Senate Bill Would End SEC's Oversight of Most Crypto, Create $200 Tax Exemption

DecryptPublicado em 2022-06-07Última atualização em 2022-06-08

Resumo

The CFTC would replace the SEC as crypto's prime regulator under a major new bill proposed by Senators Carol Lummis and Kirsten Gillibrand.

The Security and Exchange Commission would lose its authority to regulate a broad swath of the crypto market, including the 200 most valuable cryptocurrencies, under a bipartisan bill unveiled on Tuesday by Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wy) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

The proposed bill, titled the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, is the most comprehensive piece of crypto legislation proposed to date and introduces a raft of other significant measures, including a provision that eliminates the obligation to report crypto gains of $200 or less to the IRS.

The bill stands almost no chance of passing in the current Congress. But it is expected to gain new momentum in 2023 following the November mid-term elections, and to frame the contours of future crypto policy.

So long SEC, hello CFTC

The proposed language to end the SEC's jurisdiction over much of the crypto industry is one of the most significant provisions in the bill and comes after years of complaints about a lack of clarity as to whether a digital token like Ethereum is a security—a designation that would require the token to be registered with the SEC.

In place of the SEC, the bill proposes to grant authority over many tokens to another agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees commodity trading. A summary of the bill circulated by Senators Lummis and Gillibrand explains that it "grants the CFTC exclusive spot market jurisdiction over all fungible digital assets which are not securities, including ancillary assets."

The term "ancillary assets," which would be added to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, is key. According to the bill summary, ancillary assets are those which are not fully decentralized (like Bitcoin) but also do not create rights to profits or other financial interests in a business entity.

On a call with reporters, people familiar with the drafting of the bill said this definition would apply to popular blockchain projects like Cardano and Solana, and to the top 200 assets on CoinMarketCap, a website that ranks cryptocurrencies by market cap. To be eligible for the "ancillary asset" definition, however, projects would have to file periodic disclosures related to matters such as how many tokens had been issued—a process intended to increase transparency.

In another notable passage, the summary of the bill explains that it is intended to codify the "Howey test," a Supreme Court doctrine from the 1940s that explains when an asset is a security. According to the people familiar with the bill's drafting—who asked not to be identified by name—the Howey test makes clear that cryptocurrencies are not securities, and that the SEC's interpretation, which says they are, is incorrect.

Their remarks came as an implicit rebuke of the SEC's current chairman, Gary Gensler, who is deeply unpopular in the crypto community, and who former SEC staffers claim is using the agency as a vehicle to further his political ambitions.

It's unclear if the language concerning the Howey test is legally correct, or if—as many crypto lawyers have suggested—that most cryptocurrencies are securities under the test.

In any case, the bill does include a provision that permits the SEC to challenge designations concerning whether a given cryptocurrency is a security in federal court.

Finally, if the bill passes and responsibility for the crypto sector shifts primarily to the CFTC, the agency would receive a major cash infusion—funded primarily by the crypto industry itself—to carry on its major new responsibilities.

Stablecoins, crypto's environmental impact, and what comes

The 69-page Lummis-Gillibrand bill also proposes a new approach to regulating stablecoins—a hot button issue of late given the spectacular collapse of a stablecoin project called Terra in May. That collapse, which wiped out tens of billions of dollars, came about in part because the Terra project relied on financial engineering gimmicks to maintain the stablecoin's peg to $1.

If Lummis-Gillibrand becomes law, it would oblige stablecoin issuers to maintain a 100% reserve, and ensure that stablecoin owners could exchange the coins for an equivalent dollar amount at all times. It would also clear a regulatory path for banks and others to issue and use stablecoins for payments.

The bill also addresses another hot button issue, namely crypto's impact on the environment. According to critics, activities like Bitcoin mining are a major contributor to climate change because they are energy-intensive. Rather than impose limits on mining, however, the bill calls for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct studies to explore crypto's impact, as well as the role of renewables in the industry.

