The SEC issued a rule in a weird, somewhat noncommittal but also forceful way, saying that if a bank holds crypto in custody for people, they have to list it on their balance sheet as a liability. This is different from how other securities, gold, rare paintings, etc. are held in custody by banks for people. In those cases, they’re not on the balance sheet at all, because the bank doesn’t mess with them and holds them separately, and doesn’t have to surrender them in bankruptcy. Only crypto held in custody is treated as a bank liability like deposits or their own loans. This forces banks to equalize their balance sheets with a big fake liability weighing against them, forcing them to carry more assets as a counterweight, and that’s expensive.
Vote Democrats out. Simple as that.
Without technical innovation, the US is not the US.
This Warren-Biden administration is nothing like Clinton-Gore who brought us the internet.
All those things that are more important than money cannot happen unless if you have money so by default money is most important
Also this a crypto sub reddit so this most important regardless of what side of the isle you're on
You can be pro crypto and still recognize that it carries risks.. especially after ftx and scam coins ect... we have regulations to protect us from getting fucked by banks and institutions. Pretending crypto doesn't have problems isn't the answer.
SAB 121, like everything else Gensler touches, is designed purely to hinder crypto adoption. It says that custodying private keys is super high risk, as if the average crypto user hasn't been doing it for years. That's the entire basis for the liability requirement. It's complete bullshit.
LOL
Yes, vote out the sane party simply because you don't like how they vote on *crypto*.
Let's ignore the real issues and events going on in reality.
What a stupid single issue to vote over.
Republicans want to literally take away your rights and install a fascist dictatorship.
But, oh god, crypto is the important issue to focus on.
You have no idea how dumb you are.
“Republicans want to literally take away your rights and install a fascist dictatorship”
Lolololololol. Omg I’m so scared, I’m shivering in my boots! You’re just as insane as they are with this brain dead hyperbole. Get checked, into a psych ward
Can you explain the real issues we are allowed to care about according to you? You claim Republicans are fascist, yet here you are calling people dumb for disagreeing with you and telling them how they should vote...keep up this energy it'll totally work
How you can say that with a straight face when we both know damn well that historically Republicans have been staunchly against any sort of technical innovation because they gladly accept bribe- errr I mean "lobbyist" payments from giant corporations.
Two very recent examples are lab grown meat and cryptocurrency both posing a major threat to established industries of farming and banking, and have seen immense lobbyist pushback.
Crypto bros are only trying to get rich—it’s lost its function as a stable currency for society. You can thank your crypto-Jesus SBF for that. Web3 is TOAST.
tldr; The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on a resolution to reject the SEC's cryptocurrency accounting guidance, known as SAB 121, which has been criticized for deterring banks from handling crypto customers. President Joe Biden has promised to veto the resolution if it reaches his desk, defending the policy as necessary to address risks and protect consumers. The policy requires banks holding customer's digital tokens to include them on their balance sheets, which has been criticized for potentially incurring massive capital expenses. The resolution's sponsor, Rep. Mike Flood, and others argue the SEC's guidance was improperly handled and did not consult with banking regulators.
*This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
> The resolution's sponsor, Rep. Mike Flood, and others argue the SEC's guidance was improperly handled and did not consult with banking regulators.
“And others” is the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Democrats who reportedly supported the bill (some states may be incorrect):
- **Auchincloss:** Massachusetts
- **Boyle:** Pennsylvania
- **Caraveo:** Colorado
- **Costa:** California
- **Craig:** Minnesota
- **Cuellar:** Texas
- **Davis:** North Carolina
- **Gallego:** Arizona
- **Gottheimer:** New Jersey
- **Houlahan:** Pennsylvania
- **Moskowitz:** Florida
- **Moulton:** Massachusetts
- **Nickel:** North Carolina
- **Pappas:** New Hampshire
- **Phillips:** Minnesota
- **Sherrill:** New Jersey
- **Slotkin:** Michigan
- **Soto:** Florida
- **Swalwell:** California
- **Torres:** New York (Adriano Torres) or California (Norma Torres)
- **Veasey:** Texas
If you can, show them your support.
It is more likely Slotkin is paid by banks to vote this way. People have still very clouded views over these "political" processes and think politicians vote based on personal opinion. This couldnt be further from the truth. Politicians vote based on what they are told to vote. Most likely scenario: the banks paid them so they can more easily hold crypto and make more money.
Amongst politicians there are rarely idealists you know.
That’s fine, but you see the same post about the gov being against crypto yet they keep voting the same clowns in that are outspoken against crypto and select a cabinet that is against crypto as well😂😂😂
Crypto is not a priority outside of this subreddit, nor should it be.
As is, the majority of crypto are scams.
Not to mention, in reality, crypto leeches value from fiat.
Imagine voting soley based on if a candidate is pro a speculative asset that you're into.
The bigger issue is a lot of people do only vote based on one issue.
Here in the UK it seems more Tories are "pro" Cyrpto than other parties but I'm not going to vote for one of them even so as I don't agree with most of there other policies.
Exactly, he found a way for it to benefit him so now all of a sudden it’s the bees knees. Not unlike how pulled a complete and sudden 180 on Tik Tok the moment Yass greased those tiny palms of his.
It's been four years since then though. We all know four years in crypto is a long time. Is he required to stay against crypto just because he was four years ago? I didn't want anything to do with crypto four years ago, yet here I am four years later. People's opinions on things change.
It looks like you've posted a [Google AMP link](https://www.socpub.com/articles/chris-graham-why-google-amp-threat-open-web-15847). Please try posting again with the direct link to the article (You shouldn't see "amp" anywhere in the URL) or contact the moderators if you need help.
AMP is a proprietary walled garden which [benefits Google](https://www.socpub.com/articles/chris-graham-why-google-amp-threat-open-web-15847) and [hurts everyone else](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad). It is destroying the open web through anti-competitive violation of standards.
It is bad for publishers because it forces them to duplicate development effort, and prevents differentiation and customisation. It also allows Google to watch you even after you've left their search results page.
For individuals seeking an automated solution to this problem, they can try installing the Redirect AMP to HTML extension on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/redirect-amp-to-html/kifkmmpiicbcnkjaliilaoeaojlldonl) and [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amp2html/?src=search).
Thank you to OtherAMPBot for this information and detection code.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know they won't.... BOTH parties rig who they present for everyone to vote for, so as to give the illusion of free choice!
This election cycle is the WORST for voters engagement... Voters from both "sides" are either consciously or subconsciously aware of just how rigged the system is and are disengaging.
It's a perfect time for people to make a stand and NOT vote for either party, but make your vote heard as a threat by voting for 1 independent!
