back to article US senators reach last-minute compromise on cryptocurrency regulations as infrastructure bill vote looms

US Senators have reached an agreement to amend the definition of who counts as a digital asset “broker” in the bipartisan infrastructure bill, a change that makes sure cryptocurrency miners and engineers are exempt from the proposed regulations. In an attempt to pay for the trillion-dollar bill [PDF], Congress is introducing …

  1. HildyJ Silver badge

    Uh, Not Quite

    Yes, a compromise was reached between the two competing amendments on the definition of a crypto broker.

    BUT, at this stage of the debate, an amendment can ONLY be voted on with unanimous consent and one of the Republican Senators objected.

    After the bill passes the Senate without the amendment, which will be in a day or two, the House will have a chance to amend it.

  2. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    Bitcoin price rises

    I wonder how many politicians brought a Bitcoin before they passed the compromise?

  3. hayzoos

    Tax Evasion

    I have to wonder how much tax would be generated. First, let me state that I prefer the more limited view of cryptocurrency broker because I see too much cost expended to collect too little extra revenue with the more expanded view. Those supporting the expanded view may have a different thing in mind . . . end cryptocurrency. I say if you want to end cryptocurrency, you should say so and act more directly.

    How much cryptocurrency value is from fiat currency conversion directly and how much is due to the rise in "value" due to speculation? The US is currently treating cryptocurrency as an investment and taxing as such, only when the the conversions between crypto and fiat and vice versa take place. If a relatively small amount of fiat is converted, then a relatively small amount of revenue on that end. If a relatively small amount of crypto is converted to fiat then same. I suspect most of the "value" of crypto is not going to be converted to fiat and that "value" may virtually disappear should a run in crypto cash out occur.

    There may not be as much revenue to be had as the politicians think. Even worse, US tax law also allows for consideration of investment losses to partially reduce tax liability. Those details may or may not apply to crypto investment, but they have to think it through.

    As per tax evasion, defining brokers as primarily exchanges would help on that aspect.

  4. NoneSuch Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Here we go...

    Collecting user data on who owns what in the e-coin space. Expect to be filling in US Gov tax forms regardless of whether you are a US citizen or not very soon. FATCA paved the way, no one objected and now US law is in effect globally.

    It's also a wonderful way to collect intelligence (Name, address, phone, email, etc.) on every individual on the planet, but that's just coincidental right...

    1. Irongut Silver badge

      Re: Here we go...

      > It's also a wonderful way to collect intelligence (Name, address, phone, email, etc.) on every individual on the planet

      No it isn't. If you don't own any cryptocurrency and are not acting as a broker for cryptocurrency then you won't have to provide any data to anyone.

      It's a very poor way to collect intelligence because it is trivial to avoid.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Should the headline be changed?

    Now the amendment has been rejected, the headline on the article doesn't look right. How about "US senators reach last-minute compromise on cryptocurrency regulations then have it blocked."

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021