Conference in October 2018 that the “permutations and possibilities” of blockchain were “staggeringly great”

Three years later, speaking at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Singapore, Bill’s wife and ex-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, though calling the cryptocurrencies an “interesting” technology, warned about their power to undermine the U.S. dollar and destabilize nations — “perhaps starting with small ones but going much larger.”

This startling difference in opinion within the power couple reflects the recent evolution of the Democratic party, itself — from a “third way,” business, tech and finance-friendly centrism of its 1990’s generation to the newfound statism with a heavy emphasis on redistributional justice and big government projects. By current standards, the former first lady sounded rather balanced in comparison to her party comrade Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has famously lashed out at the crypto market after the volatility outburst in early September:

Advocates say crypto markets are all about financial inclusion, but the people who are most economically vulnerable are the ones who are most likely to have to withdraw their money the fastest when the market drops. […] High, unpredictable fees can make crypto trading really dangerous for people who aren’t rich.

Warren berated crypto on numerous occasions, calling it a “fourth-rate alternative to real currency” that is “unsuitable as a medium of exchange;” a “lousy investment,” that “has no consumer protection;” and a tool that makes many illegal activities easier.

Beyond Senator Warren

The negative sentiment is largely shared by Senator Sherrod Brown, which is arguably even more unsettling given his status as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Brown’s opening statements at Congress hearings have never been amicable towards crypto. Their overall spirit can be summarized in the introduction that opened the July hearing entitled “Cryptocurrencies: What are they good for?”

All of these currencies have one thing in common — they’re not real dollars, they’re not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. […] And that means they all put Americans’ hard-earned money at risk.

Brown blamed the “cottage industry of decentralized financial schemes” for an attempt to create “a parallel financial system with no rules, no oversight, and no limits,” calling it “a shady, diffuse network of online funny money,” with nothing democratic or transparent about it. The lawmaker repeatedly rejected the notion that crypto could be an alternative to legacy money — last time at a December Congress hearing:

Stablecoins and crypto markets aren’t actually an alternative to our banking system. […] They’re a mirror of the same broken system – with even less accountability, and no rules at all.

It’s not all dark, though. One figure that represents a more moderate, if not pragmatic approach to crypto — Congresswoman Maxime Waters — would also play a major role in any future outcome for the industry. As a chairwoman of the House Committee on Financial Services, she initiated the Digital Assets Working Group of Democratic Members with a mission to ensure responsible innovation in the cryptocurrency and digital asset space and “meet with leading regulators, advocates, and other experts on how these novel products and services are reshaping our financial system.”

Related: Lines in the sand: US Congress is bringing partisan politics to crypto

Sen. Waters has publicly recognized that “Americans are increasingly making financial decisions using digital assets every day,” and affirmed that her Committee will explore “the promise of digital assets in providing faster payments, instantaneous settlements and lower transaction fees for remittances.”

What’s it all about?

The good news is that underneath the redoubtable oratory, there is a keyword: regulation. It is clear, at this point, that a China-style total war on crypto isn’t an option in the U.S. Therefore, what drives the heated activity of congressional committees and federal agencies in recent months is a clear intention of the Democratic establishment to sort out the rules of the game before the next presidential election.

Part of this effort of the Biden administration is the launch of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, a superhero team composed of the SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC and Federal Reserve System executives, with the secretary of the Treasury Department leading the group.

So far, the key product of the Working Group is a 26-page report on stablecoins, which advises Congress to designate some stablecoin-related activities — such as payment, clearing and settlement — as “systemically important” (which would inevitably lead to a tighter oversight) and limit stablecoin issuance to insured depository institutions, i.e., banks.

As in the pre-Biden era, the main problem lies with the core classification of digital assets. The PWG report failed to propose a novel interpretation and give precedence to a single regulatory body, thus perpetuating a situation where a variety of regulators oversee different types of crypto-related activity.