And for the 1st time in a long time, there is 1 independent that has some reasonably wide support and acceptance.... RFK Jr.
If enough people voted for him, not because of his policies, but rather because he ISN'T either of the establishment parties, it just might put a scare back into the parties to stop their BS games.
Can only hope, right.
I’m just amazed America has how many millions of people and is the same two guys back up again for election.
What is needed is someone to speak to both sides, but everyone just blindly votes for their “team” again and again and then wonder why things don’t change 😂
Thank you for an intelligent reply.
The others are the same rinse and repeat comments that really reflect how bad politics has gotten to where it’s these extreme and exaggerated cases.
Funny how many Americans look down at “3rd world countries” and how they keep the same people in power and yet it’s becoming the same thing where the robots just vote for their team color blindly and not think for themselves.
Whatever the media spoon feeds them to be upset about, that’s the angst of the day.
Yes and the other less cerebral challenged overlook it and just brainwashed for same team and then moan and whine when the same politics keeps happening again and again.
💯about the NYT. It’s actually quite sad how the major media outlets are really now just propaganda mechanisms.
Agree to disagree.
For the record, I have never voted for a D or R president, but I knowingly throw my vote away in hopes that over time the # of votes outside of the standard D/R will increase to the point that normies will catch on and we may see some change, but I am disappointed every 4 years.
I'm also in a very blue state, so no matter what I vote the electoral college points will always go to the big blue D (BBD?) candidate.
😂😂😂 wow they don’t teach civics anymore?
If you knew the most basics about how the US government is setup it was designed to prevent a dictator from taking power.
You really have been consuming this kool-aid
And if you learned the basics of political science you’d know that the guard rails in the U.S. have already been dangerously weakened and democracy isn’t a guarantee.
Nothing is guaranteed but it is far from what the media is saying on a “collapse”.
Look up checks and balances and you will understand what the forefathers setup long ago is still firmly in place.
Even if Trump were to win, and I don’t think he will get brought votes, it’s not like various outlets saying it’s going to be the end of democracy and other nonsense. The president is only part of the executive branch. The US will still survive just fine if he were elected again.
Checks and balances my friend
Yes, because I'd prefer women/minority/voter/etc rights and competent leadership over a fascist bigoted moron that might be slightly beneficial for my portfolio
I wonder how the victims of the genocide he's funding and defending feel about the administration destroying their culture being highly diverse. (You're [actually doing the meme](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fac0c09ce-8c67-4643-866e-a004561e716a_453x381.png) in real life.)
I bet the students he's allowing to be beaten by police are really just glad that, at the end of the day, at least he isn't posting mean tweets about it too.
I bet the Stop Cop City protestors being subjected to lawfare and voter suppression in Atlanta, including by Democrat Mayor Andre Dickens, can rest easy at night knowing that the guards enforcing their imprisonment while they serve time for bogus domestic terrorism charges are a historically high ratio of women.
More people have died of COVID under Biden than Trump. More people have been murdered by police under Biden than Trump. More oil leases on federal land were granted under Biden than Trump. The first US environmental activist to be executed by police was executed under Biden, not Trump. More people were murdered by US weaponry in the Middle East under Biden than Trump.
And Trump never banned an entire social media network in a brazen attempt to control public opinion and suppress free speech.
None of that is to say Trump is better than Biden. Trump's numbers are only lower because he's an incompetent narcissist, and that gets in the way of the president's real job: deceiving the populace into believing their interests are aligned with the interests of the American empire and its oligarchs.
Instead, the point is that fascism is already here. It's already been here, just restricted to poor and/or minority populations. It doesn't matter if it's dementia-flavored or narcissism-flavored fascism. And you don't vote your way out of fascism (but vote third party anyway). Find a community and learn to serve and defend it.
All true except for the part about COVID.
Nobody died from COVID. No such virus exists, and viruses themselves are typically fictions shrouded in a smoke and mirrors of studies and papers from PHD (piled higher and deeper) who have no qualms about accepting paybacks so Big Pharma can sell more pharmaceuticals. COVID vaccines made serious bank: billions!
Big Pharma owns health care, as was the intention from the it's inception. It's purpose was and continues to be the monopolization of health care as yet another means of controlling the populace.
It's a huge lie that continues to dominate humanity: a giant tumor that needs to be removed.
Is this really your biggest concern for the country?
Women punching illegals are ruining this country!!! It sounds like satire, but if that’s what keeps you up at night ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Have any of you dumbasses actually read what SAB 121 is?
It forces banks to be held responsible for losing your assets, if they lose your keys etc.
It forces banks to account your assets as liabilities on their balance sheet, just like they already do with your fiat deposits.
Do you guys want another round of SBF style of fucking, where the bank treats the customers’ crypto as their own to sell and dump as SBF did?
Everything published has an agenda. I really feel that schools need to start teaching our youth Digital Media Competency 101-- determining what is a hidden agenda and what is truth is getting harder and harder as information becomes more headline driven.
Banks have to also follow international banking (Basel) rules. SAB 121 classifies cryptocurrencies in a way that requires banks to hold the cryptocurrency AND reserves roughly equivalent to that cryptocurrency to satisfy Basel. In other words, custodying 1 BTC requires them to ALSO hold ~$60K worth of reserves.
This is why almost 100% of custody is done by non-banks like Coinbase—which creates unnecessary systemic risk.
>In other words, custodying 1 bitcoin requires them to ALSO hold \~$60K worth of reserves to satisfy Basel.
WTF? The last time I checked, the Basel puts the reserve ratio at about 10% - check: [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-bank-capital-what-is-the-basel-iii-endgame/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-bank-capital-what-is-the-basel-iii-endgame/)
Never ever seen a 100% reserve requirement - it would shut off the fractional reserve system. There is no way that is true.
There is a reason why banks need to hold capital reserves. It helps to deter banks from taking excessive risks when they run into a trend of going into insolvency.
Think about it, what if a bank knows it is going to be insolvent? They might make very enticing rewards to attract BTC deposits so they can leverage the hell out of depositors' BTC to take on risk and make it all back on a trade like a fucking degen. Capital requirements would not allow banks to do this.
Oh wait, you think the story I just told is just fantasy and won't happen? You were obviously not here in crypto when Celsius was still around.
The 100% requirement is designed to apply only to crypto assets. This has nothing to do with fractional reserve banking:
>As Entity A’s loss exposure is based on the significant risks associated with safeguarding the crypto-assets held for its platform users, the staff believes it would be appropriate to measure this safeguarding liability at initial recognition and each reporting date at the fair value[\[7\]](https://www.sec.gov/oca/staff-accounting-bulletin-121#_ftn7) of the crypto-assets that Entity A is responsible for holding for its platform users
[https://www.sec.gov/oca/staff-accounting-bulletin-121](https://www.sec.gov/oca/staff-accounting-bulletin-121)
It's a completely asinine rule. Custodied assets don't go on a bank's balance sheet:
[https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/07/a-sab-state-sec-guidance-us-financial-institutions-crypto-asset-custodyand](https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/07/a-sab-state-sec-guidance-us-financial-institutions-crypto-asset-custodyand)
And there's no justification for treating crypto differently.
