Polish Parliament Slams The Brakes On Crypto Market Act After Controversial Revival

bitcoinistPublicado a 2025-12-20Actualizado a 2025-12-20

Resumen

Polish lawmakers have halted discussions on the controversial Crypto-Asset Market Act until January. The lower house, the Sejm, recently passed a nearly identical version of a bill previously vetoed by President Karol Nawrocki, who expressed concerns about overregulation, threats to innovation, and potential startup exodus. Despite failing to override the veto, the ruling coalition reintroduced the bill with minimal changes, including a reduced fee for crypto intermediaries from 0.4% to 0.1%. The Senate has delayed its decision to carefully review the amendments, with further discussions scheduled for January.

Polish lawmakers have reportedly halted discussions on crypto legislations until January after the parliament’s lower house, the Sejm, voted to pass a nearly identical version of a bill that was vetoed by Poland’s president earlier this month without changes.

Poland’s Sejm Passes Controversial Crypto Bill

On Friday, local news media outlets informed that the Polish Senate hit the brakes on the controversial Crypto-Asset Market Act, following the Sejm’s recent vote to pass “version 2.0” of the legislation.

According to the reports, more than half of the members of the lower chamber voted to pass the revived version of the bill on Thursday, leaving its fate in the hands of the Senate and then the President, who has strongly opposed to the legislation.

As reported by Bitcoinist, Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki vetoed the Crypto-Asset Market Act at the start of the month due to concerns of a potential exodus of startups and overregulating the sector with the “legal mess” proposed by the Polish government.

On December 1, President Nawrocki refused to sign the bill, first introduced in June, which aimed to establish strict rules on the crypto assets market. He argued that the legislation it could pose a real threat to the freedoms of Poles, the stability of the state, and market innovation.

The local crypto community had raised concerns about the bill in September, affirming that it exceeded the European Union (EU)’s minimum regulatory requirements and could drive small businesses and startups abroad.

The parliament attempted to override the President’s veto, but ultimately failed after being unable to secure the required three-fifths majority vote to overturn the presidential decision.

Nonetheless, the part of the ruling coalition in the Sejm reintroduced the bill a week later without allegedly amending any of the controversial policies, raising more concerns among crypto industry players and community members.

Senate Delays Decision Until January

According to the reports, the Senate had initially planned to pass the bill “at an express pace” before the end of the year. However, the Deputy Finance Minister Jurand Drop raised concerns about the intention to pass the legislation with no further revisions.

Deputy Minister Drop pointed out that the Sejm had introduced only one change to the proposal, a lower fee for entities intermediating in crypto trading, despite the government’s disapproval of the current text.

“This amendment, which was introduced during the Sejm vote and which the government disagrees with, concerns the level of fees paid to the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) by entities in the crypto-asset market. The fee has been reduced from 0.4% to 0.1%,” Drop explained.

“Other market segments have fees of a maximum of 0.5%; for this market, the government has proposed 0.4%. Although the KNF’s projections indicate that these fees will not exceed 0.1%, and in the first year, they will not be collected at all, the question remains what will happen if this market grows and, as a result, the fees are forced to exceed 0.1%,” he added.

On Friday morning, the Senate Budget and Public Finance Committee discussed the recently passed bill and the Ministry of Finance’s concerns. The committee chairman, Senator Kazimierz Kleina, suggested that the committee review this modification calmly.

Therefore, he withdrew the motion to pass the bill without new changes and suspended the discussions on the bill, affirming that the Sejm’s amendments “will have to be carefully considered.” Ultimately, Chairman Kleina scheduled to resume work on the legislation during the January Senate session.

Bitcoin (BTC) trades at $87,752 in the one-week, chart. Source: BTCUSDT on TradingView

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhy did the Polish Sejm halt discussions on crypto legislation until January?

AThe Sejm halted discussions after passing a nearly identical version of a previously vetoed crypto bill, and the Senate decided to delay further review until January to carefully consider the amendments.

QWhat was the main reason President Karol Nawrocki vetoed the Crypto-Asset Market Act initially?

APresident Nawrocki vetoed the bill due to concerns about potential startup exodus, overregulation, and the threat it posed to Poles' freedoms, state stability, and market innovation.

