America's Cryptocurrency 'Clarity Act' Fails Spectacularly, Despite Hundreds of Millions in Industry Lobbying (msn.com) 82
"The crypto industry's top legislative priority failed on Tuesday in spectacular fashion," reports Barron's.
A procedural motion to advance the bill failed by a vote of 49 to 50, with a handful of Republicans joining all Democrats to shoot it down. The motion needed 60 yes votes to pass, and with the midterm elections looming, the Senate isn't expected to pick the bill back up this year. Among other provisions, the bill would have taken most crypto trading out of the purview of securities regulators, a key goal of firms like Coinbase Global...
The vote is especially bitter for the crypto industry, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign expenditures over the past year to even get to this point. Crypto regulation doesn't even register among the issues voters care most about, and the industry has created massive political action committees to insert itself into the Washington agenda and strike fear into the hearts of lawmakers who might oppose them... Democrats who voted against the bill said that it needed to do more to rein in [Trump's] crypto dealings to get their support. Some GOP lawmakers also voted against the motion after pressure from community bank executives. Bankers argued that the bill needed a stronger ban on high-yield crypto accounts to protect their deposits, a contention that crypto executives and the White House said was nonsense.
Concerns about the bill "intensified after President Trump disclosed he and his family had earned $1.4 billion last year from his crypto ventures," reports NPR. "The massive bill — which stretches over 600 pages — would have established the first regulations for the crypto sector in U.S. history. But opponents saw it as the industry's attempt to encode into law a set of rules they saw as far too lenient on the industry, without enough safeguards."
A research note from an analyst at Compass Point Research & Trading predicts the bill is now likely tabled until at least 2030, Barron's notes. But they also report what the crypto industry could do next: [C]rypto firms will be leaning heavily on Trump's regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Treasury Department, all of whom have said they plan to move swiftly to implement industry friendly rules if a bill didn't pass. The SEC has already dropped all major enforcement actions against crypto firms and has begun to introduce rules that make it easier to raise money from crypto sales without running afoul of the law. The agency is also expected to implement rules making it easier to tokenize traditional assets like stocks.
The friendly regulatory environment will in effect give the industry a little more than two years to sink roots into the traditional financial system and consumers' wallets. Even if the SEC took a harsh view of the industry in the future, as it did in President Joe Biden's administration, the agency at that point might find it difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.
The vote is especially bitter for the crypto industry, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign expenditures over the past year to even get to this point. Crypto regulation doesn't even register among the issues voters care most about, and the industry has created massive political action committees to insert itself into the Washington agenda and strike fear into the hearts of lawmakers who might oppose them... Democrats who voted against the bill said that it needed to do more to rein in [Trump's] crypto dealings to get their support. Some GOP lawmakers also voted against the motion after pressure from community bank executives. Bankers argued that the bill needed a stronger ban on high-yield crypto accounts to protect their deposits, a contention that crypto executives and the White House said was nonsense.
Concerns about the bill "intensified after President Trump disclosed he and his family had earned $1.4 billion last year from his crypto ventures," reports NPR. "The massive bill — which stretches over 600 pages — would have established the first regulations for the crypto sector in U.S. history. But opponents saw it as the industry's attempt to encode into law a set of rules they saw as far too lenient on the industry, without enough safeguards."
A research note from an analyst at Compass Point Research & Trading predicts the bill is now likely tabled until at least 2030, Barron's notes. But they also report what the crypto industry could do next: [C]rypto firms will be leaning heavily on Trump's regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Treasury Department, all of whom have said they plan to move swiftly to implement industry friendly rules if a bill didn't pass. The SEC has already dropped all major enforcement actions against crypto firms and has begun to introduce rules that make it easier to raise money from crypto sales without running afoul of the law. The agency is also expected to implement rules making it easier to tokenize traditional assets like stocks.
The friendly regulatory environment will in effect give the industry a little more than two years to sink roots into the traditional financial system and consumers' wallets. Even if the SEC took a harsh view of the industry in the future, as it did in President Joe Biden's administration, the agency at that point might find it difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.
Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:5, Funny)
I keep telling my mortage company this, but they in their legacy minds just wont take bitcoin! Same with BMW financial and my local grocery store! It's a nightmare living amoung luddites like this.
Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody who has bitcoin ever needs to sell it. That is something that legacy finance will never understand.