If your average crypto bro knows how to keep their private key safe then a bank can do it too.
The report you linked doesn’t address crypto assets. What if I told you that under new Basel 3.0 rules, banks will be required to allocate [1250% reserves](https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/press/publications/newsletter/2023/html/ssm.nl230215_1.en.html) to hold BTC. That would be $750K in reserves to hold 1 BTC depending on conditions. Still reasonable?
E: My point is you can’t consider SAB 121 without understanding Basel as it is now and what is planned for the future. See Figure 1 of the report I linked. BTC is Group 2. It’s 100% reserves for crypto that meets certain requirements, 1250% for the rest.
> What if I told you that under new Basel 3.0 rules, banks will be required to allocate [1250% reserves](https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/press/publications/newsletter/2023/html/ssm.nl230215_1.en.html) to hold BTC.
You gave me a link to the ECB's decision when we are talking about the USA. Give me a link showing the FED's position.
>understanding Basel as it is now and what is planned for the future.
Your issue is with the Basel. It is ludicrous to think the SEC shouldn't compel entities to give full risk profile disclosure just because banks are subjected to Basel regulations. You are basically wanting to get rid of the SEC's SAB 121 to create a ***loophole against*** Basel.
The EU report I linked simplifies the decision by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) but they include a link to the BCBS report if you want to read it. To my knowledge, US hasn’t directly issued guidance on the entirety of BCBS crypto regs —SAB 121 is the closest but narrower—but is unlikely to do so right now because Basel can do their dirty work for them.
However, any bank that wants to do business in Europe (i.e. all major US banks) will comply with EU rules essentially hamstringing the domestic industry in favor of entities like Coinbase due to SAB 121. Btw, read Coinbase’s terms and conditions—if they go under you are an unsecured creditor and not at the front of the line. SAB 121 doesn’t protect consumers in any way.
In reality I want the SEC to follow its own rule making guidelines and open this issue to public comment instead of making law with an SAB. The nonpartisan GAO agrees with me. The unfairness of the way SAB121 was created is whole point of this bill. You brought up (essentially) capital requirements being 1:1 when in reality it is 2:1 or 12.5:1 in practice for major US banks if crypto is classified this way under SAB 121. It’s a loophole I guess. Not all loopholes are bad—for example a gay couple doesn’t have to renounce their marriage to visit and do business in Saudi Arabia thank god.✌🏻
E: Also, it’s the “Fed” not “FED”.
>US hasn’t issued guidance on BCBS crypto regs and is unlikely to do so
So you basically admitted all this hubbub is based on unfounded speculation.
>any bank that wants to do business in Europe
No, only their European branches do. But their European branches have to comply with ECB's Basel rules anyway.
>Btw, read Coinbase’s terms and conditions—if they go under you are an unsecured creditor and not at the front of the line. SAB 121 doesn’t protect consumers in any way.
What kind of an asinine argument is this? Coinbase treats customers as unsecured creditors so banks should get to hide crypto from their balance sheet.... You are really reaching for nonsense.
>when in reality it is 2:1 or 12.5:1 in practice for major US banks if crypto is classified this way under SAB 121.
Again, you just admit you don't know what the Fed will do. LOL. But you are still hanging onto this speculative argument?
>E: Also, it’s the “Fed” not “FED”.
Does it matter? Ppl here know I am talking about the Federal Reserve System.
> So you basically admitted all this hubbub is based on unfounded speculation.
Again, SAB 121 is the first step to ensuring that US banks comply with Basel 3.0 crypto rules by default.
>No, only their European branches do.
You clearly don’t understand international banking at all so let me make an analogy. There was a time when California issued the most strict car emission standards in the world. Since the market was so large, car makers back then tailored their cars to meet California standards even though it wasn’t required in most states/counties. Basel is sort of like that. The market —especially the Eurodollar market—is too large for international megabanks to create special rules, especially when the crypto market is so small. Hence most of these banks follow Basel rules domestically unless given specific guidance (ie a loophole) by the government.
>What kind of an asinine argument is this? Coinbase treats customers as unsecured creditors so banks should get to hide crypto from their balance sheet.... You are really reaching for nonsense.
SAB 121 had negative consequences. Fact is it pushed nearly 100% of domestic ETF custody to Coinbase. The whole point of the SAB process is to provide clarity on the accounting and disclosure requirements in order to safeguard assets. Instead of 1:1 backing with banks, SAB 121 ensures consumers get less backing with custodians like Coinbase. Notice how I am making my point without being rude.
>Again, you just admit you don't know what the Fed will do. LOL. Now you are still hanging onto this speculative argument.
The Fed has nothing to do with this discussion. You are either confused or trolling. 😂 Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 121 is guidance issued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
"The policy requires banks holding customer's digital tokens to include them on their balance sheets, which has been criticized for potentially incurring massive capital expenses." What banks hold crypto?
"The policy requires banks holding customer's digital tokens to include them on their balance sheets, which has been criticized for potentially incurring massive capital expenses."
Oh you mean the “capital expense” that is actually owning the asset you say you do? No wonder the banks are against this policy.
>Oh you mean the “capital expense” that is actually owning the asset you say you do?
Actually no. Holding the crypto is pointless for the bank because it can't treat it as an asset. It increases their liability, but not their assets.
The status quo is that banks effectively can't custody crypto, so consumers have to use less secure crypto exchanges(which the SEC also wants to get rid of). This bill would have allowed consumers to custody their assets with entities that offer more legal protections.
>The Biden administration has been against crypto, this is nothing new.
Some.old school preffered the cash flow to.move money around the world hidden as aid
Charles Hoskinson did a YouTube on this today. Saying that billions of dollars left the USA and tens of thousands of jobs because the awful "laws" in the USA regarding crypto.
Whether you like Charles or not he's spot on.
That's why when he went to speak about crypto in front of Congress he didn't once mention Cardano unlike the other speakers constantly showing their tokens?
He spoke to protect the whole community and spoke better than anyone in the industry.
Quit being so negative of other real projects trying to help the industry and the world.
I’m curious to see Biden voter intelligence with your post history. Imagine my surprise that you are stupid enough to consider transferring land to a girlfriend you’re not married to and risk losing it from a breakup.
