It’s Official, Democrats Are Now Anti-Crypto

It’s Official, Democrats Are Now Anti-Crypto

Source Node: 2095444

A leaked memo of talking points to Democrats has made clear what many in the crypto world would rather have kept in denial: Democrats now have an anti-crypto party line.

The memo leaked by Fox Business journalist Eleanor Terrett was handed out to Congressional Committee members prior to a rare joint meeting on crypto between the Senate and the House held last week.

The memo argues “the SEC must continue to lead the regulation of the US crypto market,” even though Congress has given the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) no explicit authority to do so.

The SEC chair himself Gary Gensler said just over a year ago “we need additional congressional authority.”

There is no turf war between the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and SEC, the memo argued, yet Gensler himself has been explicit in stating laws are needed to set up the boundaries and jurisdictions between CFTC and SEC on crypto.

Instead SEC should decide everything, the memo says, even though Gensler himself is on the record as stating that ultimately it would be decided by courts.

That was expressed during his mini-course on the blockchain at MIT, planning since then presumably to engage in this law through enforcement approach.

Because otherwise as any lawyer knows, especially a constitutional lawyer, it isn’t courts that decide these matters. Courts adjudicate based on laws passed by Congress.

It is for Congress to decide, not courts, not SEC, and not Democrats. But there’s a debt ceiling bill to be passed, Democrats say, so ignore crypto and in effect allow the continuation of the breach of the separation of powers. A breach of the constitution as well because you can not enforce a law that is uncertain.

That is why the crypto industry points out the uncertainty, and in a situation where the Chair himself is of the view that the only way to know the law is to drag a case all the way to the supreme court for an entire $1 trillion industry, that the law is unclear is obvious, without even needing the Chair’s refusal to answer a simple question on this clear law regarding whether eth is a security.

“We can’t invent,” the memo says, “accommodating regulatory structures.” In which case they should be fired, as maybe they will in the election next year, because the whole point of having them is to come up with accommodative structures, otherwise known as making law.

They are not there to just play politics. They are there to deal with difficult decisions, and how to strike the balance between capital formation and investor protection in the digital age with instruments like self executing code, is one such decision.

The Democrats however say in this memo “the SEC has made clear that nearly all crypto assets are securities.”

Who made SEC the lawmaker? SEC is a bureaucracy meant to enforce clear law from Congress. They don’t make the law in the Republic, and therefore it’s not for them to say just what exactly is a security.

Even by their own argument however, what does “nearly” mean here? There are currently 24,000 cryptos on Coinmarketcap. Nearly would generally mean maybe 100 cryptos in this case. Which ones?

Litecoin is obviously not a security. Dash is not a security. BCH is not. USDc/t are not a security, they are clear currencies and therefore explicitly out of SEC’s jurisdiction under that ancient Securities Act 1933.

Now if you’re going to go into the business of interpreting the law, which is unconstitutional for SEC, you can of course stretch the words to mean whatever you want, as SEC’s chair has in ignoring the currency part for stablecoins to find something they might be ‘like’ that is a security.

He has a duck test for some, and then for plenty of other things it’s a whatever Gensler thinks test. And if we are going to have a Gensler system, we might as well get back the king to enjoy the pageantry of royalty as well as its French version.

The problem isn’t ambiguity, the memo claims. That’s a lie. Ambiguity is precisely the problem and if they were not engaging in politicking but were actually looking at the matter, they would say as much too.

Because is Dogecoin a security? There is almost no difference between bitcoin and dogecoin so the answer is no. Yet SEC has not said that Dogecoin is not a security, and therefore officially the answer is maybe, and maybe is the definition of ambiguity.

In turning on its head the principle of innocent until proven guilty, or better said the fundamental principle that all which is not explicitly illegal is legal, these Democrats say we should all first wait for SEC to say which crypto is not a security, and only then can we consider it a commodity.

That argues we should all operate on the default that everything is a security, even if it isn’t. That wasn’t the intent of Congress in 1933 was it?

SEC relies on its own interpretation of a court interpretation of two words in the law passed by Congress nearly a century ago, “investment contract.”