#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #9 (arbitrary claims)
"**Bitcoin is.. ['freedom', 'money without masters', 'world's hardest money', 'the future', 'here to stay', 'Hardest asset known to man', 'Pristine collateral', blah..blah]**" / "**Crypto Will End War**"
1. Whatever vague, un-qualifiable characteristic you apply to your magic spreadsheet numbers is cute, but just a bunch of marketing buzzwords with no real substance.
2. That which can be presented without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.
3. Talking in vague abstractions means you can make claims that nobody can actually test to see whether it's TRUE or FALSE. What does it even mean to say "money without masters?" (That's a rhetorical question.. our eyes would roll out of their sockets if you try to answer that.)
4. Calling something "The future" or "It's here to stay" seems to be more of a prayer or self-help-like affirmation than any statement of fact. The technical term is an *Unstated major premise fallacy*.
5. The argument that a crypto-based economy will "end war" makes zero sense. No war has ever ended because people ran out of money. Instead they ran out of *resources*. And during times of conflict, it's the use of power to acquire resources, not currency.
6. George Orwell did it better.
#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)
"**You don't understand**" / "**DYOR**" / Using an insult in lieu of an argument.
1. This is what's known as an "[Ad Hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)" fallacy - aka "attacking the messenger" as a distraction from arguing the core points made.
2. This is what we call, "[Crypto Gaslighting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=571s)." Crypto proponents pretend that we're not smart enough to recognize the value of crypto, therefore there's something wrong with *us* and not the phony reality they're peddling.
3. Almost never does the OP actually explain what it is they understand and we don't. It's merely a way to dismiss any opposing viewpoint without actually addressing it.
Re: (Score:3)
2. This is what we call, "[Crypto Gaslighting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=571s)." Crypto proponents pretend that we're not smart enough to recognize the value of crypto, therefore there's something wrong with *us* and not the phony reality they're peddling.
I remember maybe 10 years ago or so when NFTs were at their height I made some disparaging comment about crypto in general on Twitter and instantly was swarmed with crypto-bros who couldn't wait to flood my replies with jargon and nonsense about how great the technology actually was and how I just didn't get it.
I remember frowning at my screen for a good minute and thinking, "I'm not a cryptography expert but I make my career in tech and actually do know a substantial amount of computer science, more than e
Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:3)
Those are all reasons why governments will eventually ban it
Re: Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The USA has been a serious shitshow of one type of another since before its inception. But where hasn't? We'll either get through this or we won't, good times.
Clearly, the USA under Trump is not going to ban cryptocurrency. But he is increasing others' appetite to do so.
Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not supposed to sell it. (Does anyone sell euros?) You're supposed to spend it. But hardly anyone takes it.
Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're supposed to spend it
I don't do drugs, and I don't want anyone murdered, so selling it for dollars is the only recourse
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Does anyone sell euros?
Uh...yes...
Forex trading has been around longer than the Euro. There are references to money changers from BCE in the fucking Bible. Literally selling money for different money has been around about as long as different moneys have existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody who has bitcoin ever needs to sell it. That is something that legacy finance will never understand.
A lot like those pictures of monkeys also.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that this is even significant (and it is) 15-20 years after the introduction of Bitcoin, shows that it has been a complete, miserable failure.
I think Bitcoin was a neat idea. Shame it didn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is all fine. But at some point most people want to sell the Bitcoin for dollars or pounds or euros or whatever. Since these are issued by an regulated by governments, it isn't a surprise that they want some say over how those transactions are managed.
It's this exactly. None of these cypto companies are arguing that there should not be regulation, they just want to know what the regulations are. It's no different in Securities or Commodities (one of which crypto probably is.) Stability is the friend of markets. How "stable" is defined is largely irrelevant.
Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The CLARITY Act failing is good for Bitcoin because Bitcoin does not need government permission to exist. Bitcoin has no CEO, issuer, or central authority. Its rules are enforced by mathematics and a decentralized network. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoin. No government can print more bitcoin to fund spending or dilute holders. The supply schedule is predetermined and transparent.
And ALL of that, amounts to nothing without someone perceiving and injecting VALUE in it.
And right now that value (for Bitcoin) is corruptly overvalued. Which was ultimately its downfall here. Rather hard to define a new “investment” in America when the fucking thing is successfully cosplaying as a “currency” trading tens of thousands higher than the current fiat solution. Fiscal stability isn’t the picture being painted. The value of a dollar does not swing in the fucking wind like shitcoin does. Citizens struggle now, but would be dead under the fiscal stability of shitcoin. Bread would be two dollars today and twenty dollars next week.