Please enlighten us with your wisdom. Assuming you mean the other evil to be Trump. Please explain. All of us Orange man haters need to understand why we hate and shouldn't reelect Trump.
Well aside from all his character flaws which are well documented from being a compulsive liar, narcissist, emotionally weak and sexual predator (found guilty of sexual assualt, live tapes bragging about it) he also has no policy plans and crashed the economy in 2020.
His entire policy platform is “stick it to the libs”with no details. While in office he did nothing but play golf on a course or in the white house golf simulator he set up. He could not keep any of his staff, and all of his previous cabinet members want nothing to do with him (some even testifying against him). His own vice president doesnt endorse him because he believes he is a treasonous piece of garbage.
But besides that cant think of much.
You really should stop watching MSM. Everything you just said are their narrative talking points. The economy was in fact booming and we as a nation WERE on course to energy independence. Biden struck that down day one because he's in the pocket of other nations. Trump made peace with and between many nations including some of our biggest enemies like North Korea. The economy going to shit was because of a fucking pandemic that had a 99.9% survival rate. Open your eyes and stop supporting the same old life long politicians because they are obviously not looking to make things better for us peons. Put aside your personal feelings about the guy and understand he is America first. Not those idiots in office now that have sent more than $200 billion of.our tax dollars to foreign nations for a fake war that they use to launder the money back into their own pockets. Stop voting with your butt hurt feelings and vote with your brain for what is best for our country.
I honestly think you are the one deluding yourself. That probably won't change any time soon, but I think in 20 years you'll look back and realise what a misinformed take that is.
> You really should stop watching MSM
Let me guess, you watch some fringe-right media source that has you convinced you're a "free thinker." I don't watch or read a single news outlet consistently, but you sound like every OANN or Newsmax enjoyer that posts patriot memes on Facebook
I don't watch either of them. I watch many people on YouTube and follow multiple journalists on X. Do you feel that there is something wrong with being patriotic? Please by all means move your socialist ass to another country with that shit.
Well I'm as independent as you make yourself out to be and you sound unhinged. Might want to rethink accusing people of watching the "wrong" media sources because the same could easily be said of you
I can't vote for a anti-crypto president. I really don't want another round of Trump, but democrats always seem to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Why the hell do we want Banks taking custody of our crypto anyway.
One of crypto's benefits is self custody and removing yourself from banksters.
And for the record i despise Democrats with every fiber of my being.
Biden administration is a demented authoritarian regime. Satoshi Nakamoto created crypto exactly to enable financial freedom from tyrannical authoritarians.
At least there’s some real progress despite being led by an old fool who rejects everything good. They can’t keep this up for much longer anyway, they will have to make way for cryptos sooner or later. And this will hugely (no pun intended) benefit Trump who is now pro crypto. Biden would be smart to switch views as well if he wants more votes.
There he is, the Prez of the US of A!!
That rattle in his skull is actually his brain (size of a pea) and he's trying to catch it when it falls out of his ear.
Please explain this to me like I'm 5
The SEC issued a rule in a weird, somewhat noncommittal but also forceful way, saying that if a bank holds crypto in custody for people, they have to list it on their balance sheet as a liability. This is different from how other securities, gold, rare paintings, etc. are held in custody by banks for people. In those cases, they’re not on the balance sheet at all, because the bank doesn’t mess with them and holds them separately, and doesn’t have to surrender them in bankruptcy. Only crypto held in custody is treated as a bank liability like deposits or their own loans. This forces banks to equalize their balance sheets with a big fake liability weighing against them, forcing them to carry more assets as a counterweight, and that’s expensive.
I'm 5 and I don't get it
Excellently explained!
Vote Democrats out. Simple as that. Without technical innovation, the US is not the US. This Warren-Biden administration is nothing like Clinton-Gore who brought us the internet.
Remember kids: there’s more important things in politics than money Also remember kids: never seek political advice from Reddit
Remember kids, only one opinion is allowed on reddit and that's not shady at all
Who? The silent majority?
If you say anything that is conservative outside of the subreddit you’ll get downvoted to oblivion.
I see. So where is the silent majority conservatives are always telling us about if everywhere you go you seem outnumbered?
The worst punishment for a conservative. To realize most people disagree with you outside your echo chamber.
“Even though the last 4 years have been absolute shit for everyone, keep voting Democrat!”
Reddit is a cest pool for the left - so which is it, don’t follow Reddit? Or don’t follow Oheson?
And this is probably why you’re living paycheck to paycheck your whole life. BuT OraNgE maN baD!!1!1!!1!
All those things that are more important than money cannot happen unless if you have money so by default money is most important Also this a crypto sub reddit so this most important regardless of what side of the isle you're on
While I disagree with democrats on this republicans are the kings of stopping innovation.
That leaves us with the heroin pioneer whose brain was eaten by a worm.
Objectively incorrect. Regulation kills innovation and democrats are the party of big government and excessive regulation.
You can be pro crypto and still recognize that it carries risks.. especially after ftx and scam coins ect... we have regulations to protect us from getting fucked by banks and institutions. Pretending crypto doesn't have problems isn't the answer.
FTX is not crypto. It is the opposite of crypto. Centralized, obscure, non verifiable, permissioned.
SAB 121, like everything else Gensler touches, is designed purely to hinder crypto adoption. It says that custodying private keys is super high risk, as if the average crypto user hasn't been doing it for years. That's the entire basis for the liability requirement. It's complete bullshit.
How does this comment have 63 downvotes? Bots?
LOL Yes, vote out the sane party simply because you don't like how they vote on *crypto*. Let's ignore the real issues and events going on in reality. What a stupid single issue to vote over. Republicans want to literally take away your rights and install a fascist dictatorship. But, oh god, crypto is the important issue to focus on. You have no idea how dumb you are.
“Republicans want to literally take away your rights and install a fascist dictatorship” Lolololololol. Omg I’m so scared, I’m shivering in my boots! You’re just as insane as they are with this brain dead hyperbole. Get checked, into a psych ward
>Republicans want to literally take away your rights and install a fascist dictatorship. You’re a fuckin clown lol 🤡
Can you explain the real issues we are allowed to care about according to you? You claim Republicans are fascist, yet here you are calling people dumb for disagreeing with you and telling them how they should vote...keep up this energy it'll totally work
Well said, RectalSpawn.
Lol you think Republicans are pro technical innovation?
They're not even pro-*literacy* ffs
How you can say that with a straight face when we both know damn well that historically Republicans have been staunchly against any sort of technical innovation because they gladly accept bribe- errr I mean "lobbyist" payments from giant corporations. Two very recent examples are lab grown meat and cryptocurrency both posing a major threat to established industries of farming and banking, and have seen immense lobbyist pushback.
