Conversation

Replying to

9) But there are competing interests on the bill, and the multiple different amendments flying around are confusing. Republican senators have a clear line: they want to slow down and edit the bill anyway; and the majority of their members would be happy with Wyden/Lummis/etc.

1

1

72

10) Majority leadership is more likely caught between a rock and a hard place here. There are competing factions (Wyden / Yellen), and it's a small piece of a large bill. Their goal is to get the bill passed and move on with business, and not have to deal with this battle.

1

3

71

11) And so more and louder voices saying the bill's crypto provision is bad might not be what's important right now. The more difficult this is, and the more contentious, the more leadership is incentivized to say "fuck it, no amendments, we have to move on".

3

2

72

12) What's really needed here is clear, reasonable, fair compromise that can create a compelling way forward. I'm not sure what that is! But if it were *me* drafting the bill, I guess I'd try to take a step back and try a new approach.

3

4

72

13) Maybe try something like this? ---- a) To clarify, the original language means that centralized US-servicing crypto exchanges, for instance Coinbase, Kraken, FTX US, Gemini, Binance US, etc. will be treated as a broker for 1099 purposes

1

6

81

14) b) To further clarify, neither the original bill text nor this amendment are taking a position either way on any tax related duties of people or companies primarily involved in blockchain validation, noncustodial wallets, or other areas of decentralized crypto finance.

1

8

103

15) The goal here: (i) make it clear that centralized US person facing crypto exchanges have to be filing 1099s, which makes sense (ii) kick the can down the road on messier questions

2

4

86

16) Kicking the can down the road isn't ideal. But it's better than having to hash out consensus protocols, noncustodial wallets, developers, and other things at the last minute. And at least it's clear what the bill would/wouldn't do, rather than leaving it vague.

1

2

71

17) Now, probably this has already been floated, and rejected for various reasons. Probably

has already tried clarifying that the bill applies to exchanges and punting on DeFi/etc. until a future bill, and that didn't get everyone on board.

1

3

70

18) But, fundamentally: the biggest thing right now isn't for crypto to "get its voice heard". It's to come forward with reasonable, good faith compromises, and make it clear that's the goal.

5

6

127

19) And, next time, to start the conversations sooner rather than later.

5:49 AM · Aug 9, 2021Twitter Web App

@15percentNoRisk

Replying to

Crypto is lucky to have you Sam. Thanks for working for all of us here

1

Replying to

Thank you for providing an awesome platform for crypto trading and your engagements

1

Graydon Swedberg

Replying to

Thanks man, all in this together and I hope we have leaden a lesson here that we need to spring into action sooner and plan better but as a leaderless community this will be tough. Again, we appreciate your efforts and communication with us on the details.

1

1

Replying to

Appreciate your commentary and framing here

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Show replies

Replying to

If we don’t have it already, crypto needs a policy and lobby long game strategy. Cant just show up when shit hits the fan.

1

1

Replying to

“Start conversations” is not a great thing for many many into cryptos, I learned recently

Replying to

Please run for office one day

4

3

121

qeebz | Risk Manager at CIA:FTX

Replying to

and

And the twitter handle should be changed to FTX: POTUS