Bitcoin separates money from political control.
Quite the delusion when the evidence was literally IN the title of the summary that reads ”despite hundreds of millions in lobbying.”
Money, is what buys political control and influence. “Money” comes in all forms. From gold to dollars to shitcoin. If it has perceived value, it’s abused for political gain. Even pussy? No. Especially pussy. Which is why the worlds oldest profession is going to have a fucking stock ticker soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't personally consider art less than a century old "worth" the millions it sells for, but someone does, and that's all that matters.
Re: (Score:3)
Bitcoin isn't a currency in the sovereign sense, but it is an intangible commodity. It's value is defined by supply and demand. As long as someone is willing to pay $76k (or the equivalent in goods or services), it's "worth" $76k regardless of your personal opinion of its legitimacy. I don't personally consider art less than a century old "worth" the millions it sells for, but someone does, and that's all that matters.
No. That's not really "all" that matters with the worth of high-value art. Because billionaires adding a corrupt amount of zeros on the end of a check for it aren't actually buying and trading in high-value art. They're trading in tax loopholes. Nothing more. Many "collectors" toss their write-offs in warehouses, to be only appreciated by the accountant on a spreadsheet at the end of a fiscal quarter. Remove the loophole motive, and the value crashes to a price-per-hour one would expect to pay an arti
Re: (Score:3)
In the US we eliminated the art tax loophole, so that's not still happening here.
The truth is much simpler. The rich are laundering money with art.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin isn't a currency in the sovereign sense... It's value is defined by supply and demand.
Flashback to econ 101: the value of every currency is defined by supply and demand.
Separating from political control is a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
People who don't understand history think the idea of a currency free from any manipulation by an economic agenda is a good thing. The reality is very different. You only need to look to major economic depressions during times when some countries still had currencies backed by gold or silver. The inability to control the economy through monetary supply caused those specific countries to suffer from economic depression far longer than other countries.
The long timing and severity of the great depression for the USA, France, and Belgium is widely acknowledged to be caused by them switching back to a gold standard after WWI. In fact several countries floated their currency to enact economic controls (France) specifically because there was no other way for them to get out of depression.
But please, tell us who much you want to fuck yourself with your silly math cosplaying as a currency.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not enforced by mathematics.
P2SH (2012): Allowed for complex scripts and multi-signature wallets.
BIP34 (2013): Changed how blocks are upgraded and prevented duplicate transaction IDs.
BIP66 (2015): Upgraded digital signature security.
BIP65 (2015): Added absolute timelocks, letting users lock up coins until a specific date.
CSV (2016): Added relative timelocks, crucial for off-chain networks.
SegWit (2017): The most significant upgrade up to that point. It fixed a major bug (transaction malleability), alt
Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The CLARITY Act failing is good for Bitcoin because Bitcoin does not need government permission to exist. Bitcoin has no CEO, issuer, or central authority. Its rules are enforced by mathematics and a decentralized network.
#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #1 (Decentralized)
**"It's decentralized!!!"** / **"Crypto gives the control of money back to the people"** / **"Crypto is 'trustless'"**
1. Just because you de-centralize something doesn't mean it's better. And this is especially true in the case of crypto. The case for decentralized crypto is based on a phony notion that central authorities can't do anything right, which flies in the face of the thousands of things you use each and every day that "inept central government" does for you. Do you like electricity? Internet? Owning your own home and car? Roads and highways? Thank the government.
2. Decentralizing things, especially in the context of crypto [simply creates additional problems](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=1157s). In the de-centralized world of crypto "code is law" which means there's nobody actually held accountable for things going wrong. And when they do, you're fucked.
3. In the real world, everybody prefers to deal with entities they know and trust - they don't want "[trustless transactions](https://www.vox.com/23752826/binance-coinbase-sec-crypto-investors)" - they want reliable authorities who are held accountable for things. Would you rather eat at a restaurant that has been regularly inspected by the health department, or some back-alley vendor selling meat from the trunk of his car?
4. You still aren't avoiding "middlemen", "authorities" or "third parties" using crypto. In fact quite the opposite: You need third parties to convert crypto into fiat and vice-versa; you depend on third parties who write and audit all the code you use to process your transactions; you depend on third parties to operate the network; you depend on "middlemen" to provide all the uilities and infrastructure upon which crypto depends.