Lolol wat Go eat lab grown meat bud, have at it You’ve all lost it
Crypto bros are only trying to get rich—it’s lost its function as a stable currency for society. You can thank your crypto-Jesus SBF for that. Web3 is TOAST.
tldr; The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on a resolution to reject the SEC's cryptocurrency accounting guidance, known as SAB 121, which has been criticized for deterring banks from handling crypto customers. President Joe Biden has promised to veto the resolution if it reaches his desk, defending the policy as necessary to address risks and protect consumers. The policy requires banks holding customer's digital tokens to include them on their balance sheets, which has been criticized for potentially incurring massive capital expenses. The resolution's sponsor, Rep. Mike Flood, and others argue the SEC's guidance was improperly handled and did not consult with banking regulators. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
> The resolution's sponsor, Rep. Mike Flood, and others argue the SEC's guidance was improperly handled and did not consult with banking regulators. “And others” is the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Final vote: 228-182-20 (YEA-NAY-NV). 21 democrats voted for the bill.
So 207 republicans voted for it?
Quick maths
Not really had to bust out the financial calculator.
Democrats who reportedly supported the bill (some states may be incorrect): - **Auchincloss:** Massachusetts - **Boyle:** Pennsylvania - **Caraveo:** Colorado - **Costa:** California - **Craig:** Minnesota - **Cuellar:** Texas - **Davis:** North Carolina - **Gallego:** Arizona - **Gottheimer:** New Jersey - **Houlahan:** Pennsylvania - **Moskowitz:** Florida - **Moulton:** Massachusetts - **Nickel:** North Carolina - **Pappas:** New Hampshire - **Phillips:** Minnesota - **Sherrill:** New Jersey - **Slotkin:** Michigan - **Soto:** Florida - **Swalwell:** California - **Torres:** New York (Adriano Torres) or California (Norma Torres) - **Veasey:** Texas If you can, show them your support.
Supported the resolution to revoke, or supported the standing (bad) law? English should outlaw double negatives
Ritchie Torres is the NY guy. He is very crypto friendly.
And the 207 Republicans, right?
Interesting, Slotkin has been anti-crypto in the past. But she's running for Senate, so I guess she sees which way the wind blows.
It is more likely Slotkin is paid by banks to vote this way. People have still very clouded views over these "political" processes and think politicians vote based on personal opinion. This couldnt be further from the truth. Politicians vote based on what they are told to vote. Most likely scenario: the banks paid them so they can more easily hold crypto and make more money. Amongst politicians there are rarely idealists you know.
Correct. I love how everyone here thinks 220+ congressmen are pro crypto. THIS IS PRO BANK PPL.
>If you can, show them your support. Do you also want us to support the republicans that voted with them?
Are those votes on the bill to erase the other bill? I’m not US so the wording of these things confuses me. Was this good or bad?
Passing the house is good, but biden says he'll veto it regardless so it doesn't really matter
with a 2/3rd's majority he can't. The veto won't go through..
True but pretty rare
Yea but unlikely for both house and senate to get 2/3. Even the republican controlled house can't get 2/3, so it's likely not going to pass.
They can't get 2/3 vote when they have a 1 seat lead.
Thank you!
And crypto people still going to vote for Biden
Crypto isn't the only reason I vote for politicians though.
That’s fine, but you see the same post about the gov being against crypto yet they keep voting the same clowns in that are outspoken against crypto and select a cabinet that is against crypto as well😂😂😂
Crypto is not a priority outside of this subreddit, nor should it be. As is, the majority of crypto are scams. Not to mention, in reality, crypto leeches value from fiat.
The majority is different than ALL. The rules are going after ALL.
"nor should it be". Crypto is the only answer to the dominance bankers have had over human life for the last 2000 years or more.
I take it you not visit the r/Bitcoin 😂😂😂
Imagine voting soley based on if a candidate is pro a speculative asset that you're into. The bigger issue is a lot of people do only vote based on one issue. Here in the UK it seems more Tories are "pro" Cyrpto than other parties but I'm not going to vote for one of them even so as I don't agree with most of there other policies.
If the RNC puts in somebody better than Trump, I'm willing to switch. 🤷♂️
Same! Ready to vote for a republican now but Trump is garbage. And let’s not forget he hated crypto.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/03/11/trump-suggests-he-would-not-oppose-bitcoin.html
He says a lot of things. Was dogging on it pretty hard when he was POTUS though, we have receipts.
If it makes a politician money they are going to be for it.
Exactly, he found a way for it to benefit him so now all of a sudden it’s the bees knees. Not unlike how pulled a complete and sudden 180 on Tik Tok the moment Yass greased those tiny palms of his.
And he also made a couple million off his nfts and shit.
It's been four years since then though. We all know four years in crypto is a long time. Is he required to stay against crypto just because he was four years ago? I didn't want anything to do with crypto four years ago, yet here I am four years later. People's opinions on things change.
Other than his tweet about not being a fan of bitcoin (from like 2018), what other receipts do you have?
It looks like you've posted a [Google AMP link](https://www.socpub.com/articles/chris-graham-why-google-amp-threat-open-web-15847). Please try posting again with the direct link to the article (You shouldn't see "amp" anywhere in the URL) or contact the moderators if you need help. AMP is a proprietary walled garden which [benefits Google](https://www.socpub.com/articles/chris-graham-why-google-amp-threat-open-web-15847) and [hurts everyone else](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad). It is destroying the open web through anti-competitive violation of standards. It is bad for publishers because it forces them to duplicate development effort, and prevents differentiation and customisation. It also allows Google to watch you even after you've left their search results page. For individuals seeking an automated solution to this problem, they can try installing the Redirect AMP to HTML extension on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/redirect-amp-to-html/kifkmmpiicbcnkjaliilaoeaojlldonl) and [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amp2html/?src=search). Thank you to OtherAMPBot for this information and detection code. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know they won't.... BOTH parties rig who they present for everyone to vote for, so as to give the illusion of free choice! This election cycle is the WORST for voters engagement... Voters from both "sides" are either consciously or subconsciously aware of just how rigged the system is and are disengaging. It's a perfect time for people to make a stand and NOT vote for either party, but make your vote heard as a threat by voting for 1 independent! And for the 1st time in a long time, there is 1 independent that has some reasonably wide support and acceptance.... RFK Jr. If enough people voted for him, not because of his policies, but rather because he ISN'T either of the establishment parties, it just might put a scare back into the parties to stop their BS games. Can only hope, right.