In October, Rostin Behnam, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a member of the Democratic Party, claimed that as much as 60% of digital assets can be classified as commodities, which amounts to proposing that the agency become the lead U.S. cryptocurrency regulator. He also further stated that his agency, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission, would likely need “a regulatory structure for both securities and commodities.” How exactly that would help the ongoing patchwork approach to regulation is still a mystery.

The Democratic cause

There are several reasons to believe that the largely proclamatory activity of 2021 will be followed up by some real action in the following year. The first is the general idealistic mindset of U.S. Democrats. For example, the drive to aggressively regulate Big Tech is part and parcel of this mindset.

While President Barack Obama and some regulators worked alongside Google and Twitter to facilitate the growth of internet businesses, Joe Biden’s administration came to power amid the wave of popular anxiety over international cyberattacks, personal data leaks, Meta’s crisis mismanagement and the overall outsize influence on the political process accumulated by tech goliaths.

While Meta and Google have been fighting federal and state regulators in courts over allegations of anticompetitive conduct for a while, Biden’s team also pledged to hold tech companies to account for toxic speech they host and strengthen policing anti-competitive practices.

However, in 2021, we haven’t witnessed any significant policy steps in this direction. Neither of the two major legislative proposals — Amy Klobuchar’s bill, which ​​would bar big tech platforms from favoring their own products and services, and a bill by House Democrats that seeks to remove some protections afforded tech companies by Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act — has become law.

The second reason behind the Democratic rush to put crypto within the regulatory perimeter is pragmatic: The Biden administration and its allies on Capitol Hill need money. Biden’s first-term agenda relies heavily on ambitious Roosveltian infrastructure projects. While the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act managed to get bipartisan support and was signed into law on November 5, the Build Back Better Act, which now hangs by a thread after Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin had announced his opposition to the current draft, would cost nearly $2 trillion.

By some estimates, should it make it to the president’s desk, the spending program would increase the deficit by $360 billion over 10 years, making it urgent to raise more tax revenue. This is what makes a thriving crypto industry an important battlefield for Democrats, who see the possibility of harvesting some cash from it and an urgency to prevent tax evasion via digital tools.

What’s next?

There’s no doubt that the Biden administration will continue to pursue a strict regulatory agenda in 2022. We will see more Congressional hearings next year, but even more consequential negotiations will be taking place behind closed doors, where Democrats will have to finally decide whether the SEC, CFTC or any other body should dominate crypto oversight. Despite Sharrod Brown’s recent “with or without Congress” remarks, it is also hard to believe that Republicans will let their opponents single-handedly decide the fate of the industry.

Go to Source

Bit Coin

Wait, what? Former Bitcoin bull Raoul Pal only owns one Bitcoin?

Published

on

Wait, what? Former Bitcoin bull Raoul Pal only owns one Bitcoin?

Former Goldman Sachs hedge fund manager and cryptocurrency bull Raoul Pal claimed in a tweet that he now only owns a single Bitcoin.

As the claim was made in the heat of a Twitter fight with self-proclaimed “Bitcoin Strategist” Greg Foss it’s not entirely clear whether it’s an exaggeration or an accurate statement about his holdings. Pal is the founder and CEO of Real Vision and Global Macro while Foss is an executive director at Validus Power Corp.

The revelation of his apparently small holding certainly caused uproar and angst among Bitcoin true believers, who’ve looked at Pal askance ever since he started calling Ethereum “the greatest trade” and predicted that ETH and altcoins will eventually outperform BTC.

Fascinating to see that since inception ETH has outperformed BTC by 250%. It only fell below its initial price in BTC for the first 5 months of its existence in 2015.

Let that put rest to the idea that all other tokens trend towards zero in BTC terms. pic.twitter.com/ulCpsjG8up

— Raoul Pal (@RaoulGMI) April 7, 2021

Pal first purchased BTC in Nov 2013. He sold for a 10X profit in the so-called “fork-wars” of 2017 (missing out on an even bigger gain later that year) before adding to his collection in 2019 through 2020. In May 2021, he confirmed that he owned more ETH than BTC. At time of writing, Bitcoin (BTC) is worth $40,925.

