Conversation

I think this could well be the reason it initially only specified PoW! Which I think is probably just a reason that the best thing to do would be to strike this from the infrastructure bill, and then have a separate meeting to discuss crypto taxation without a deadline.

Quote Tweet

Jeff Stein

@JStein_WaPo

Aug 7, 2021

As much as crypto-verse disagrees, the view from other side on this is reason they were ok exempting POW but not POS initially is bc they know what POW is and that it’s not a broker service — and, they say, they don’t want to go after miners at all

Show this thread

10:05 PM · Aug 7, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

💯 can't rush a good thing.

SBF

@SBF_FTX

Aug 7, 2021

at the very least some staffers involved probably do

Replying to

That we have majority of people completely clueless about #Crypto except the cue cards they have been handed voting on how to tax.

Replying to

Ahh ok. So the people running voting don’t really know much about what they are voting on. Makes sense.

GIF

read image description

ALT

Replying to

Anyone with a GD brain should agree with this

Replying to

Agrre,

. Especially with conflicts of interest. Take Toomey and Wyden, who file ld for crypto amendment to Biden’s infrastructure bill. Toomey and Wyden both purchased crypto, and started advocating after purchases. Link: unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate

Replying to

and

Whale- this just means they are the very few who actually understand *something* about how it works…. Owning majors is like owning S&P, not a conflict.

This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more

Replying to

and

Sir the bill is 2700 pages

Replying to

Not sure they can afford to strike any revenue positive provisions and give deficit hawks a reason to block. Crypto sphere looks huge from the outside so their revenue estimates are likely insanely optimistic including this