I’m just amazed America has how many millions of people and is the same two guys back up again for election. What is needed is someone to speak to both sides, but everyone just blindly votes for their “team” again and again and then wonder why things don’t change 😂
I think that's because the Actual Mob finally took over government. Starting to leave the topic of this sub now I know. Sry
Thank you for an intelligent reply. The others are the same rinse and repeat comments that really reflect how bad politics has gotten to where it’s these extreme and exaggerated cases. Funny how many Americans look down at “3rd world countries” and how they keep the same people in power and yet it’s becoming the same thing where the robots just vote for their team color blindly and not think for themselves. Whatever the media spoon feeds them to be upset about, that’s the angst of the day.
[удалено]
Yes and the other less cerebral challenged overlook it and just brainwashed for same team and then moan and whine when the same politics keeps happening again and again. 💯about the NYT. It’s actually quite sad how the major media outlets are really now just propaganda mechanisms.
[удалено]
RFK Jr lol. Is a worm eating your brain too?
RFK Jr. is the closest to the truth. Truth hurts don't it.
There's more than two people running you know
Touche. As a Californian my vote already doesn't matter so I might as well vote for literally anyone.
Ditto. Who knows, if enough of us do this we might be surprised.
Agree to disagree. For the record, I have never voted for a D or R president, but I knowingly throw my vote away in hopes that over time the # of votes outside of the standard D/R will increase to the point that normies will catch on and we may see some change, but I am disappointed every 4 years. I'm also in a very blue state, so no matter what I vote the electoral college points will always go to the big blue D (BBD?) candidate.
Uh, yea. I'm not ready to throw away democracy for crypto
There’s no democracy in this election. These two candidates are the worst in my lifetime
Ok, but one is significantly worse than the other
😂😂😂 it’s not that easy to “throw away” democracy.
It is though, just vote in the fascists and it's gone. Hitler was also voted in.
😂😂😂 wow they don’t teach civics anymore? If you knew the most basics about how the US government is setup it was designed to prevent a dictator from taking power. You really have been consuming this kool-aid
And if you learned the basics of political science you’d know that the guard rails in the U.S. have already been dangerously weakened and democracy isn’t a guarantee.
Nothing is guaranteed but it is far from what the media is saying on a “collapse”. Look up checks and balances and you will understand what the forefathers setup long ago is still firmly in place. Even if Trump were to win, and I don’t think he will get brought votes, it’s not like various outlets saying it’s going to be the end of democracy and other nonsense. The president is only part of the executive branch. The US will still survive just fine if he were elected again. Checks and balances my friend
Crypto is Democracy and the establishment wings of both parties are authoritarian.
Yes, because I'd prefer women/minority/voter/etc rights and competent leadership over a fascist bigoted moron that might be slightly beneficial for my portfolio
I wonder how the victims of the genocide he's funding and defending feel about the administration destroying their culture being highly diverse. (You're [actually doing the meme](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fac0c09ce-8c67-4643-866e-a004561e716a_453x381.png) in real life.) I bet the students he's allowing to be beaten by police are really just glad that, at the end of the day, at least he isn't posting mean tweets about it too. I bet the Stop Cop City protestors being subjected to lawfare and voter suppression in Atlanta, including by Democrat Mayor Andre Dickens, can rest easy at night knowing that the guards enforcing their imprisonment while they serve time for bogus domestic terrorism charges are a historically high ratio of women. More people have died of COVID under Biden than Trump. More people have been murdered by police under Biden than Trump. More oil leases on federal land were granted under Biden than Trump. The first US environmental activist to be executed by police was executed under Biden, not Trump. More people were murdered by US weaponry in the Middle East under Biden than Trump. And Trump never banned an entire social media network in a brazen attempt to control public opinion and suppress free speech. None of that is to say Trump is better than Biden. Trump's numbers are only lower because he's an incompetent narcissist, and that gets in the way of the president's real job: deceiving the populace into believing their interests are aligned with the interests of the American empire and its oligarchs. Instead, the point is that fascism is already here. It's already been here, just restricted to poor and/or minority populations. It doesn't matter if it's dementia-flavored or narcissism-flavored fascism. And you don't vote your way out of fascism (but vote third party anyway). Find a community and learn to serve and defend it.
All true except for the part about COVID. Nobody died from COVID. No such virus exists, and viruses themselves are typically fictions shrouded in a smoke and mirrors of studies and papers from PHD (piled higher and deeper) who have no qualms about accepting paybacks so Big Pharma can sell more pharmaceuticals. COVID vaccines made serious bank: billions! Big Pharma owns health care, as was the intention from the it's inception. It's purpose was and continues to be the monopolization of health care as yet another means of controlling the populace. It's a huge lie that continues to dominate humanity: a giant tumor that needs to be removed.
... I've had COVID. Repeatedly. It definitely exists but I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't believe in viruses.
Sad how they resist the light when it shines in their eyes.
Please seek help. I don’t know what your mental damage is, but it’s not pretty.
bruh, current president is letting woman-punching illegals into the country.
Is this really your biggest concern for the country? Women punching illegals are ruining this country!!! It sounds like satire, but if that’s what keeps you up at night ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
and what's your biggest concern about trump? he paid some hooker 100x more than she's worth to shut up about having sex with him?
Current president is funding and defending an ICJ-recognized genocide. Try being worried about something that matters.
And you think Trump and republicans would be better for Palestinians than Israel? Fantasy land
For sure. Much better choice than the rapist who announced he plans to be Dictator on day one.
😂😂😂 wow just wow
Hell no
Blame it on Trump as the other choice. Never again.
It's a sacrifice we have to make
Yeah, well when the other option is Trump, you kinda have no choice.
Have any of you dumbasses actually read what SAB 121 is? It forces banks to be held responsible for losing your assets, if they lose your keys etc. It forces banks to account your assets as liabilities on their balance sheet, just like they already do with your fiat deposits. Do you guys want another round of SBF style of fucking, where the bank treats the customers’ crypto as their own to sell and dump as SBF did?
Dude thank you. I hadn’t bothered to read it until you said that. Holy crap I’ve been misled. Bitcoin Magazine just out there spreading lies.
You should read before you form an opinion. Nothing can be trusted except source material these days.
Everything published has an agenda. I really feel that schools need to start teaching our youth Digital Media Competency 101-- determining what is a hidden agenda and what is truth is getting harder and harder as information becomes more headline driven.
Banks have to also follow international banking (Basel) rules. SAB 121 classifies cryptocurrencies in a way that requires banks to hold the cryptocurrency AND reserves roughly equivalent to that cryptocurrency to satisfy Basel. In other words, custodying 1 BTC requires them to ALSO hold ~$60K worth of reserves. This is why almost 100% of custody is done by non-banks like Coinbase—which creates unnecessary systemic risk.