5. If you look into any crypto project, you will ultimately find [it's not actually decentralized at all](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=2557s).
There will only ever be 21 million bitcoin. No government can print more bitcoin to fund spending or dilute holders. The supply schedule is predetermined and transparent.
#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #4 (scarcity)
"**Only 21M!**" / "**Bitcoin has a "hard cap"**" / "**Bitcoin is 'scarce' and that makes it valuable**" / "**DeFlAtiOnArY cUrReNCy FTW**" / "**The 'halvening' will make everything better**"
1. It's well established that scarcity is not a guarantee of value. It's very telling that clinging to such an overtly irrational argument demonstrates that crypto people live in a tiny "bubble" where they reject all manner of empirical evidence against their "beliefs."
2. If there only being 21 million BTC were reason for it to be valuable, then why aren't other cryptos that also share similar deflationary characteristics equally valuable? Why wouldn't something that is even more scarce than BTC be even more valuable? Because scarcity is meaningless without demand and demand is primarily a function of intrinsic value and utility -- *not* scarcity. See [here](https://ioradio.org/i/value/) for details.
3. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value and no material utility. It's one of the least capable stores or transfers of value. The *only* way anybody can extract value from crypto is by coercion -- forcefully convincing someone (usually through FOMO or scare tactics) that this is something they need, and it's often accompanied by unrealistic promises of significant returns. Those returns are mathematically impossible for even a tiny percentage of holders.
4. Bitcoin also is not scarce. There are multiple versions of Bitcoin, including Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision - both of which are limited to 21M tokens and in many cases are more technologically advanced than BTC. Also, every time there's a fork of crypto, the amount of tokesn in circulation doubles. Crypto proponents ignore these forks because they don't play into the "it's scarce" argument. But any crypto fork absolutely siphons value away from the original version. BTC might be priced higher than BCH, but BCH still holds value as well, and that's a total of 42M just of those two "bitcoin" versions that are out there, among hundreds of others.
5. The "hard cap" of 21M for BTC can easily be changed by altering a parameter in the source code. Less than 6 people have commit access to the repo so BTC's source code control is centralized. It's entirely possible if BTC existed long enough to the point where block rewards weren't enough to motivate miners, and transaction fees became incredibly high, that influential players in the community would advocate increasing the cap and reinstating higher block rewards. So there are absolutely situations where the max amount in circulation could be increased.
6. Even assuming BTC is limited in production, when it co-mingles with unsecured stablecoins like USDC and USDT, it is subject to inflation via stablecoin/liquidity inflation in the market. In reality, nobody really knows what the true price of BTC actually is given most crypto transactions at CEXs are done with stablecoins and not actual money. The underlying liquidity has never been accounted for.
7. The scarcity of bitcoin basically amplifies all the wealth disparity dynamics crypto people complain about in the real world, which means in a world where bitcoin was a dominant store of value, there'd be an even greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Ironically, Bitcoin's scarcity is one of its greatest liabilities. See [this detailed video for a more in-depth explanation](https://youtu.be/g3iqbB6URHA).
Bitcoin separates money from political control. It gives anyone the ability to hold and transfer value without depending on a bank or central monetary authority.
#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #24 (democratization/transparency)
"**Bitcoin's value is its 'transparency'**" / "**Bitcoin is 'audited'**" / **"The elite/politicians/Soros & Buffet/rich/oligarchs who control banks/money/everything are screwing everybody and crypto will fix that"** / "**Bitcoin was 'fair launched'**"
1. 99.99 % of most bitcoin transactions do not happen on bitcoin's blockchain or any native crypto's blockchain. Most transactions are on private, unregulated centralized exchanges that are not at all transparent, so the "public ledger" of bitcoin is a useless gimmick.
2. Furthermore, crypto blockchain ledgers are pseudonymous, and people can operate an infinite number of wallets, so it's easy to hide transactions and intent on chain. At the same time, it's also easy to expose certain transactions since the on and off-ramps do not afford people the same protections.
3. The idea that crypto will be a hedge against powerful special interests is laughably hypocritical. In fact, the [wealth and power disparity in the crypto market](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Wealth-distribution-in-bitcoin_tbl1_357196737) makes all existing monetary systems seem 100% egalitarian in comparison.
