A recent WSJ piece, “Biden Races to Trump-Proof His Agenda,” speaks partially to why we should all expect significant regulatory action targeting the industry for the remainder of the year – but only part of the story. Two years ago one might have concluded that Congress was, if not friendly, then at least ambivalent toward Bitcoin, but Elizabeth Warren has changed that dynamic. I still believe most members are ambivalent, thus supporting Warren’s crusade earns them political chits while costing them nothing politically – hence the bipartisan support of the bill.
But in this current Congress, you might say, Warren’s legislation is going nowhere. Probably true.
But here’s the point many miss - without a political risk to candidates in tight races, partisan regulators are free to attack the industry w/o risking political damage. If candidates in key races started paying a political cost for their support of this crackdown, you’d see the heat on the industry promptly dissipate, as they kept their powder dry for what they hope will be a more sympathetic Congress next session.
The disadvantage people who actually believe in something bear is the conviction that, if others only understood, they would come around to your POV. Unfortunately politics functions differently – power and influence, this is what drives decision making. This is about as good a time as any to turn that conviction into a political voice.
@jack mallers @jack @ODELL @Peter McCormack
