18 Dems give GOP an assist to put GENIUS Act over the line

The Senate gave its stamp of approval on Wednesday to a massive and growing chunk of the cryptocurrency industry, blessing it with a light-touch regulatory regime that, experts say, may come with a price tag: the stability of the country’s financial system. It’s the most significant victory yet for the crypto lobby, which enjoys near-unanimous support in the Republican Party as well as significant backing from many Democrats.

This bill passed with 68 votes in support, 30 against. Eighteen Democrats joined nearly all Republicans in supporting the bill.

Just wow.

all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

I dont see how stablecoins are gunna mess with the economy

there's actually bad stuff going on right now, and especially compared to that, this doesn't seem like a problem at all

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I heard that the crypto will be insured first through FDIC so that people who don't have crypto will be screwed more than everyone else. I'm not sure if it is a scam, and I couldn't make it through the dull, statuatory language of the bill so late at night when I was too sleepy to look at it. Does anyone know what's up?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Among other things, the bill allows bank subsidiaries and big tech companies to issue their own stablecoins

    Did they change this? I thought that this bill was going to specifically exclude tech companies and be just for banks.

    The result is that stablecoin issuers may end up acting somewhat like banks, investing what stablecoin users think of as deposits in various ways. Problems may arise in the event of a crisis: stablecoin users could attempt to redeem their coins for dollars en masse, causing a run. That could then spark a mass withdrawal of the backing assets, rapidly depressing the treasury market or destabilizing banks that hold the cash that backs various coins.

    This seems like a strange criticism since the main thing the bill does is prohibit creative investment of dollar deposits backing a stablecoin:

    The bill would require stablecoins to be fully backed by liquid assets like US dollars or Treasury bills and mandate monthly public disclosures of those reserves.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Regulated stablecoins (main legislation achievement) is a big consumer benefit. Selling for USD is normal "withdrawal process". The legislation creates less of a reason for stable coins to deviate from USD value, but trading for bitcoin or other currency is much easier, as is escaping the country.

    The consumer benefit is potentially getting a 2-3% discount on payments compared to credit cards. And getting better "bank deposit" rates as companies get more competitive in sharing their reserve returns with customers.

  • source
  • parent
  • 31 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    An easier way to avoid taxes while I collect my bribes......don't mind if I do!

    The rats are stealing the cargo as they abandon ship, what a bunch of enterprising rodents we have.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    Gillibrand must be primaried. Gillibrand's top donor to her campaign was AIPAC and she's received a lot of money from Coinbase (cryptocurrency) and Andreessen Horowitz (yes Andreessen as in Marc Andreessen the egg-head Trump donor).

    Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kirsten-gillibrand/contributors?cid=N00027658&cycle=2024

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So if I get this right, people will exchange the dollar, a fiat currency, for a stablecoin. The stablecoin, itself, being a fiat currency.

    So basically, if I want to own something that isn't purely speculative, I'm going to be forced to own real estate or gold?

    What's the point of all this liquidity?!!?!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Where do you think they're stashing their money for when the dollar finally blows out?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    See you all in 2 years when the market absolutely crashes and we're (globally) bailing out the financial system again.

  • source
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The Senate gave its stamp of approval on Wednesday to a massive and growing chunk of the cryptocurrency industry, blessing it with a light-touch regulatory regime that, experts say, may come with a price tag: the stability of the country’s financial system.

    Yeah, thinking that the demise of the USD($) and its attached system is the point.

    Easiest way to get out from under the "onerous regulations" in the current financial system is to eradicate that system and replace it with the scam/multilevel market that is crypto (having little to no regulation).

    When entities make their own "coins", they'll be able to write the rules enabling the Robber Barons/Tech Bros to fuck us even harder than they are accomplishing now.

    🙄 🤡 🤷‍♂️ 🖕 💩

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Also paving the way for employees to be paid in scrip.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Totally nothing to do with Trump's own personal crypto currency scheme.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    summary: scammers ignore risks to the financial system

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Grift on steriods... here we go

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Sure! Let's pass a bill protecting shady people who make up a new money token that only a small percentage of citizens have access to. The American Nightmare. Jeebus Crepes!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    A)What is the point of bitcoin if the value is directly tied to another currency? This sounds more like a digital dollar and not a truly decentralized system.