4. It's estimated that 90% of the BTC is in the hands of 2.5% of the wallets. 58% of Bitcoin is in control by 0.1% of holders. If Bitcoin were to become a dominant financial security, it could create an even smaller group of super-powerful oligarchs with significantly less oversight than existing systems.
5. Other cryptos like Ethereum are just as bad, if not worse. Almost all crypto schemes are conceived primarily as a benefit to its developers and early benefactors, and as such, they almost always have a wildly disproportionate share and influence over the system. It doesn't matter if we're talking about DAOs or SAFEMOON. All the claims about being "money for the people by the people" is a huge lie.
6. All around the world, people are well aware of powerful special interests taking advantage of others. This certainly is a problem that needs to be addressed, but crypto in no way offers a solution, and in fact would exacerbate those very problems on an unprecedented scale.
7. The Brookings Institute produced a great analysis of this that can be found [here](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/debunking-the-narratives-about-cryptocurrency-and-financial-inclusion/) and here's a sample:
"Similar to how proponents depict cryptocurrencies as a way to “democratize finance,” payday loans were once described as a way to promote the “democratization” of credit. Subprime mortgages were also heralded as “innovations” that would open doors for excluded communities, but ultimately decimated the wealth of Black and Latino or Hispanic communities during the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath."
That is why Bitcoin matters. It replaces institutional trust with verifiable rules. It makes monetary policy predictable. It makes ownership portable and permissionless.
#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #21 (risk)
"**Crypto has no 'Counterparty Risk'**" / "**Crypto gives you 'financial sovereignty'**" / "**Crypto has no 'middlemen'**" / "**Trustless transactions!**" / "**Bitcoin has less 'friction'**"
1. The idea that crypto/blockchain is "trustless" is false. With blockchain [you still need to trust various third parties](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=2557s) -- the difference is there's no accountability.
2. "Counterparty Risk" is defined as the potential for one party in a transaction to default/fail to follow through on the transaction, and is measured in the amount of financial loss/damage that could be caused as a result.
3. Satoshi claimed in his Bitcoin White Paper that one of the motivations behind creating crypto/blockchain was to eliminate counterparty risk by removing "middlemen" from the transaction, specifically financial institutions, which crypto people argue can fail and cause counterparty risk.
4. Unfortunately, bitcoin/crypto/blockchain does **not** eliminate counterparty risk. Even in situations where it's strictly a peer-to-peer digital crypto transaction, there are numerous ways in which that transaction can fail and cause counterparty risk. Here are some examples:
* Lack of access to hardware necessary to process crypto (smartphones, computers, etc.)
* Lack of access to electricity (note that electricity is not needed to engage in a P2P fiat transaction)
* Lack of access to specific wallet/transactional software
* Lack of access to the Internet (or limited internet access due to firewalls and municipal restrictions)
* Faulty smart contracts
* Vulnerabilities or back doors in any of the software being used
* Not having access to the necessary private keys to execute a transaction
* Having the system/software/bridge you're using hacked
* Lack of adequate funding for transaction fees
* blockchain processing consortium blacklists
* developments in quantum computing that undermine cryptographic schemes
5. People argue "holding bitcoin" has no counterparty risk. This is also a lie. Just because your wallet is secure, doesn't mean your bitcoin is secure. Here's why:
* In order to even *exist* crypto is dependent upon an elaborate network of computers running 24/7 - these systems are *not* paid by crypto holders - their participation is totally voluntary.
* The moment a node/mining operator doesn't find it economically viable to operate, they can cease operations, and if enough of these people do so, the operation of the blockchain ceases, and nobody will be able to access their wallets and engage in transactions
* In the case of bitcoin, its proof-of-work mechanism requires a lot of energy and resources to operate. If the price of BTC drops below a certain level, it no longer becomes economically viable to operate the network and **all bitcoin disappears**.
* Yes, bitcoin's mining difficulty will adjust to address people leaving the industry and become more modest over time, but since the primary motivation for even participating in the network is the attempt to make exponential profit, the moment BTC stops consistently moving up, is the beginning of its demise. There's no other reason to operate the network if there isn't growth. And BTC's growth model is 100% mathematically un-sustainable.
* In short: **There is no guarantee blockchain will operate forever**. There's already 30,000+ dead cryptocurrencies that are no longer in existence.