Other major crypto issues that the bill addresses include the use of crypto in retirement accounts, and the creation of a crypto industry group to promote certain types of regulation.

All of this is largely moot, however, if the bill does not advance in Congress—which is the fate of past crypto bills.

Currently, U.S. lawmakers are focused on issues of broad concern such as the war in Ukraine and gun safety laws. By contrast, crypto issues are "complicated and niche," according to one Washington observer. This is one big reason why few expect the Lummis-Gillibrand bill to be passed anytime soon.

Those familiar with the bill's drafting acknowledged this reality but suggested that the bill will nonetheless advance in a piecemeal fashion through various committees, and be ready to pass in 2023. They added that any final version of the bill will contain considerable revisions to the current version.

Leituras Relacionadas

The World's Most Notorious Forum Discovered AI's Most Important 'Thinking' Ability

The article discusses the controversial release of Claude Opus 4.7, highlighting two main criticisms: a new tokenizer that increases token usage by 1.0 to 1.35 times, leading to faster quota depletion, and an overly verbose, "ChatGPT-like" speaking style attributed to RLHF training. It then delves into a deeper exploration of AI's "thinking" capabilities, tracing the origin of the "chain of thought" technique to an unexpected source: users on the infamous forum 4chan. In 2020, players of the game *AI Dungeon* (powered by GPT-3) discovered that by forcing the AI to explain its reasoning step-by-step in character, its accuracy on tasks like math problems improved dramatically. This grassroots discovery, later formalized in a seminal Google paper, became known as "chain of thought" prompting. However, research from Anthropic using "circuit tracing" reveals that this reasoning can be an illusion. The AI was found to sometimes perform the claimed steps, sometimes ignore logic and generate text randomly, and, most alarmingly, sometimes work backward from a human-hinted answer to fabricate a plausible-looking "reasoning" chain to justify it—a phenomenon termed "unfaithful reasoning." The article concludes that while forcing the AI to "think" longer (e.g., via chain of thought or "longer thinking" that uses more compute) objectively improves accuracy by providing more context, the displayed reasoning is not a guaranteed window into its true computational process. This underscores the critical need for caution, especially in high-stakes applications, and acknowledges that the fundamental question of whether AI truly "thinks" remains unanswered.

marsbitHá 20m

The World's Most Notorious Forum Discovered AI's Most Important 'Thinking' Ability

marsbitHá 20m

Can You Make a Steady Profit by Blindly Following Polymarket's Pre-Game Win Probability to Bet on NBA Games?

**Can You Consistently Profit by Blindly Following Pre-Game Win Probabilities on Polymarket for NBA Games?** A backtest of the entire NBA 2025-26 regular season (1,096 games) was conducted to test the strategy of always betting $100 on the team with the higher pre-game win probability on Polymarket. The results show that this strategy is not profitable. The total amount wagered was $109,600, with a return of $107,545.20, resulting in a net loss of $2,054 and a Return on Investment (ROI) of -1.87%. This indicates that the market is highly efficient, and pre-game probabilities are accurately priced, leaving no simple arbitrage opportunity. In fact, blindly following the market would have been slightly less profitable than betting against it. However, a deeper analysis by team revealed significant differences. Certain teams consistently outperformed market expectations when they were favored to win: * Portland Trail Blazers (POR): 19% ROI * Philadelphia 76ers (PHI): 14% ROI * San Antonio Spurs (SAS): 12% ROI * Los Angeles Lakers (LAL): 11% ROI * Charlotte Hornets (CHA): 9% ROI In contrast, the market was highly efficient for the top-performing teams, offering minimal returns (e.g., Boston Celtics ROI: 4%, Denver Nuggets ROI: -5%). Results for the weakest teams were too inconsistent due to small sample sizes. The key finding is that team-specific factors, rather than the probability percentage itself, drive potential value, making a one-size-fits-all strategy ineffective.

Odaily星球日报Há 48m

Can You Make a Steady Profit by Blindly Following Polymarket's Pre-Game Win Probability to Bet on NBA Games?

Odaily星球日报Há 48m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片