The barney was instigated by Foss, who tweeted “Raoul is soft” followed by another intellectual tweet, “Raoul sucks and blows” shortly after. After some back and forth between Pal and the Bitcoin maxi, Pal posted that people like Foss and the Bitcoin community’s exclusionary ideology are why he only holds one Bitcoin.

And that is your issue. I don’t share your philosophy, so you attack me? Really? This is why I hold only one bitcoin, the community has lost sight of inclusion and you sir, are helping reduce the network effects by excluding people who dont share your view from the network.

— Raoul Pal (@RaoulGMI) January 20, 2022

This upset the Bitcoiner community, many who claimed he had let emotion cloud logic. “His feelings are hurting his future,” commented one user Emanuel in a reply to Bitcoin Meme Hub tweet. “I knew when he started to sip Vitalik’s coolaid he was a goner,” added another user, Jalan Foster.

The founder of Synaptic Ventures Marc van der Chijs complained that the fact Pal only owns one BTC based on the makeup of the community and not on the potential return “goes totally against the gospel he preaches on RealVision.”

However, some defended Pal, pointing to his impressive track record and reminding followers that he is in fact a trader, not a holder. Crypto analyst and founder of Crypto My Way “Coach T” wrote that he appreciates Pal’s “diverse views and intelligent thinking.”

Foss vs. Pal: a Twitter feud

It appears that the argument was in response to a disagreement on Pal’s stance on inflation and bonds as a trading vehicle. Foss explained that he didn’t support Pal promoting his trading strategy to others who don’t entirely understand how it works.

Pal disagreed, explaining that his views on bonds are “a trade, not a philosophy.” Despite this, in a following comment on the thread, Pal claimed that he doesn’t own any bonds.

Ok, lets do math. If Im right and bonds can rally 20% in 12 months (just use TLT) that is faster than the balance sheet expansion, thus its a net win to your purchasing power. If you hold bonds to maturity you lose. Issue?

— Raoul Pal (@RaoulGMI) January 20, 2022

Three hours after posting the original tweet attacking Pal, the argument eventually culminated in Foss tweeting an apology saying that he “regrets his actions,” adding that he “made a rookie error” and that he has “bigger battles to fight.”

Related: Raoul Pal says ‘reasonable chance’ crypto market cap could 100x by 2030

Just weeks ago, Pal said that he believes there is a “reasonable chance” that the crypto market capitalization will increase 100 times by the end of this decade. Hoping he’s right about that is perhaps something on which we can all agree.

Cointelegraph reached out to Raoul Pal via Real Vision and will update the story with any response.

Go to Source

Continue Reading

Bit Coin

Multichain hacker returns 322 ETH, keeps hefty finders fee

Published

on

Multichain hacker returns 322 ETH, keeps hefty finders fee

Owing to a security vulnerability in six tokens, Multichain users lost more than $3M over the week. A white hat hacker returned 322 ETH, but in excess of 527 ETH is still exploited.

2084 Total views

18 Total shares

Multichain hacker returns 322 ETH, keeps hefty finders fee

In a dramatic twist, one of this week’s Multichain hackers has returned 322 ETH ($974,000 at the time of writing) to the cross-chain router protocol and one of the affected users.

However the hacker kept 62 ETH ($187,000) as a “bug bounty”, and a total of 528 ETH (worth $1.6M) remains outstanding after the exploits.

Earlier this week, news emerged of a security vulnerability with Multichain relating to the tokens WETH, PERI, OMT, WBNB, MATIC, and AVAX, and $1.43 million was stolen. Multichain announced on Jan. 17 the critical vulnerability had been “reported and fixed.”

However, publicity about the vulnerability reportedly encouraged a number of different attackers to swoop in, and more than $3 million in funds were stolen. The critical vulnerability in the six tokens still exists, but Multichain has drained around $44.5m of funds from multiple chain bridges to protect them.