5. In reality, Bitcoin and crypto doesn't eliminate counterparty risk or middlemen. It simply changes one set of middlemen (traditional, accountable, well-regulated financial institutions) for another set of middlemen (random, anonymous crypto operators and the software and intermediate systems they use, as well as various other local and international communication services). Anywhere in this chain of necessary resources things can fail, either by intention, negligence, legal mandate, acts of god, or randomly, and it can cause a crypto transaction to not go through.
Some people claim that crypto has less counterparty risk than traditional fiat. This is a lie. And they cherry-pick specific "perfect" scenarios where there's minimal counterparty risk in crypto *provided* all of the above conditions aren't a problem. If we're going to fabricate a "nirvana fallacy" you can also have the same conditions apply to any alternate system and it too, will have "no counterparty risk" so this is a deceptive, disingenuous claim.
Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score:5, Informative)
Bitcoin will not literally solve every problem in the world. But it can remove one of the largest sources of economic distortion: unlimited discretionary monetary expansion.
#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #3 (inflation)
**"InFl4ti0n!!!"** / **"The dollar will eventually become worthless"** / **"The dollar has lost 104% of its value since 1900!"** / **"The government prints money out of thin air"**
1. The "OMG iNfLaTiOn!" argument is a common one put forth by crypto bros. In addition to being fallacious (Tu Quoque, Whataboutism) it's an ignorant and shallow attempt to make people not have faith in fiat, and somehow believe bitcoin would be a reasonable alternative because it's supposedly deflationary and a better store of value. All of those premises are false.
2. Beyond that, crypto bros pretend there's one principal type of "inflation" and that is "monetary inflation" which by contrast makes Bitcoin's scarcity some type of reasonable alternative. In reality, there are [different types of inflation.](https://mises.org/understanding-money-mechanics/monetary-inflation-and-price-inflation) The most common one is "[price inflation](https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2025/july/differences-prices-inflation-explained)" which has nothing to do with how much money is in circulation. "Monetary inflation" is the least significant type of inflation in modern times, but crypto bros single out this element because it's the best scenario where they can argue their deflationary currency helps, but that's false. The causes of inflation are **many**, and the amount of money in circulation is one of the least significant factors in causing the prices of things to rise. More prominent inflationary causes are things like: [corporate greed & price gouging](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/11/companies-inflation-price-gouging), [fuel prices](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988322000895), [supply chain issues](https://www.usbank.com/investing/financial-perspectives/market-news/supply-chain-issues-contribution-to-inflation.html), [war](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-effect-of-the-war-in-ukraine-on-global-activity-and-inflation-20220527.html), environmental disasters, [one-time COVID mitigations](https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2022/03/why-is-us-inflation-higher-than-in-other-countries/), pandemics, and even [car dealerships](https://www.wsj.com/articles/car-dealer-markups-helped-drive-inflation-study-finds-7c1d5a2d).
3. The government does **not** "print money out of thin air"... all money in circulation is [tightly regulated and regularly audited and publicly transparent](https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/audited-annual-financial-statements.htm). The organization that manages the money in circulation is the Federal Reserve and contrary to what crypto bros claim, they're not a private cabal - they [are overseen and regulated by Congress](https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-system.htm). It's a delicate balance between money issuance and the status of the economy. And any attempt to increase debt [requires an Act of Congress to increase the debt ceiling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling) - it's neither arbitrary, nor easy to do.
4. Crypto bros use "cash" as an example of wealth storage, but most people do not store their wealth in fiat. [Currency is meant to be *spent*, not hoarded](https://medium.com/change-your-mind/money-is-meant-to-be-spent-not-saved-9618edec676f). A dollar today will buy what it buys. If you hold a dollar for 90 years, of course it won't buy the same thing decades later (although it might actually be worth significantly more as antique money). Crypto creates no value and makes a lousy "investment."
5. If you are looking to "invest" you don't keep your value in cash/currency/fiat. You put it into something that can *create value* like stocks that pay dividends,
Re: (Score:1)
but comparing modern nations to third-world dictatorships is absurd.
While I modded you up, that's ridiculous. Yes, you can easily compare the trumpistan to a third-world dictatorships, because while not yet there, the trump admin has pointed the way and weakened the institutions significantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, how many ways is this wrong?
You're against monetary expansion. Let me translate that: the population of the world or the country has gone up, but there shuold be no new money, meaning that those with the most money will underpay everyone else, and get richer, while the 95% get poorer, and you think this is good.
