Latest news about Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies. Your daily crypto news habit.
Dissecting The March 14th US Senate ICO Hearing: What Do Policy Makers Really Say?
Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. I am not a financial advisor. What follows is my personal, subjective, biased opinion.
The News
On March 14th, the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment of the US Congress held a hearing titled âExamining the Cryptocurrencies and ICO Markets,â where part of the 115th Congress got together with four witnesses, to discuss regulation of cryptocurrency.
The discussion lasted for about two hours.
The Facts
The Subcommittee consists of 29 Congressmen and -women from various state, as well as the Chairman, Bill Huizenga. Each member is allotted a certain time to ask questions and talk to the witnesses.
The four witnesses included Coinbaseâs Chief Legal and Risk Officer, a law professor, a partner at one of Californiaâs biggest law firms, which represents Amazon, Google, Twitter, Tesla, and a host of other tech companies, and the research director of Coin Center, a non-profit crypto think tank.
All witnesses submitted written testimonies, which were then paraphrased during the hearing. You can watch the full session below.
The Commentary
While this was the first hearing of this particular subcommittee, the hearings in general have become more frequent, indicating government and regulator attention is turning towards the space.
The way these meetings trickle through to the public is twofold:
- Overall sentiment of the hearing is branded as either âbullishâ or âbearishâ for the space, causing the investor mood pendulum to swing extremely to one side or the other.
- Individual members of official bodies are either celebrated or attacked for their open or close-minded attitude towards crypto.
Neither of these is helpful. We need a more complete picture.
The single best way to build one yourself is to just watch one of these sessions in its entirety. I know, the language is stilted and obfuscated, but there is much more to these talks than what is being said. Watch how the people in the room behave. Whoâs laughing? Gesturing? Who leaves early? Who shows genuine interest?
Letâs take a look at some participants in particular.
- Chairman Bill Huizenga smiles a lot. Heâs gesturing with open hands. He seems open to dialogue, which is key if youâre the one moderating the dialogue. He was respectful of peopleâs opinions and graciously extended talking periods repeatedly. He was also excited about asking questions himself. He closed the hearing saying it was âhello, rather than goodbye.â
- Mr. Ellison from Minnesota gave a passionate mini speech about not rolling back post-financial crisis banking laws. He used simple words and made his position about protecting individual investors very clear.
- Mr. Sherman from California received lots of critique for calling cryptocurrencies a âcrock,â making unrealistic analogies, and claiming cryptocurrencies are used by terrorists, without providing evidence. Whatâs noteworthy is that heâs among the older participants, and thus probably has a harder time understanding the concept. He also interrupted the witnesses a lot, indicating he wasnât really interested in their opinion. It seemed he generally lacked interest, as he left early, right after his last turn to speak.
- All four witnesses were calm, prepared, professional, and presented their arguments respectfully. They were knowledgeable and signaled that theyâââand thus the blockchain space at largeâââwant to cooperate with the authorities.
- Mr. Scott from Georgia showed genuine interest in the space, saying cryptocurrencies are âan exciting new area, and weâre discovering a lot here.â
- Mr. Stivers from Ohio showed an ability to separate blockchain the tech from crypto the investment and asked three very targeted questions.
- Mr. Emmer from Minnesota, the crypto communityâs new darling, made the case for a balanced, lightweight regulation, and was also very passionate in his statements.
In general, these hearings have so far been very different from what I expected they would be. Overall, a surprisingly large number of policy makers has demonstrated that they are well-informed, excited, and genuinely curious about cryptocurrencies and decentralized technology, regardless of what their regulation intentions are.
Whether they vote for more or less, stricter or looser, rules, this isnât the battle against âold white dudesâ many young crypto enthusiasts see ahead. Itâs about gathering a better understanding of where weâre headed. Not as communities, or even countries, but as the global species that is humankind.
So far, all hearings have been about and yielded only more questions, rather than answers. Whoâs in charge of regulating? Do these entities have enough authority to do whatâs necessary? What asset class do virtual currencies even belong to? Do we need to create a new one? So far, none of these have really been answered.
The big takeaway is that at this stage, where everyone is only asking questions, the people involved are willing to ask them.
I donât know about you, but when I see mostly competent people dealing with important problems, I feel rather hopeful than discouraged.
Keep it crypto,Nik
What Do Cryptocurrency Policy Makers Really Say? was originally published in The Crypto Times on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Bitcoin Insider. Every investment and trading move involves risk - this is especially true for cryptocurrencies given their volatility. We strongly advise our readers to conduct their own research when making a decision.