QHow did the Sejm's revived version of the crypto bill change the fee structure?

AThe Sejm reduced the fee paid to the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) by crypto entities from 0.4% to 0.1%.

QWhat concerns did Deputy Finance Minister Jurand Drop raise about the revised bill?

ADrop expressed concerns about the reduced fee (0.1%) and questioned what would happen if the market grew, potentially requiring fees to exceed that level, as other market segments have fees up to 0.5%.

QWhy did the local crypto community oppose the Crypto-Asset Market Act?

AThe community argued that the bill exceeded the EU's minimum regulatory requirements and could drive small businesses and startups abroad due to overregulation.

Lecturas Relacionadas

¿Los modelos generativos también pueden entrenarse de extremo a extremo? El núcleo es un bucle for

El entrenamiento de modelos generativos siempre ha sido un reto debido a la "desviación por exposición" (exposure bias): durante el entrenamiento solo se aprenden pequeños pasos, mientras que la generación requiere cientos de iteraciones, lo que causa acumulación de errores. Esto ha impedido que los modelos generativos sean entrenados de extremo a extremo (end-to-end), a diferencia de otras tareas de aprendizaje profundo. Un reciente artículo de la Universidad de Illinois y Harvard introduce "Explorative Modeling (XM)", un nuevo paradigma que resuelve este problema mediante un bucle simple (for). La idea clave es que, en cada paso de entrenamiento, el modelo genera K candidatos y solo retropropaga el gradiente a partir del candidato más cercano a los datos reales. Este enfoque evita que el modelo converja a un promedio borroso entre múltiples modos (mode blurring), un problema inherente a las funciones de pérdida de reconstrucción típicas. XM identifica una tercera dimensión escalable, además de los parámetros y los datos: la "expresividad generativa". Los experimentos en imágenes, video y lenguaje muestran que aumentar la exploración (K) mejora monótonamente el rendimiento, con ganancias de eficiencia en FLOPs, muestras y parámetros. En tareas de control robótico, una política exploratoria XM iguala o supera a políticas de difusión que requieren 100 veces más cómputo en inferencia. El trabajo sugiere que, a gran escala, la expresividad generativa se convierte en el cuello de botella principal, y XM ofrece un camino para modelos generativos verdaderamente end-to-end, generando muestras de alta calidad en una sola pasada hacia adelante.

marsbitHace 6 min(s)

¿Los modelos generativos también pueden entrenarse de extremo a extremo? El núcleo es un bucle for

marsbitHace 6 min(s)

¿Máximo de 20 artículos por persona? La nueva norma de ICLR recibe una «petición» sarcástica de un investigador de DeepMind

Un investigador de DeepMind satiriza la nueva norma de ICLR que limita a 20 artículos por autor. La conferencia de IA ICLR 2027 ha establecido una nueva regla: cada autor solo puede figurar en un máximo de 20 trabajos enviados. Los que excedan este límite serán advertidos y, de no corregirse, algunos serán rechazados aleatoriamente. La justificación es la enorme presión sobre el sistema de revisión, tras un aumento del 68% en los envíos para ICLR 2026 (19,525 trabajos). Dan Roy, investigador de Google DeepMind, respondió con una "petición" irónica en X, pidiendo que se elimine el límite. Su mensaje, cargado de sarcasmo, sugiere que los agentes de IA ahora pueden producir investigaciones incrementales y que, "dado que todo el trabajo de revisión ya lo hacen los grandes modelos de lenguaje", debería animarse a enviar más trabajos, no menos. Su sátira apunta a un problema real: el uso de IA tanto en la autoría como en la revisión. Un análisis de 2025 detectó que aproximadamente el 21% de las revisiones de ICLR 2026 eran probablemente generadas completamente por IA. La broma de Roy plantea una pregunta seria: en un entorno donde agentes generan artículos, autores los envían en masa y revisores potencialmente usan IA, ¿limitar el número de envíos es la solución adecuada? El debate sobre la calidad versus la cantidad, y el papel de la IA en la academia, continúa.

marsbitHace 12 min(s)

¿Máximo de 20 artículos por persona? La nueva norma de ICLR recibe una «petición» sarcástica de un investigador de DeepMind

marsbitHace 12 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片