Re: (Score:2)
The CLARITY Act failing is good for Bitcoin
You do understand that Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency that exists, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If you can own a fraction of a bitcoin, as my mate does, you can have as many fractions as you like, an infinite supply
"The supply schedule is predetermined and transparent," is bullshit friend.
And I don't want deregulation or anonymous transactions, I want a chance to know if you are planning to buy a nuke or setup the next Epstein island.
You'll separate money from political control. Also bullshit, you have to have your exchange somewhere, in a datacentre that is a resource, politics is about controlling
Re:In a word? Stability. (Score:5, Informative)
Your fundamental idiocy is thinking 1 BTC = 1 USD.
Correct. Assuming BTC holds any real world value is quite presumptuous.
The vast majority of the world attributes no value whatsoever to such digital abstractions backed by nothing but a self-interested temporary network of nodes that waste obscene amounts of energy in a negative-sum, decentralized Ponzi scheme.
Re: (Score:1)
Everything in America fails.
You gonna recognize those times America succeeded?
Because you'd almost assuredly be writing that shit talk in German by now, on a planet barely feeling the fucking tip of a 1,000-year Reich in their ass.
You're welcome.
Re: America (Score:4, Informative)
The US failed to enter the war timely and also failed to not sell the Nazis war supplies like fuel and metals. The Nazis wouldn't have even been such a big problem in the first place without the USA. Your cheerleading nationalism is as facile as your usual analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
The US failed to enter the war timely and also failed to not sell the Nazis war supplies like fuel and metals. The Nazis wouldn't have even been such a big problem in the first place without the USA. Your cheerleading nationalism is as facile as your usual analysis.
December 7, 1941 was when the United States were shoved into the ring. There would have been no Allied victory in Europe, without the United States.
And in true red-blooded fashion, the United States created a response to their aggressors that ended a fucking World War. THAT was the fucking timely response, which was a race at the time.
You're fucking welcome.
Re: America (Score:2)
Our "allies" were at war for YEARS before we got bombed which never would have happened if we had helped instead of renting those "allies" equipment. Also I live in the US so your "you're welcome" shit is doubly misplaced. Get even one half of one clue, ignoramus.
Re: (Score:2)
You gonna recognize those times America succeeded?
Because you'd almost assuredly be writing that shit talk in German by now, on a planet barely feeling the fucking tip of a 1,000-year Reich in their ass.
You're welcome.
Yeah, and we'd have decent beer instead of either watery piss or over-hopped soup. And we'd have Oktoberfest instead of fucking Halloween. And Moser Roth instead of Hershey. And Mercedes Benz instead of Chrysler.
I could go on.
You should. Tell me all about the Government oven manufacturers that would have taken care of every minority problem walking around wearing the wrong shade of skin, hair, and eyes. Would the MSM have dismissed that away by asking about Assdolfs favorite flavor of wood to burn?
Gotta love your bullshit cherry-picking. Yet another sign the Deparment of Edumucashun should be dismantled.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta love your bullshit cherry-picking.
The Nazis were inspired by America.
The Nazis were inspired by America.
The Nazis were inspired by America.
Re: (Score:2)
You know the term "Edumucashun" was created to make fun of people without one? Are you trying to reclaim it, like the N-word?
Isn't that thing dead already? (Score:2)
I figured AI speculation had sucked the life out of crypto speculation.
Re: (Score:3)
There is still a large enough supply for suckers in crapto.
Re: (Score:2)
AI speculation means nothing... OpenAI or Anthropic being listed is just to drum up money for the next big step, nothing else... when their bubble bursts, that's when they go from letting us use AI for free to only paid-for models (like AOL was free for 1k hours, lost their shirts along with so many others... now, you want internet, you pay), which, for them is great! Your toaster, fridge, TV, car, cell phone, internet, computers, game system all depends on AI to function, so you _have to_ buy a subscripti
US congress is weak (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's easy: Publish a policy statement declaring bitcoin revenue (not profit) will have a sales tax of 50%, and it will be applied retroactively, to sales that occurred from 2026, onward. We know the Democratic Party will never hold the Fortune 500 family, accountable. So, that money will be used to buy the next president of the USA.
TL;DR: The USA refuses to tax the rich.
Re: (Score:1)
bitcoin revenue (not profit)
What is the difference between revenue and profit, when it comes to bitcoin? Wouldn't both just be the difference between buy-price and sell-price?
will have a sales tax of 50%, and it will be applied retroactively,
1) Where are you going to get the political will for that?
