Back in August, there were some serious warnings about what the proposed infrastructure law from the Biden administration could do to the cryptocurrency and blockchain sector, expel US crypto miners, prevent US leadership, etc. Lobbyers full members of the court to put pressure on lawmakers. However, it was too late to leave the worrying language of digital assets, and the Infrastructure Act was signed into law in November.
The good news is that the Infrastructure Act will not enter into force until January 2024, which gives plenty of time to rectify deficiencies. The disadvantage is that disturbing aspects – especially an expanded definition of who or what is a “broker” and some new requirements for digital asset reporting – have not disappeared. As Charles Hoskinson, founder of Cardano, noted in mid-November, shortly after the law was signed, “bad [crypto] language” is now enshrined in law.
Most recently, Kristen Smith, CEO of the Washington Blockchain Association, told Cointelegraph, “We remain concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the mediation clause in the signed infrastructure bill. […] If the decision remains unchanged, it could have a negative impact on growth in the mining sector in the United States.
There have been moments in the last three months when it looked like the sky could fall due to unfinished US legislation. “It would be a staggering loss for America and our ability to remain the center of innovation in the world,” warned venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. But things do not look so turbulent now.
In both the area of regulation and legislation, there are signs that the potential negative effect of the bill may soon be reduced. A number of changes have been made to Congress, and the US Treasury Department seems to be listening seriously to industry objections. In retrospect, are any of these ominous warnings exaggerated?
“There were initially many concerns about crypto-related devices – miners, stock exchanges, open source developers, self-monitoring wallet developers, etc. CEX.IO for cryptocurrencies,” according to Cointelegraph. “But the [US] Treasury Department has further stated that this language only applies to those who can” obey, “which excludes miners, hardware developers, etc. – even though it still includes cryptocurrency exchanges and some investors,” he added. Evans:
“Although not all devices in the cryptosphere are at risk, it appears that the number that was originally thought to have been affected has decreased.”
Chris Debo, senior adviser to Elliptic’s Financial Institutions Regulations and Compliance, told the Cointelegraph that it is “too early to talk about the potential implications of the big picture”, although as with all new regulatory initiatives, the impact on continuous technological innovation must be . … “We remain cautiously optimistic that some of the more challenging parts of the crypto infrastructure bill will be resolved over time through letters of instruction and regulatory comments.”
“Concerns about the applicability of the proposed reporting rules are fully justified,” Olya Viramchuk, director of tax solutions for Lukka, a provider of data processing and cryptography software, told Cointelegraph, adding that although the provisions of the law will not enter into force until 2024 “The crypto-community has limited time to continue the dialogue with regulators in the Ministry of Finance to establish practical and operational rules and guidelines.”
Veramchuk was asked about the most unpleasant aspect of the law, namely his very broad definition of the term “mediator”? Business Reporting Requirements for $ 10,000 Cryptocurrency Transactions? For her: “Without proper guidance from the Ministry of Finance, both reporting clauses can go beyond the intended use case.” She added that “such a broad definition may mean that individuals must meet the reporting requirements of brokers, and this is not a fruitful reporting solution”.
possible criminal act
Abraham Sutherland, an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, told the Cointelegraph that the amendment to section 60501 of the Internal Revenue Code poses a “significant threat to digital assets.” According to Sutherland, the law requires that “anyone” who receives digital assets over $ 10,000 must verify the sender’s personal information, including his social security number, and sign and submit a report to authorities within 15 days. Failure to comply may be punishable.