So, the senate was set to vote on the Bill today, but things changed. After Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, openly said he’s not backing it and would prefer no bill at all instead of a bad one, Tim Scott, the guy pushing the bill, decided to delay the vote.
Not sure when we'll see the next draft, but I’ll keep this thread updated with any news on the bill.
I have always been against anything that had to do with government having too much closeness with bitcoin, but most of the people I see here are so optimistic about the price surge that could happen after this bill or whatsoever bill the government will be considering to make bitcoin or crypto better is passed in to law but however, I know for sure that the government had no support for decentralized system which is obviously the opposite of their system, yet want to put crypto into such hands then its absolutely the lost of privacy, decentralization and the objective of bitcoin is defeated or the core principles of satoshi is smashed in the presence of crypto gurus.
Glad coinbase CEO disagreed and stick with the core stands of crypto, the bill will help price and profit making but will destroy it total, sad a good number of dumb ass people will still agree after many years of claiming bitcoin enthusiasts.
I am with you against all things that has to do with the government trying to get close to bitcoin, I am against in because I know the government very well.
But even if we are against it the government are getting closer to bitcoin, the government are now so close that they can affect the price of bitcoin.
There are people who want the government to add bitcoin to banks, people are asking for the government to get closer to bitcoin.
Delayed doesn't mean it won't be accepted later on after some compromise
I'm sure they would compromise on the strict AML and KYC.
It's better to be done with this so we would understand and have clarity on how the government have choosen to react
I hope they don't go strict on AML but I know that's inevitable except something is done.
What else would it be if not about the Coinbase CEO being sighted that the regulation effects of the bills will summon an indictment to crypto users at large either in terms of regulations and privacy.
Meanwhile... Privacy is one thing that gives Bitcoin and stable coins the unique mandates across users and the traditional monetary system.
Heavy taxes as I think in my opinion is that the governments had been too corrupted of over extorting investors and enterprises. So probably, Brian was siding for users freedom and maintains an average attributes of Bitcoin instead hijacking of all user Privacies or decentlization
What I know is that the CEO of Coinbase will not be fighting for the core standards of crypto. He may just be protesting for his own interest. I do not know much about him, so I can't be sure, but the business of a CEX does not uphold the core standards of Bitcoin, so I won't be surprised if our ideas don't align.
The problem is, the government, too, might not be on our side. Regulating and controlling are all they care about. If the protest was made by normal Bitcoin and crypto users in the US, I don't think the government would have listened, but they listened now because a lot of important people are against it. A lot of lobbying would have gone on behind the scenes.
People just happy are just getting excited about nothing, because I don't see how more regulation is going to affect the price positively.
If you don't trust the government, also don't trust businessmen like Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong. He is opposing this draft bill not because he likes decentralization but because it didn't favour his company. All these centralized businesses are set up for profit-making.
It's all about personal or business interest.
Another reason why Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott has halted the vote on the bill is that he has not gotten enough support. Some Republicans and Democrats are not comfortable with some provisions, and it is unlikely that he would get bipartisan support. Scott needs to take a step back and put in more work.
But is it still allowed to change the bill or improve it, so that, maybe later, like the Coinbase CEO, may agree? Because of the way Brian Armstrong disagrees with Bill, it seems it's a huge slap from the entire cryptocurrency market. Imagine for years people asking for regulation, and here comes the regulation, but it's totally not making sense at all. Which I agree with Armstrong too, it's better nothing that having like this.
I would not to think that am shocked by such a news but am sure this postponement bear a mix of politics, and maybe some policies that come with the ACT that is not well agreed upon.
For all I know Coinbase CEO is acting in self interest and I don't know why the AcT wasn't signed simply be the disagrees for some reasons that's not clear.
The great news is that the day for the current vote has been pushed to the last week of this January 2026, so we just have to stay updated and wait for the final result.
The existing Bill does not open more space of growth for DeFi that is one of reasons Brain Amstrong did not support it. I agree with him, as in order to bring cryptocurrencies to traditional finance market, DeFi must be supported more than now. While the current Bill tries to close the open space of growth for DeFi ecosystem into traditional finance.
I am not sure how a next draft of the Bill will be composed and adjusted from this failed one, but I expect to see a better Bill proposal for DeFi.
Brian is concerned about Coinbase's rewards program and how it would be negatively affected if the current draft passed. He obviously doesn't want yield-earning on stablecoins to go away or become tightly regulated. On the other hand, US banks want to protect their own interests and would rather ban stablecoin yield programs so as to not have deposits leave their banks and control.
