Conversation

SBF
@SBF_FTX
1) More last minute updates on the crypto tax bill! For context:
Quote Tweet
SBF
@SBF_FTX
1) There's a bill in the Senate right now about tax reporting and crypto. What does it say, and what impact would it have?
Show this thread
45
994
SBF
@SBF_FTX
2) Last we checked in,
@RonWyden
/
@SenLummis
/
@SenToomey
had proposed an amendment removing blockchain/DeFi infrastructure. This was great! It is totally reasonable to have 1099 reporting reqs for e.g.
@ftx_us
/ @CoinbasePro. But nodes, developers, wallets, etc. can't.
1
227
SBF
@SBF_FTX
3) And to be clear, it's not just that they *don't want to* report people's taxes. They *can't* do it, because they don't actually have any private information. All they're doing is providing tooling and/or propagating the blockchain. They don't know who is using DEXes!
5
274
SBF
@SBF_FTX
4) At least, not any more than a third party software provider could, if e.g. Chainalysis wanted to try their hand at it. That's one of the weird, interesting, powerful parts of blockchains: the parties that propagate blocks are *not* given special info, don't have customers.
1
136
SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
6) Now, there's a new amendment, and it's... odd. Clearly, it applies to centralized US exchanges, which is reasonable! First, rather than clarifying that this doesn't apply to nodes propagating blockchains, it only referenced proof of work.
1
128
SBF
@SBF_FTX
7) So, under this amendment, proof of work chains (e.g. BTC) which algorithmically validate blocks without private information wouldn't be responsible for guessing what transactions customers are doing in crypto. But if a blockchain uses a PoS protocol, then it would be.
1
126
SBF
@SBF_FTX
8) It's hard to see why this distinction would be relevant here. ETH miners aren't in the exchange business and don't have private customer or trade info. Once ETH2.0 comes out, ETH nodes... still won't be exchanges or have private customer or trade info.
3
166
SBF
@SBF_FTX
9) But the explicit exemption of PoW creates an implication that PoS *would* trigger requirements. This isn't about PoS miners being lazy or hating tax. They propagate public, decentralized, general ledgers. They don't know what trades people do any more than the public does!
3
197
SBF
@SBF_FTX
10) So their choices, basically, would be: a) shut down b) move out of the US They couldn't choose to comply even if they wanted to. So the impact would just be to force crypto infrastructure and innovation offshore.
11
406
SBF
@SBF_FTX
11) (And I don't particularly want to wade into this argument, but I _will_ note that this would pressure chains towards the methods that the same parties worry are more energy/carbon intensive. Though I think that there are plenty of ways to mitigate! ftx-climate.com)
3
115
SBF
@SBF_FTX
12) Overall I think that the proposal with the prior amendment was a positive, constructive regulation that would help enforce tax reporting. Which is totally reasonable, and again, as an owner of
@ftx_us
--a business clearly hit by it--we'd be totally happy to comply!
2
103
SBF
@SBF_FTX
13) So, other than
@RonWyden
/
@SenLummis
/
@SenToomey
and all the other Senators in favor of their amendment, who _else_ is taking a clear, constructive approach towards crypto regulation? Honestly, I think that the
@CFTC
has a pretty good track record here.
3
187
SBF
@SBF_FTX
14) I know this isn't something I've made clear historically (among other things I think I was too pessimistic before!). But the CFTC has: a) made it clear that crypto, and crypto derivatives, can fit in their existing frameworks b) Shown a good understanding of the industry
4
177
SBF
@SBF_FTX
16) So what's next? I don't know, we'll see. But, hopefully, we can move forward with reasonable, sturdy regulations, while making sure that they make sense in the context of the function and power of the technology.
26
255