What contract do you sign when you mine dogecoin on your university computers? Oh but forget the word contract, SEC says, it’s instead an investment in an enterprise. The dogecoin enterprise?

We all know what enterprise means. Almost all cryptos are not an enterprise. However here Gensler stretches his interpretation of an interpretation of an ancient law even further. The word enterprise itself doesn’t matter either, it’s about basically whether they should be doing it.

Since the matter of ‘should’ is very much one of opinion and involves significant tradeoffs, we have a system where we elect representatives to decide on that matter of should.

And yet here are Democrats, elected to do that job, telling Republicans they should not be engaging in the business of passing laws and focus instead on the debt ceiling debate, as if there is only one lawmaker in Congress that can deal with only one thing at a time.

This approach to governance by Democrats strikes to the root of equity and fairness because our ancestors have gone through a lot to ensure we are not governed by a system where one old former banker decides the question of should.

And that they see none of it indicates Democrats clearly have no clue about crypto. The aides to Joe Biden have themself said as much that they lack crypto expertise.

And Gensler has no expertise either, whether in law or in code. He is a trader by profession, a gambler on the stock market for Goldman Sachs.

So it is no surprise he has no respect for the law at all, and is completely clueless about code, but for representatives whose reason de tra is making law, to show such disrespect for it in this memo is slightly surprising.

We can only conclude they are brainwashed borgs, bliss in ignorance, quick to conclusions, dismissive without care, and they probably have an air of righteousness to all of it too.

Yet to us it looks evil. Both the undermining of the constitutional foundations of the United States, the complete disrespect for the public to whom they say ‘we won’t innovate for you’ and most crucially the betrayal of the voters.

These Democrats were singing a very different tune during the 2020 election. We shouldn’t leave crypto to Republicans, they were saying. We are crypto friendly too. Biden signing an executive order on crypto was meant to show as much.

Yet the two faced dems turn around and argue a former banker should be the sole decision maker over an entire brand new technology even though the banker has no expertise at all on this tech.

To us this says dems have become the puppets of banks, not least because this memo could have come straight from the old bankers.

So much for dems being the working man’s party, or caring about minorities who are often disenfranchised by banks.

These dems instead, as we have seen for the past two years, are bad for business, bad for the economy, bad for the living standards of the working man, and bad at their job.

Only a dem in bankers’ pockets would dare say we won’t innovate when without adapting to change you’re a dinosour.

At least though we have gained some clarity. Now it is fairly undeniable that dems hate crypto, so F them.

That’s the party toe-lining dems, the borgs, as otherwise we shouldn’t generalize because there are plenty of dem voters that crypto and there are even some dems in Congress who are friendly to crypto.

But there’s the party line, and whoever as well as whenever that is followed, they are the blue borgs, the mindless machine that doesn’t care about nuance, equity, fairness or indeed justice as a due process of law is the definition of justice.

Under this administration that due process has been denied to this space, and where principles are concerned books say in such situation there is no administration as such, there certainly is no SEC.

It exists, like nukes are out there, but they’re not ‘real’ as it is the due process that gives SEC the authority and that it has not been followed is clear.

Just what dems have done, is less clear. We’ll find out in due time the consequences of plainly going against an innovative fast growing new industry that solves the real problem of banks gambling with your money.

As well as the problem of custodians abusing your trust. From Zimbabwe to Argentina, SVB or indeed the Fed crashing the economy because it printed too much, that abuse of trust is far too real, it affects everyone, and unfortunately it is far too common too.

But the borg doesn’t know, at best. And we don’t care. We’ll hate them back just as much instead because we owe them nothing.

It is a trap though. All they know in Washington DC is how to divide the United States, turning apolitical matters into partisan slings of mindless brainwashing talking points.

Yet when you’re attacked, you’re not quite given a choice. So we’ll just hope they’ve miscalculated as much as Putin has and like that dictator find out too they also are uninformed in this matter, way overestimate their strengths, and ultimately that they are corrupt bankers’ puppets.

Time Stamp:

More from TrustNodes