Crypto Action in Senate Remains on Back Burner: Sources

CoinDeskPolicyPubblicato 2024-02-20Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-02-21

Introduzione

Though industry insiders are eying Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats nervously as they push bills that may be harsh for the crypto sector, a key committee is so far ho...

  • A rush of legislative proposals among Senate Banking Committee members, including from one of the chamber's biggest crypto critics, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, aren't poised for immediate action, according to people familiar with the panel's planning.
  • Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown is still in talks with the members about their ideas for dealing with criminality in crypto.

Despite keen interest from U.S. Senate Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to deal with the illicit movement of funds in crypto, there's no immediate action planned in the committee that would need to get it rolling, according to two sources familiar with the plans.

Some Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee have been pushing legislation to address what they see as dangerous vulnerabilities for the abuse of crypto by criminals and terrorists, but the panel is busy with other priorities at the moment and isn't yet turning to crypto legislation, the people said.

When asked about the intentions of panel Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a spokesperson said that he "has made clear that cracking down on illicit finance is a priority for this Congress" and that he's "continuing to work with the members" on what they're putting forward on crypto money-laundering controls and related matters.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The next step is a markup – a process in which a bill is brought before the committee to be amended and approved before it can head to the floor for a vote. That's not currently on the panel's agenda, the people said.

However, a consensus has been building – illustrated by the members' bills – that this particular segment of crypto oversight is most urgent for the committee, unlike the House's priorities that have first focused on the structure of the digital assets markets and the regulation of stablecoins.

The legislative effort led by Warren would – among other things – extend anti-money-laundering (AML) requirements from the Bank Secrecy Act to providers of digital assets wallets, crypto miners, validators and other network participants, and the legislation is backed by a lengthening list of other prominent lawmakers. Additional bipartisan bills pushed by Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) overlap, also aiming at getting a handle on the criminal use of cryptocurrencies.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo also lobbied lawmakers in November to provide Treasury officials with additional powers to reach across borders with enforcement and sanctions authority even beyond the activities of U.S. citizens – yet another consideration for Brown and other committee members.

In an October hearing, Brown said he wants to "crack down on the use of crypto to fund terrorism and evade sanctions," though no specific proposal has shown up yet on his agenda.

Any senators who are serious about making new crypto laws must also consider the viability of what's been moving through the House of Representatives. The House Financial Services Committee has approved multiple bills, including legislation that would outline crypto market structure and regulatory jurisdiction and another bill that would put guardrails around stablecoin issuers. Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) has said crypto oversight remains a priority for him even as he winds down his House career this year on his way toward retirement from Congress.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Warnings this week from the Chamber of Digital Commerce about the bill from Warren may be premature, one of the people said. The group's CEO, Perianne Boring, sent out a notice with the subject line, "URGENT: Cryptocurrency Under Threat," that warned that Brown may advance Warren's bill "effectively banning cryptocurrency in the United States."

Even if Warren's bill were approved at the committee level, it would likely need bipartisan momentum to clear the closely divided overall Senate. But the Massachusetts lawmaker's stance is unlikely to move the House Republican majority, which would have to be enlisted for any crypto money-laundering law to come out of this session of Congress.

Letture associate

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit7 min fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit7 min fa

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit47 min fa

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit47 min fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit2 h fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit2 h fa

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

For years, the semiconductor equipment industry followed an unwritten "iron rule": suppliers offered steep discounts for new tool introductions (Design-in) and faced consistent price pressure during repeat orders, especially during market downturns. This long-standing buyer's market dynamic is now being upended. Recently, SK Hynix's primary equipment suppliers have reportedly requested a 3-4% price *increase*, a nearly unprecedented move. This shift is driven by a severe supply-demand imbalance fueled by the AI compute boom. Securing equipment has become an urgent arms race as chipmakers' expansion speed dictates their ability to fulfill massive AI chip orders. Key areas feeling the strain include: **TCB (Thermal Compression Bonding) Equipment:** Demand is exploding, driven by the simultaneous needs of HBM4 memory stacking, AI chip Chip-on-Substrate (C2S), and logic Chiplet Chip-on-Wafer (C2W) packaging. Players like Hanmi Semiconductor, Hanwha Semitech, and ASMPT are receiving major orders. While hybrid bonding is seen as the future, TCB remains the pragmatic choice for HBM4 mass production, with its lifecycle extended by relaxed specifications and ongoing technological upgrades. **Test Equipment Bottlenecks:** Ironically, AI-driven shortages are now crippling test equipment manufacturing. Critical components like FPGAs, Driver ICs, and CPUs face severe shortages and extended lead times (up to 52 weeks for FPGAs), as AI data center and server vendors prioritize supply. This creates a paradoxical cycle: AI chip shortages drive fab expansion, which requires more test equipment, whose production is delayed because its key parts are diverted to make AI chips. The industry is entering a broad, AI-powered upcycle. SEMI forecasts global semiconductor equipment sales to hit a record $156 billion by 2027, fueled by investment in advanced logic/foundry, HBM-driven DRAM, and advanced packaging (like CoWoS). Major players like TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron are aggressively ramping capital expenditure. In conclusion, leading equipment vendors are no longer just selling tools; they are selling the critical capability to deliver AI-era capacity. Pricing power is shifting decisively to those with indispensable technology in key process nodes like advanced logic, HBM, and advanced packaging, rewriting the industry's traditional power structure.

marsbit2 h fa

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit2 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片