Stablecoins Get Another Headache In US, Ethereum Camp Feels Attacked Too

Total
0
Shares

The stablecoin regulation act proposed in the US Congress has once again stressed an important difference between centralized and decentralized projects in terms of regulation. (Updated at 13:22 UTC: updates in bold.)

There is much discussion currently in the Cryptoverse over the recent announcement of an act that seeks to regulate stablecoins within the US. A major one is that the act proves once more that decentralized options need to be developed more, as anything that is remotely centralized will be supressed by heavy regulation. “This is why it’s imperative to focus on *truly* decentralized and permissionless finance down the entire stack,” argued Eric Conner, a product researcher at blockchain startup Gnosis. “Any centralized points of failure will be stifled by regulation written by those who do not understand what we are building.”

Bitcoin educator Andreas M. Antonopoulos also argued that the act won’t be enacted, but what’s interesting about it is that “it can only apply, by definition, to centralized fiat-backed stablecoins, therefore making decentralized alternatives even more attractive.”

2/ I don’t like having fewer options for my money, but OTOH there is a reason why OGs push for things like denominating value in sats instead of USD….ultimately, peggedcoins are another form of slavery to fiat & tech companies, are centralized & are thus fair game for regs…

— _gabrielShapir0 (@lex_node) December 3, 2020

The restrictions posed by the bill

This week, US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, with Congressmen Jesús “Chuy” García and Chairman of Task Force on Financial Technology Rep. Stephen Lynch, introduced the so-called ‘Stablecoin Tethering and Bank Licensing Enforcement (STABLE) Act,’ aka the ‘Stablecoin Classification and Regulation Act of 2020.’

The announcement said that this act would “protect consumers from the risks posed by emerging digital payment instruments, such as Facebook’s Libra and other stablecoins currently offered in the market, by regulating their issuance and related commercial activities,” which they find particularly necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, significantly for all the current and future issuers of stablecoins wanting to do business in the US, they would have to obtain a banking charter; get an approval from the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and appropriate Federal banking agency; provide conduct an ongoing analysis of any potential systemic risk; and obtain FDIC insurance or otherwise maintain reserves at the Federal Reserve to ensure that all stablecoins can be readily converted into United States dollars, on demand.

But many, such as Meltem Demirors, CoinShares‘ Chief Strategy Officer, argued that the act would have the opposite effect of what the trio stated they want to accomplish.

Does the regulations impact Bitcoin and Ethereum?

This initiative has prompted numerous other debates within the Cryptoverse on highly complex matters, raising quite a few unanswered questions. Among these, there is a subnarrative forming that this regulation might be relevant for Ethereum (ETH) too, while Bitcoin (BTC) might be off the hook.

The basis of this very complex and unresolved argument are nodes, who runs them, what’s there done by choice, what they’re processing, and would the act make running nodes illegal – among various other layered questions. “Someone could attack Ethereum by spamming it with millions of complex transactions that result in stablecoin deposits,” said Uniswap founder Hayden Adams. “Ethereum would grind to a halt.” But Rohan Grey, a third-year J.S.D. (Doctor of Juridical Science) Candidate at Cornell Law School, replied to those arguing this and similar positions, stating “You’re taking the Ethereum network as a fixed variable and saying that it’s impossible for node validators on it to know what transactions they are verifying. I’m saying running Ethereum itself is a *choice* and if that’s an issue then change the code or run a diff network.”

Indeed. This is a crucial distinction and note that while I have no particular love for bitcoin, this bill in no way tries to regulate it out of existence or anything else precisely b/c it isn’t a systemic risk to monetary system in the same way as stablecoins.

— Rohan Grey (@rohangrey) December 3, 2020

The long discussion between Grey, OpenLaw CEO Aaron Wright and others was stopped for the lack of agreement, with Wright warning that US might be put at a competitive disadvantage.

It’s a joke and it represents a power-mad authoritarianism of US universal jurisdiction.

Precisely why decentralized systems are needed and precisely what they’re up against.

— Andreas ☮ ⚛ ⚖ (@aantonop) December 3, 2020

Other discussions include questions over what ambiguous projects could be defined as stablecoins, could the act eventually lead to banning crypto, and whether the perceived harms the authorities are trying to regulate are actually “inherent in the existing financial system that cryptocurrencies are designed to replace.”

____

More discussions:

So-called “stablecoins” are not cryptocurrencies.
They’re just competitors of PayPal.
Existing regulations should apply already…?

Cryptocurrencies don’t have providers.

Sincerely, the longest active cryptocurrency developer in the world.

— Luke Dashjr aka @[email protected] (@LukeDashjr) December 3, 2020

__

Crypto regulation in BASIC

10. Banks suck
20. Crypto works better
30. Banks fear competition, appeal to Govt regulators
40. Regulators freak out
50. Govts regulate the parts of crypto that look like banks
60. Crypto evolves to look less like banks
70. GOTO 10

— Andreas ☮ ⚛ ⚖ (@aantonop) December 3, 2020

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like