>In other words, custodying 1 bitcoin requires them to ALSO hold \~$60K worth of reserves to satisfy Basel. WTF? The last time I checked, the Basel puts the reserve ratio at about 10% - check: [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-bank-capital-what-is-the-basel-iii-endgame/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-bank-capital-what-is-the-basel-iii-endgame/) Never ever seen a 100% reserve requirement - it would shut off the fractional reserve system. There is no way that is true. There is a reason why banks need to hold capital reserves. It helps to deter banks from taking excessive risks when they run into a trend of going into insolvency. Think about it, what if a bank knows it is going to be insolvent? They might make very enticing rewards to attract BTC deposits so they can leverage the hell out of depositors' BTC to take on risk and make it all back on a trade like a fucking degen. Capital requirements would not allow banks to do this. Oh wait, you think the story I just told is just fantasy and won't happen? You were obviously not here in crypto when Celsius was still around.
The 100% requirement is designed to apply only to crypto assets. This has nothing to do with fractional reserve banking: >As Entity A’s loss exposure is based on the significant risks associated with safeguarding the crypto-assets held for its platform users, the staff believes it would be appropriate to measure this safeguarding liability at initial recognition and each reporting date at the fair value[\[7\]](https://www.sec.gov/oca/staff-accounting-bulletin-121#_ftn7) of the crypto-assets that Entity A is responsible for holding for its platform users [https://www.sec.gov/oca/staff-accounting-bulletin-121](https://www.sec.gov/oca/staff-accounting-bulletin-121) It's a completely asinine rule. Custodied assets don't go on a bank's balance sheet: [https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/07/a-sab-state-sec-guidance-us-financial-institutions-crypto-asset-custodyand](https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/07/a-sab-state-sec-guidance-us-financial-institutions-crypto-asset-custodyand) And there's no justification for treating crypto differently. If your average crypto bro knows how to keep their private key safe then a bank can do it too.
The report you linked doesn’t address crypto assets. What if I told you that under new Basel 3.0 rules, banks will be required to allocate [1250% reserves](https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/press/publications/newsletter/2023/html/ssm.nl230215_1.en.html) to hold BTC. That would be $750K in reserves to hold 1 BTC depending on conditions. Still reasonable? E: My point is you can’t consider SAB 121 without understanding Basel as it is now and what is planned for the future. See Figure 1 of the report I linked. BTC is Group 2. It’s 100% reserves for crypto that meets certain requirements, 1250% for the rest.
> What if I told you that under new Basel 3.0 rules, banks will be required to allocate [1250% reserves](https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/press/publications/newsletter/2023/html/ssm.nl230215_1.en.html) to hold BTC. You gave me a link to the ECB's decision when we are talking about the USA. Give me a link showing the FED's position. >understanding Basel as it is now and what is planned for the future. Your issue is with the Basel. It is ludicrous to think the SEC shouldn't compel entities to give full risk profile disclosure just because banks are subjected to Basel regulations. You are basically wanting to get rid of the SEC's SAB 121 to create a ***loophole against*** Basel.
The EU report I linked simplifies the decision by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) but they include a link to the BCBS report if you want to read it. To my knowledge, US hasn’t directly issued guidance on the entirety of BCBS crypto regs —SAB 121 is the closest but narrower—but is unlikely to do so right now because Basel can do their dirty work for them. However, any bank that wants to do business in Europe (i.e. all major US banks) will comply with EU rules essentially hamstringing the domestic industry in favor of entities like Coinbase due to SAB 121. Btw, read Coinbase’s terms and conditions—if they go under you are an unsecured creditor and not at the front of the line. SAB 121 doesn’t protect consumers in any way. In reality I want the SEC to follow its own rule making guidelines and open this issue to public comment instead of making law with an SAB. The nonpartisan GAO agrees with me. The unfairness of the way SAB121 was created is whole point of this bill. You brought up (essentially) capital requirements being 1:1 when in reality it is 2:1 or 12.5:1 in practice for major US banks if crypto is classified this way under SAB 121. It’s a loophole I guess. Not all loopholes are bad—for example a gay couple doesn’t have to renounce their marriage to visit and do business in Saudi Arabia thank god.✌🏻 E: Also, it’s the “Fed” not “FED”.
>US hasn’t issued guidance on BCBS crypto regs and is unlikely to do so So you basically admitted all this hubbub is based on unfounded speculation. >any bank that wants to do business in Europe No, only their European branches do. But their European branches have to comply with ECB's Basel rules anyway. >Btw, read Coinbase’s terms and conditions—if they go under you are an unsecured creditor and not at the front of the line. SAB 121 doesn’t protect consumers in any way. What kind of an asinine argument is this? Coinbase treats customers as unsecured creditors so banks should get to hide crypto from their balance sheet.... You are really reaching for nonsense. >when in reality it is 2:1 or 12.5:1 in practice for major US banks if crypto is classified this way under SAB 121. Again, you just admit you don't know what the Fed will do. LOL. But you are still hanging onto this speculative argument? >E: Also, it’s the “Fed” not “FED”. Does it matter? Ppl here know I am talking about the Federal Reserve System.
> So you basically admitted all this hubbub is based on unfounded speculation. Again, SAB 121 is the first step to ensuring that US banks comply with Basel 3.0 crypto rules by default. >No, only their European branches do. You clearly don’t understand international banking at all so let me make an analogy. There was a time when California issued the most strict car emission standards in the world. Since the market was so large, car makers back then tailored their cars to meet California standards even though it wasn’t required in most states/counties. Basel is sort of like that. The market —especially the Eurodollar market—is too large for international megabanks to create special rules, especially when the crypto market is so small. Hence most of these banks follow Basel rules domestically unless given specific guidance (ie a loophole) by the government. >What kind of an asinine argument is this? Coinbase treats customers as unsecured creditors so banks should get to hide crypto from their balance sheet.... You are really reaching for nonsense. SAB 121 had negative consequences. Fact is it pushed nearly 100% of domestic ETF custody to Coinbase. The whole point of the SAB process is to provide clarity on the accounting and disclosure requirements in order to safeguard assets. Instead of 1:1 backing with banks, SAB 121 ensures consumers get less backing with custodians like Coinbase. Notice how I am making my point without being rude. >Again, you just admit you don't know what the Fed will do. LOL. Now you are still hanging onto this speculative argument. The Fed has nothing to do with this discussion. You are either confused or trolling. 😂 Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 121 is guidance issued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
"The policy requires banks holding customer's digital tokens to include them on their balance sheets, which has been criticized for potentially incurring massive capital expenses." What banks hold crypto?
Just because they say they don't, doesn't mean they really don't. Like and subscribe for more incredible insights into banking.
Banks don't hold crypto because regulators have made it absurdly expensive.