    B) if everyone creates their own stable-coins, won’t see lose value of individual satoshi or fragments of coins if there are exchange and transaction fees on both ends?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • What is the point of bitcoin if the value is directly tied to another currency?

    well this stuff isn't Bitcoin, that's a separate system entirely, and the point isn't for these stablecoins to rise over time. the hope with them is that by using the dollars relative stability they can be used to conduct financial transactions that have a much more stable value than using something like Bitcoin

    for example the prediction-betting site Polymarket uses a stablecoin called USDC for its transactions, instaid of some other cryptocurrency

    its decentralized in a sense that it's extremely difficult to reverse transacitons and that you can keep money in a wallet without people being able to take it from you, but the value of it is set by a single company so it's isn't really decentralized

    idk how to answer your second question

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    bill allows bank subsidiaries and big tech companies to issue their own stablecoins.

    These are usually called corporate bonds. What is the fuss?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    No, Bonds are regulated.

    This is more like Disney Dollars. Remember those? Disney used to print their own money, that people could "buy" 1:1 to the Dollar, that was only redeemable at their properties. The idea was that kids going to Disney could get Disney Dollars as gifts from their relatives ahead of a trip to Disney, and then they could spend it just like cash. You could never redeem it back to USD, though, just spend it on stuff. So if you had any of the scrip left over, you had to hold it until the next time.

    Disney discontinued printing the scrip years ago, because gift cards do the same thing, only better. They still accept Disney Dollars, but ironically their discontinuation made them scarce and they sell for more than face value as collectibles.

    This bill allows any entity to create their own crypto-enabled version of Disney Dollars, collecting real money in exchange. What happens if the entity goes out of business, or "gets hacked"? I don't think this bill addresses any of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes. Gift cards is probably a better analogy.

    My main point is that this sort of thing isn't new. The crypto part is a distraction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No, the Crypto part is important, because it makes it trivialize easy to issue any number of tokens (trillions? quadrillions? 2^64?) and then trade with them. Gift cards still have the limitation that you need a network to accept them, and they are commonly understood in accounting practices so retailers need to account for them.

    How can we be sure that some random stablecoin is really backed by currency 1:1 like they claim? The largest stablecoin in use today is Tether, which claims to have over $100B in circulation, all "backed 1:1". But every audit they have released has been deficient in some way. You would think with that much money in a bank somewhere people could figure out where it all is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • it makes it trivialize easy to issue any number of tokens (trillions? quadrillions? 2^64?) and then trade with them.

    These are all fully visible. Gift cards we have no way of knowing how many there are.

    Gift cards still have the limitation that you need a network to accept them,

    Same with tokens. Only certain people will redeem certain tokens.

    and they are commonly understood in accounting practices so retailers need to account for them.

    Public blockchains are a triple ledger system. They are self accounting

    How can we be sure that some random stablecoin is really backed by currency 1:1 like they claim?

    Great question. Same with gift cards. Same with bonds.

    The largest stablecoin in use today is Tether, which claims to have over $100B in circulation, all "backed 1:1". But every audit they have released has been deficient in some way.

    Oh yes. I wouldn't touch Tether with a 12ft pole. I'm not saying stablecoins are good. I'm saying they are no different to what currently exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Money, in general, is ridiculous.

    Green paper, gold rocks, digital numbers.

    Let's go back to the barter system... or bartender system... whichever.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    You know, I've heard that the barter system, as a foundation of economics, is essentially made up. Like, obviously people barter, but the idea that it was a universal precursor to money was essentially invented by capitalists in the industrial era, who never could have dreamed of the myriad interesting ways thar people distributed wealth!

    Apparently one of the more common ones was a sort of "gifting" system, where people just gave each other what they needed. 🤷 But of course this wasn't universal either.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago

    I dont see how stablecoins are gunna mess with the economy

    there’s actually bad stuff going on right now, and especially compared to that, this doesn’t seem like a problem at all

  • source