Yeah, bridge contract need pause function. https://t.co/lPjLsE5EtR

— Zhaojun (@zhaojun_sh) January 20, 2022

One of the hackers, calling himself a “white hat” has been in communication with both Multichain and a user who lost $960,000 in the past day or so, to negotiate returning 80% of the money in return for a hefty finders fee.

According to a Jan. 20 tweet from ZenGo wallet co-founder Tal Be’ery, the hacker claimed they hadbeen “saving the rest” of the Multichain users who were being targeted by bots, in an act of defensive hacking.

The funds were returned across four transactions. On Jan. 20 the hacker returned 269 ETH ($813,000) in two transactions directly to the user he stole it from and kept a bug bounty of 50 ETH ($150,000).

The relieved user responded to the hacker:

“Well received, thank you for your honesty.”

Overnight, the hacker also returned 50 ETH ($150,000) across two transactions to the official Multichain address, and kept a bug bounty of 12 ETH ($36,000).

Related: Multichain asks users to revoke approvals amid ‘critical vulnerability’

Multichain (formerly Anyswap) aims to be the “ultimate router for Web3.” The platform supports 30 chains at the moment, including Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Avalanche (AVAX), Litecoin (LTC), Terra (LUNA), and Fantom (FTM).

In a tweet on Jan. 20, the Co-Founder and CEO of Multichain Zhaojun conceded that Multichain bridge contracts need a pause function to deal with similar incidents in future..

Cointelegraph has contacted the project for comment.

Go to Source

Continue Reading

Bit Coin

Australia’s plan to create a crypto competitive edge in 12 steps

Published

on

Australia’s plan to create a crypto competitive edge in 12 steps

In October 2021, the Senate Committee for Australia as a Technology and Financial Centre released its much-awaited recommendations for how cryptocurrency should be regulated. The 168-page final report boils down to 12 recommendations aimed at striking the right balance between creating legitimacy without stifling innovation. 

This is a landmark report that demonstrates Australia’s clear efforts to put itself at the forefront of crypto investment globally. The chair of the committee, Senator Andrew Bragg, believes that “Australia can be a leader in digital assets” and is confident that it can particularly “be competitive with Singapore, the UK and the US.”

Four key recommendations

First, the introduction of a range of new crypto-specific licenses and regulations. For too long, regulators around the world have been trying to put square pegs (cryptocurrency) into round holes (traditional financial regulation). This approach underestimates the fundamental differences that exist as well as the potential that digital assets have to transform the world. This report acknowledges crypto’s potential and calls for a range of bespoke cryptocurrency licenses in Australia. It recommends a specific market licensing regime for digital exchanges as well as a bespoke custody regime for digital assets. Details will still need to be fleshed out but if we get these frameworks right, then this will create the legitimacy that the sector needs to take off into the mainstream.

Second, the introduction of a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) entity type into Australian corporate law. This recommendation is a very big deal, as it shows that the Australian government is open to decentralized finance (DeFi) as well as crypto innovation. Wyoming is the only region I have heard of that has something like this in place, so this could put Australia on the front foot. If approved, DAOs could provide a unique utility that may bring the Australian economy a decade ahead into a decentralized future. However, this will also be the hardest thing for the Committee to get approved, as changes to the Corporations Act are infamously rare in Australia. If anyone can do it, it’s Senator Bragg though.

Third, improved tax rules for crypto-to-crypto transactions. Recent Finder research shows that over 17% of Australians own cryptocurrency — the third-highest rate of adoption in the world. However, this growing group has had to grapple with tax rules that are confusing at best. Historically, crypto-to-crypto transfers have been considered a capital gain by the Australian Tax Office. The new recommendation calls for tax only when there has been “a clearly definable capital gain or loss.” Again, the devil will be in the detail on this one but active Australian crypto users could be the real winners.