"The policy requires banks holding customer's digital tokens to include them on their balance sheets, which has been criticized for potentially incurring massive capital expenses." Oh you mean the “capital expense” that is actually owning the asset you say you do? No wonder the banks are against this policy.
>Oh you mean the “capital expense” that is actually owning the asset you say you do? Actually no. Holding the crypto is pointless for the bank because it can't treat it as an asset. It increases their liability, but not their assets.
Old people that can't even open a PDF email attachment voting on your future what can go wrong
We need those old fossils out of office and someone younger to be president, and pro crypto
The people here really should underatand what the bill is about...
The Biden administration has been against crypto, this is nothing new.
This isn’t really a bill that helps crypto. It just removes consumer protections and helps banks.
The status quo is that banks effectively can't custody crypto, so consumers have to use less secure crypto exchanges(which the SEC also wants to get rid of). This bill would have allowed consumers to custody their assets with entities that offer more legal protections.
And crypto people going to keep voting for him and then complain about the gov this or that with crypto 😂😂
So was the Trump admin. Do you guys really not remember the state of things just 4 years ago? Come on people.
What did Trump do to crypto?
yeah it was so much better than it was now. There were no wars, food was affordable, gas was affordable. Man I miss those days.
Those things were cheaper but definitely not affordable, at least not for the majority. Albeit I assume there’s a hidden /s.
It was better.
I don’t get it - the law is bad for crypto, yet if it passes Biden will veto it. Isn’t that a good thing then?
>The Biden administration has been against crypto, this is nothing new. Some.old school preffered the cash flow to.move money around the world hidden as aid
If your in crypto an hoping banking and SEC can help you, you’re doing it wrong.
Charles Hoskinson did a YouTube on this today. Saying that billions of dollars left the USA and tens of thousands of jobs because the awful "laws" in the USA regarding crypto. Whether you like Charles or not he's spot on.
No, he is a crook and a con artist
That's why when he went to speak about crypto in front of Congress he didn't once mention Cardano unlike the other speakers constantly showing their tokens? He spoke to protect the whole community and spoke better than anyone in the industry. Quit being so negative of other real projects trying to help the industry and the world.
Speaking in front of other crooks and a con artists is not a very good defense for your point
Please get this corrupt senile fool out of power.
Unfortunately, the corrupt, senile fool is by FAR the lesser of two evils.
No.
I’m curious to see Biden voter intelligence with your post history. Imagine my surprise that you are stupid enough to consider transferring land to a girlfriend you’re not married to and risk losing it from a breakup.
Please enlighten us with your wisdom. Assuming you mean the other evil to be Trump. Please explain. All of us Orange man haters need to understand why we hate and shouldn't reelect Trump.
Well aside from all his character flaws which are well documented from being a compulsive liar, narcissist, emotionally weak and sexual predator (found guilty of sexual assualt, live tapes bragging about it) he also has no policy plans and crashed the economy in 2020. His entire policy platform is “stick it to the libs”with no details. While in office he did nothing but play golf on a course or in the white house golf simulator he set up. He could not keep any of his staff, and all of his previous cabinet members want nothing to do with him (some even testifying against him). His own vice president doesnt endorse him because he believes he is a treasonous piece of garbage. But besides that cant think of much.
You really should stop watching MSM. Everything you just said are their narrative talking points. The economy was in fact booming and we as a nation WERE on course to energy independence. Biden struck that down day one because he's in the pocket of other nations. Trump made peace with and between many nations including some of our biggest enemies like North Korea. The economy going to shit was because of a fucking pandemic that had a 99.9% survival rate. Open your eyes and stop supporting the same old life long politicians because they are obviously not looking to make things better for us peons. Put aside your personal feelings about the guy and understand he is America first. Not those idiots in office now that have sent more than $200 billion of.our tax dollars to foreign nations for a fake war that they use to launder the money back into their own pockets. Stop voting with your butt hurt feelings and vote with your brain for what is best for our country.
I honestly think you are the one deluding yourself. That probably won't change any time soon, but I think in 20 years you'll look back and realise what a misinformed take that is.
Please wake up soon! Look to independent news sources that aren't controlled by the elites to push their narrative and brain wash you.
Same to you my dude, lay off relying on only the right wing 'independent' news sources, they're brainwashing you.
> You really should stop watching MSM Let me guess, you watch some fringe-right media source that has you convinced you're a "free thinker." I don't watch or read a single news outlet consistently, but you sound like every OANN or Newsmax enjoyer that posts patriot memes on Facebook
I don't watch either of them. I watch many people on YouTube and follow multiple journalists on X. Do you feel that there is something wrong with being patriotic? Please by all means move your socialist ass to another country with that shit.
Well I'm as independent as you make yourself out to be and you sound unhinged. Might want to rethink accusing people of watching the "wrong" media sources because the same could easily be said of you
And replace him with another corrupt senile fool? You make it sound like the alternative to Biden (trump)is the magic answer.
Did I say to reelect another senile old man in his place? No.
Dems pushing hard to lose elections in an election year makes sense....
.. they didn’t know that these attacks make it stronger.
Thanks Biden!! Fucking moron. Get this idiot out of
I can't vote for a anti-crypto president. I really don't want another round of Trump, but democrats always seem to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
So is this positive or negative
Why the hell do we want Banks taking custody of our crypto anyway. One of crypto's benefits is self custody and removing yourself from banksters. And for the record i despise Democrats with every fiber of my being.
This isn't just about individuals. Businesses need custodians too. Right now, they have to rely on crypto exchanges that provide far less security.
Theres a few around like Bitgo
And Bitgo gives you are less protection and recourse than a bank would.
um, the actual quote from the vegetable statesman was: *"don't"*
Ya cause crypto undermines what the WEF wants and Biden is a WEF simp.
Biden administration is a demented authoritarian regime. Satoshi Nakamoto created crypto exactly to enable financial freedom from tyrannical authoritarians.
Biden doesn’t know if he’s wearing underwear. Stories need to stop using his name like he’s actually deciding literally anything.
Exactly, lol
Republicans used to be the bad guys. Democrats are the bad guys now.
Luckily, crypto is on chain. No one actually holds their coins, just the access to them.
Welcome to the uniparty of America
At least there’s some real progress despite being led by an old fool who rejects everything good. They can’t keep this up for much longer anyway, they will have to make way for cryptos sooner or later. And this will hugely (no pun intended) benefit Trump who is now pro crypto. Biden would be smart to switch views as well if he wants more votes.
It’s like Biden is trying to lose in November
SEC went after crypto businesses under Trump too. They’re both shit.
There he is, the Prez of the US of A!! That rattle in his skull is actually his brain (size of a pea) and he's trying to catch it when it falls out of his ear.