2) I think people would sue about the retroactive part and the judiciary would likely agree.
TL;DR: The USA refuses to tax the rich.
No lies detected.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I have no idea who would be crazy enough to push for 50% (or ANY %) tax on Bitcoin sales. The people who founded Bitcoin are Silly Valley tech bros who are mostly Democrats, and the largest holders now are institutional investors who are mostly Republicans. So, you'll have bi-partisan support to kill any such legislation, and to launch a primary attack against anyone dumb enough to propose it.
Dude if they can barely come up with 200 mil (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago I saw an interview with a multi-millionaire woman who was complaining that she couldn't get the time of day from congressman anymore because the billionaires could outspend her. That's the level we're at.
It's not just that you and I don't matter. If you've only got a few hundred million to spend that's not enough anymore to buy an election. That's how much money and power we have given the billionaires. Or should I save the trillionaires...
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-regulated finance is nothing but an invitation to criminals of all sorts.
Re: (Score:3)
Non-regulated finance is nothing but an invitation to criminals of all sorts.
Even strong regulation is short-sighted thinking today.
The hell is the point in bragging about creating a whole new “speculative” market when the end result is a society becoming horribly addicted to gambling that pretends to not be by every other name?
Never thought we’d have grown-ass bookies still sitting in prison while the 12-year old bookie junkies make bank slinging Pokémon-themed scratch offs chasing the gotta-catch-them-all platinum-black chrome 1/1 dragon auto. Gamblers Anon
Re: (Score:2)
Strong regulation is required. It is just not sufficient, no argument from me about that.
Re:Good (Score:4)
Strong regulation is required. It is just not sufficient, no argument from me about that.
When even strong regulation isn't sufficient, perhaps the limiting concept we're looking to not argue against is illegal.
For the good of society as a whole. Which is grossly incapable.
If people knew how to behave and self-regulate, we would need a whole lot less enforcement to go along with that law.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there is a disconnect in the terminology. At least in Europe "regulation" usually means laws and "strong regulation" typically means laws with personal punishment provisions.
So, yes. I agree with you.
Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Not surprised the TT hipster is a maggot
Re: (Score:3)
Non-regulated finance is nothing but an invitation to criminals of all sorts.
Cryptocurrency is a speedrun of why conventional finance has regulations.
What else was added to the bill? (Score:1)
Did anyone bother to read it?
Re:What else was added to the bill? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it contains numerous exceptions for crypto to basically not have to adhere to traditional fraud law.
A failure for the industry, not the tech (Score:1)
The biggest threat to the crypto industry always has been being coopted by the main financial sector, and that's happening. Every major firm is working on blockchain projects that do real things on chain and working out regulatory compliance and interoperability like professionals.
All it takes is a few accessible, programmable chains being used at scale by the financial sector, and it's game over for 99% of crypto. There's no need to use some rando crypto to power a software use case when you can take 5 min
Re: (Score:3)
You mean that every major company WAS working on blockchain projects back when blockchain was the cool buzzword from 2018 to 2021.
Most of those projects failed, and now the cool buzzword is "AI Integration" so all of the major companies are working on that instead.
Re: (Score:1)
I can assure you that blockchain work is still very much happening in finance today and there is a lot of capital being spent and a lot of profit being made. The 24/7 tokenized stock market is sadly the future of investment. If you work in the industry, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
crypto vs banks (Score:2)
also voted against the motion after pressure from community bank executives.
Wow, I hate both sides.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect "community bank" is not the "greed is good" type Wall Street speculator.
Re: (Score:2)
Now Congress can move on (Score:2)
to fouling up the AI Apocalypse Prevention Act...
Silver lining (Score:2)
"We paid 100 million and got nothing because it's a bad law that not enough people want" - Crypto bros.
I guess you can't just buy policy after all
Re: (Score:2)
"Waaah, lobbyists run the world!" - dumb people.
Your analysis is more facile than is theirs.
I guess you can't just buy policy after all
The only thing this proves is you can't buy an unpopular policy with a mere $100M.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple reason ... (Score:2)
typical trump regime (Score:2)
Clarity Act
Re: (Score:2)
Define Crypto as counterfeit - and solve the issue (Score:2)
I think we could solve the issue in a single line.
"All Cryptocurrency is hereby defined to be a counterfeit of real currency".
Then we can get rid of the scams, the lies, the dodgy donations, the pump-n-dump, the fraud, the emissions... let's just kill it.