Fourth, new tax incentives to encourage green crypto mining. The Committee recommends a 10% company tax discount for crypto mining businesses that use renewable energy. This looks like a smart move to support two high-growth Australian industries: renewable energy and cryptocurrency. This will be especially important as the Committee tries to get these recommendations signed off against a backdrop of COP26 and rising concerns about climate change.

Related: Crypto staking rewards and their unfair taxation in the US

Three tough issues

  • Timelines for turning recommendations into law. Right now, these are all just recommendations, and are worth as much as the political will that exists to enact them. As with other countries, politics in Australia moves slowly and this will be no different. Senator Andrew Bragg is bullish that he can get all the recommendations passed in 12 months and I back him to get it done. His cause could also be supported by a growing view that crypto innovation could be a vote-winner with young Australians in a looming federal election, as nearly a third of Generation Z already own cryptocurrency.
  • Implications for crypto businesses during the pre-reform period. If it takes a year to introduce new laws then there are still questions about what crypto businesses can do in the meantime. Many submissions called for a “safe harbor” against regulation until rules had been finalized but this was not explicitly recommended by the Committee. However, the direction of travel has been set and there is clear support for crypto innovation and an acknowledgment that new rules and licenses are needed. I would be surprised if we saw much in the way of regulatory action until then.
  • Specifics for the licensing and tax proposals. Many of these recommendations were light on detail and it looks like the Australian Treasury will now lead on these matters. The industry will be very interested to know what the requirements for being a custodian or digital exchange will be, particularly when it comes to capital requirements. If there’s too much regulatory burden, then businesses will move offshore. Likewise, consumers will need more clarity on what a “clearly definable capital gain or loss” is for tax purposes. In many ways, the work starts now.

Related: Crypto makes history in 2021: Five instances of governments embracing digital assets

Learnings for governments around the world

The crypto industry is ready to talk policy. It’s fair to say that this Select Committee was inundated with engagement from crypto businesses, academics, peak bodies and regulators. More than 100 written submissions contributed and there were three full days of public hearings. It’s not often that an industry is asking for more regulation but that is what is happening here. The crypto industry around the world wants clarity and is ready to have a conversation about policy.

Broad reviews are more effective than siloed approaches. One key reason that this consultation had so much engagement was that it looked at the digital asset industry holistically rather than from one angle only. A problem we’re seeing around the world is regulators interested in looking at crypto assets from their specific regulatory view, but broad innovation shouldn’t be assessed through such a narrow lens. This consultation managed to look at the industry holistically while still getting into the specific issues. I welcome more reviews like it around the world.

Bespoke digital asset policy approaches will be needed. Digital assets have hit critical velocity and the revolution can no longer be ignored. Piecemeal changes to legacy financial services policy will not work. We need policymakers around the world to work together to create bespoke policies that are fit-for-purpose. Coinbase captures this well in pillar one of its Digital Asset Policy Proposal (DAPP). The DAPP calls for “a new framework for how we regulate digital assets” that “will ensure that innovation can occur in ways that are not hampered by the difficulty of transitioning from our legacy market structure.” These recommendations in Australia are an attempt at doing exactly that which many can learn from.

What is clear is that the world is changing. This Senate Committee in Australia should be applauded for taking a holistic approach and recommending bespoke policy instruments. It’s time for policymakers around the world to follow suit and take a broad look at their approach to digital assets.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Fred Schebesta is an Australian-born entrepreneur and early-stage investor, founder of global fintech Finder, now worth over half a billion dollars. Fred recently launched blockchain investment fund Hive Empire Capital and co-founded Balthazar, a DAO platform for NFT gaming. With 22 years of experience in building businesses, Fred just released a Number One Amazon Best Selling book, Go Live! 10 Principles to Launch a Global Empire.

Go to Source

Continue Reading
Home | Latest News | Cryptocurrency | Bit Coin | How the Democratic Party didn’t stop worrying and fearing crypto in 2021
a

Market

Trending