Three Experts, Three Views
At the MIT Technology Review’s Business of Blockchain event in 2019, three cryptocurrency experts took the stage to dissect the murky waters of U.S. crypto regulation. Each brought their own flavor to the conversation—like a buffet line where everything is questionable yet tantalizingly interesting.
Caitlin Long: States as Crypto Custodians
Caitlin Long, a dignified member of the Wyoming Blockchain Task Force, asserted that digital assets should be regulated at the state level. Her argument? “States control property law, states control commercial law. Feds control securities law.” It’s like saying, let states be the babysitters while the feds handle the check-up visits. Long extolled Wyoming’s efforts to define these terms in cryptocurrency, likening it to a well-structured game of Monopoly where everyone knows the rules.
Peter Van Valkenburgh: The Case Against State Regulation
Peter Van Valkenburgh, of Coin Center wisdom, took an entirely different approach. He found state-level regulation to be more of a hindrance than a help. Imagine a world where one state’s rules feel like they were written in crayon while another state’s come with a stern warning label. Van Valkenburgh used Alabama as his poster child, stating, “You can get a money transmission license in Alabama for a $5,000 bond.” That’s right; just a five grand ticket allows you to potentially wrangle millions from the good folks of Alabama. Let’s just say he didn’t think that was a fair insurance plan.
Gary Gensler: Federal Regulation Enthusiast
Then we have Gary Gensler, the former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and current MIT lecturer, who firmly endorsed federal regulation for crypto exchanges. To him, it’s not just about pesky investor protection; it’s also about preventing money laundering. Gensler argued that requiring registrations in 50-plus jurisdictions feels more like wrestling an octopus than running a business, as crypto exchanges must navigate a jungle of red tape in each state.
A Wyoming Perspective: Innovation and Regulation
Long, ever loyal to her home state, emphasized that as digital assets are usually seen as property, they should remain under state control. She cleverly countered Gensler’s views by saying, “They’re not handling dollars,” pointing to the unique nature of cryptocurrencies. Gensler wasn’t buying it completely, suggesting instead that crypto exchanges should comply with the Bank Secrecy Act, to which Long raised an eyebrow. She predicted that the act might take a tumble at the next court challenge, given its dismal conviction rates. Welcome to the Wild West of crypto.
Legislative Movements and Future Directions
In a flurry of legislative activity, Wyoming has been taking giant leaps with its two new house bills aimed at creating a cozy regulatory environment for cryptocurrencies. Meanwhile, the Token Taxonomy Act was reintroduced in early April, boasting provisions to preempt state regulations. It’s like a federal trump card for crypto, ensuring that Uncle Sam keeps his hands firmly on the wheel.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead for Crypto Regulation
As the panel ended, it became clear that the future of cryptocurrency regulation in the U.S. is anything but straightforward. With experts like Long, Van Valkenburgh, and Gensler at the forefront of the debate, you can expect a rollercoaster of regulations, clarifications, and perhaps a few head-scratching moments as we sit back and watch how this digital currency game unfolds.
+ There are no comments
Add yours