Looks like they didn't manage to convince the majority of lawmakers to sign this bill and even those big institutions is skeptical towards this law they are trying to pass. That some show that the law they are trying to pass is half baked and maybe they don't understand or skeptical towards the real intention of this bill.
Maybe they should try to clarify everything and make sure that all parties understand on what law they are trying to pass. Since if it happens that they remain to be like this and majority of law makers will not agree on its passage for sure that this law cannot go far and will just put in sidelines.
But what is Trump's stance on the transparency bill? Is he for or against it?
In any case, what pleased me here is that cryptocurrency market participants now have some influence on cryptocurrency policy decisions in the United States. I don't know if there is such a thing as a crypto lobby, an organization operating covertly or overtly to influence US policymakers.
I read something online that the idea of staking and earning from Stable coins will come to an end which is why there is some disagreement with this clarity act votes, is this true? These people really want to control everything, I hope this never happened.
The reason why the majority of us are into crypto is because of control from the users side, but now it's looking more like the government want everything withing it's grips, this is not looking good, anyways, what I really want to see happened is a strong regulation in crypto space where there will be less space for scam projects to breath, a place where there will be consequences for every developers who only want to take advantage of their investors.
He has much more important work these days to deal with cryptocurrencies, such as which country to attack next and at the same time end a few more wars
This act will be adopted, like any other, only when all parties agree on how to divide the spoils, because in the end it's all about profit, right?
Don't you think that they are just playing with the market sentiments? This is what I am thinking, like they first say that senot is going to pass that bill, and at the same time, another news comes on social media that senat postponeding this bill for now. This totally shifted the whole market sentiment, which in result, many open trades got shifted against favour (I am talking about future trading). I mean those who may have opened their trades for long positive have liquidated themselves after that piece of news.
This way, many time authorities and big hands sift the whole market sentiments to the other side just to trap the money makers. By the way, what do you think when this bill going to be approved in the coming time? Any guess? other than this, what I stated above is just my point of view, what do you think about it? CMIIW!
While some people may jump to the conclusions that his objections are mostly about the shitcoin world, Bitcoin tends to have decentralized solutions for swapping too. Therefore, anything that impacts DeFi could have a negative impact on Bitcoin. However, he does not explain how exactly prohibitions give unlimited access to your financial records unless he means that they want to impose a blanket ban on DeFi -- which would be bad -- but this does not give government blanket access to financial records.
This seems like a corrupt order from bank lobbyists. Stablecoins pose a threat to banks.
Good. Once the EU goes down in flames on its own the world will be a less annoying place.
Absolutely wrong, Occam's razor. Do not make theories that require many assumptions and complicated, smart behavior when the same can be explained with simple ones. They are adding things based on what corrupt interests are asking them to do. Often, the politicians that are voting on large bills have actually never even read a single line of the bill in question! They just get a short summary from one of their assistants.
This may be healthier than it appears. A bill that is voted through to pass, and its contents have actively negative effects on new use cases, is a bad precedent over years. When Armstrong takes a public position (although possibly self-serving), it at least opens the discourse to the sunlight rather than letting it be quietly haggled behind closed doors by individuals who do not actually use this technology.
The tokenized equities situation is a real worry should you consider more than a quarter ahead. This is the point at which the conventional finance infrastructure is beginning to move on-chain. That ban there does not only impact crypto companies, but it impacts the ability of Nasdaq to ultimately settle trades on distributed ledgers, the possibility of having 24/7 markets, whether or not we can have access to fractional ownership outside the gates of accredited investors. To kill that because banks fear to compete is short-term thinking that entraps inefficiency.
My only hope is that this delay is the reason why there is still some time to fix the worst parts. The thread of one CEO can stall a Senate vote, proving that the industry has more leverage than it had even two years ago. That cuts both ways. It also implies regulatory capture in many directions today, not only that of banks capturing regulators but also that of crypto firms capturing regulators. At least it is not a done deal.
Right! Regardless of his personal interest or his company interest, his disagreement only surfaced the most because of his status, and I can agree that their might be more bitcoin core idealogy supporters who disagreed with the bill not for personal interest but for bitcoin or crypto world and decentralized system, however, he got more attention for his status.
Or maybe he is working on his kidnap missions, you know it takes a lot of work to kidnap another countries president, he probably will be making plans for his next target, he will still be busy for a long time.
Let's say coinbase CEO didn't disagree, and the vote was passed, were we supposed to see bitcoin above $100k?
How many people or agencies were supposed to vote and why was the voting postponed just because one person didn't agree?
When will they reconvene and do we think that changes will be made to the act?
When are they possibly reconvening, let's be optimistic that the market shall rise again.